Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity
Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (2004) is a treatise by political scientist and historian Samuel P. Huntington (1927–2008). The book attempts to understand the nature of American identity and the challenges it will face in the future. Describing American identity. In describing the American identity, Huntington first contests the notion that the country is, as often repeated, "a nation of immigrants". He writes that America's founders were not immigrants, but settlers, since British settlers came to North America to establish a new society, as  opposed to migrating from one existing society to another one as immigrants do. Later peoples who joined the culture present in the original British colonies, already established by these settlers, were indeed immigrants. Many people point to the American Creed as the core of American identity. Huntington defines the American Creed as embodying the "principles of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property". Yet Huntington asks: Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is  no. It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil. Huntington argues that, of all the nations in Europe, and of all the colonies, America alone developed the American Creed, and that this simple observation requires explanation. This observation leads to two conclusions: that America was an English colony, and that America alone was formed as a result of the Reformation. To advance his argument about the contribution to America of its English heritage, he says: As for the importance of Protestantism, Huntington states: "The American Creed is the unique creation of a dissenting Protestant culture". In  particular, he highlights the: Challenges to American identity. Huntington argues that it is during the 1960s that American identity begins to erode. This was the result of several factors: Huntington places the passage and subsequent misinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 at the center of government actions that eroded the American Creed. Huntington writes: Senator Hubert Humphrey, the floor manager of the bill, assured the Senate that nothing in the bill gave courts or executive agencies the power "to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a  racial 'quota' or to achieve a certain balance...Title VII prohibits discrimination...[and] is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion. Yet these acts gave rise to a system of quotas and affirmative action, so that "the Court derived from Title VII a legal requirement that the proponents of the law had expressly disclaimed". Another component of American identity that Huntington sees as under attack is the use of English. Up until the late 20th century, English has been the dominant language of America and was actively taught to immigrants. This was  not only because Americans throughout history had spoken this language, but also because, with a variety of languages brought by different immigrant groups to the United States, teaching everyone to learn to speak and write English ensured communication among these groups. This tradition was inadvertently undermined by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of "national origin". The act was interpreted to mean that potential voters who did not speak English were entitled to assistance under this "national origin" clause so that they would not be disadvantaged. This led to bilingual voting ballots and  the beginning of bilingual education. In 1974, the Civil Rights Act "was amended to require schools to provide instruction in a student's native language and culture 'to the extent necessary to allow the child to progress effectively through the education system. However, Huntington states that the result was, as stated by 1985 Secretary of Education William Bennett, that the program became: a way of enhancing students' knowledge of their native language and culture. Bilingual education was no longer seen so much as a means to ensure that students learned English, or as a transitional method until students learned English . Rather, it became an emblem of cultural pride, a means of producing a positive self-image in the student. Finally, the single most imposing challenge to America, in Huntington's view, is the problem of Mexican immigration and the resulting "Hispanization" of those regions of the United States adjacent to and acquired from Mexico. He fears that the result of Mexican immigration could be a "bifurcated" America. Huntington argues that Mexican immigration differs from previous waves of immigration in several fundamental ways, including: Not only does Mexican immigration differ from previous immigration in these ways, but Huntington argues that Mexicans  lag other immigrants in their assimilation into American society for several reasons, including: Huntington argues that these differences are the result of cultural differences between American Anglo Protestant culture and Hispanic "culture of Catholicism". Lionel Sosa, a Texas Mexican-American businessman, summarizes these differences as "mistrust of people outside the family; lack of initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; low priority for education; acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven". Huntington argues that this persistent pattern of a massive influx of immigrants from Latin America, especially Mexico, has already resulted in changes in culture, business, language, and  education in the Southwestern United States. If the trend continues, this could result in the consolidation of this part of the country into a distinct cultural bloc within the United States that threatens to bifurcate America. Finally, Huntington lists other ways in which America's identity has weakened. These include: the collapse of the Soviet Union left the United States without an enemy against which to define itself; the denationalization of business, professional, intellectual, and academic elites; and the influence of diasporas. By "denationalization", Huntington means that these Americans think of themselves mostly as members of an international community and  not really as citizens of the United States. Renewing American identity. After laying out the concerns for the weakening and subsequent dissolution of America, which could plausibly occur due to cultural bifurcation and/or a government formed of denationalized elites that increasingly ignore the will of the public, Huntington attempts to formulate a solution to these problems. He argues that adherence to the American Creed is by itself not enough to sustain an American identity. An example of a state that attempted to use ideology alone was the Soviet Union, which attempted to impose communism on different cultures and nationalities, and  eventually collapsed. A similar fate could lie in store for the United States unless Americans "participate in American life, learn America's language [English], history, and customs, absorb America's Anglo-Protestant culture, and identify primarily with America rather than with their country of birth". In particular, Huntington suggests that Americans turn to Protestantism, and recognize that what distinguishes America from other countries is that it is an extremely religious Western country, founded on the principles of the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation. Reception. On the year of the book's release, Alan Wolfe of "Foreign Affairs" wrote, "to claim that  there exists a common 'Anglo-Protestant culture...' ignores the fact that Protestants have disagreed vehemently with each other over what that culture is." He furthermore argued that "Huntington fails to appreciate the degree to which immigrants shaped American culture even as they assimilated" and that the liberal elites he criticizes "include disproportionately large numbers of the Anglo-Protestants whose culture Huntington wants to celebrate." Michiko Kakutani of the "New York Times" further criticized it as "recycling arguments made by a wide array of earlier thinkers... while glossing masses of research with decidedly subjective analysis" and as "riddled with gross generalizations ... and equally questionable assertions" As the 2013 "Washington Post" article by Dylan Matthews challenged Huntington's points, arguing that Latino immigrants have been adapting to English just as quickly as Asian and European immigrants have as of 2000, that proficiency in English and support for English as the official language of the United States among Latino Americans increased over generational status, and that Hispanic Americans are no less religious or hard-working than white Americans are. In 2017, "Washington Post" book critic Carlos Lozada penned an editorial describing Huntington's works as "[anticipating] America's political and intellectual battles -- and  [pointing] to the country we may become." He states that Huntington "captures the dissonance between working classes and elites, between nationalism and cosmopolitanism, that played out in the 2016 campaign." He also comments that Huntington's expressed in "Clash of Civilizations" and "Who Are We?" contrast sharply with those he expressed in his 1981 work "American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony", wherein Huntington argues that Americans are primarily united by a classically liberal creed rather than "ethnic identity or religious faith." Lozada goes on to challenge criticism of Huntington's ideas as "single-minded," stating that "Huntington foresees an America  roiled by self-doubt, white nationalism and enmity against Islam." However, he concedes that Huntington offers a "narrow view of American uniqueness," ultimately warning against isolationism, "demonizing newcomers and demanding cultural fealty."