Participant Projects
October, 1998.
back to the list
back to the Salzburg Seminar Home Page

The Issue of Assimilation and Nativism in America
‘Here is not merely a nation, but a teeming nation of nations’
Walt Whitman

Larissa Baybakova, Russian Federation
Leticia Chalderon-Chelius, Mexico
Farida Hellal, Algeria
Alberto Lena, Spain
Arnon Mantver, Israel
Najwa Nasr, Lebanon
Kathie Shiba, USA
Theodora Tsimpouki, Greece

Introduction
Terminology
Immigration, Nativism, and Assimilation in Comparative Perspective
California: More Questions than Answers
Conclusion
References and Sources

Assimilation and nativism are central to the immigration experience in American history. Both terms have been controversial, and Group 3 began its work by discussing various meanings and implication of the terms past and present. Some of the observations made are reflected below. The Group also sought to understand the role of these key issues is immigration through two different approaches; one comparative, and the other a case study. These are presented to suggest future avenues of inquiry, rather than as completed studies.

Definitions:

The definitions below are representative of the Group’s discussions concerning the nature of assimilation and seek to define the term and the factors that shape it.

• The process by which individuals of a minority take on the position, values, cultural attributes, and/or beliefs of the majority, often to the detriment of their prior identities. The degree to which assimilation constitutes a positive or negative experience is a function of the place and time in which the process occurs. The cultural origins of the minority, the current configuration of the majority culture, and the period in which the assimilation takes place are all factors impacting the positive or negative impact of the process.
• Assimilation can be described as a process of cultural change undergone by a minority, either willingly or under political, social, or economic pressure, in which the culture of the majority dominates or supplants the culture of the minority: such as A+B+C=A. Acculturation is a different process, whereby the component cultures inform a new collective identity: as in A+B+C=D. Pluralism, or multi-culturalism, is yet another variant of the interactions between cultures in which cultural systems co-exist without dominating one another: as seen in A+B+C=A+B+C.
• Factors such as racism and ethnocentrism can dictate the pace and nature of assimilation. Perceived racial difference, or ethno-cultural traits assigned to a minority Group 3 y the majority, can limit the degree to which majority groups will acknowledge the assimilation of minority groups regardless of the degree to which they have adopted the majority culture.
• Assimilation occurs on many levels, and goes beyond obvious outward manifestations. Behavioral assimilation involves the adoption of cultural traits visible in the "public" sphere, whereas structural assimilation describes the deep internalisation of the attitudes, assumptions, cultural norms, and beliefs of the majority.

Definition:

• The policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants. [Webster’s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary, 1983]

"Nativism has been hard for historians to define. The word is distinctively American, a product of a specific chain of events in eastern American cities in the late 1830’s and early 1840’s. Yet it has an penumbra of meaning so broad and indefinite that sometimes it seems to refer to a perennial human experience….The spirit of American nativism appeared long before the word was coined about 1840 and had its deepest impact long after the word had largely dropped out of common parlance." (1992, 3-4)

Nativism can be found in many spheres and take different forms, such as making minorities invisible in textbooks and anti-Catholic riots. The group also considered whether nativism should be limited to manifestations of nationalism, chauvinism, racism, religious rivalry, etc., or include nativist reactions of one immigrant group, more firmly established in the United States, against newcomers of the same origin. This would be one manifestation of the process of change that "assimilation" or "acculturation" has on an immigrant.

Public policy (eg. anti-immigration laws)

Violence (eg. riots, strikes, shut-outs, individual acts of anti-immigrant violence)

Academic/Scientific (eg. research, articles, novels, accounts, or studies aimed at justifying nativist thought)

Social Pressure (eg. exclusionary actions aimed at marginalizing immigrant groups)

Economic (eg. overt or latent acts aimed at excluding newcomers from economic opportunities)

IMMIGRATION, NATIVISM, AND ASSIMILATION IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

In spite of the existence of a liberal left-wing approach to immigration, French lawmakers have yet to contend with extreme attitudes inspired by the still powerful far right. The left-wing tends to express its openness more in connection with issues relating to relatives of immigrants and the regularization of pending cases, than to a more open policy towards non European immigrants whom have not been previously involved with France.

Extreme attitudes toward immigrants (usually from the ex-colonies) have been influenced, as in other countries, by the economic crisis experienced in France in the 1970s. This dire situation which went hand-in-hand with social fracture decline has caused the rise of the Front National (FN), which established itself as the party of victims of the crisis. The FN voters are still in search of values such as family, homeland, territory or security, thus becoming hostile to the phenomenon of immigration. To make things worse the FN switched the question from social integration of immigrants to a cultural problem and opened a debate on national identity. "Who is French?" is the question Jean Marie Le Pen (Front National leader) asks. And he answers: "It is wrong to make France a country of immigration and its people a half-breed. France is indissolubly linked to blood, soil and memory….It is composed of homogeneous people living on a territory inherited from its forefathers according to tradition." Denouncing "perils which endanger the essence of France…its biological substance," he set the FN as "the spreadhead of identity." He predicted that the issue of this battle is clear: France will be destroyed or resurrected. These statements testify to the increasing influence of racial theses held by culturally reactionary neo-conservatives, who foresee paganism, ethnic destruction and separate cultures.

In the United States extreme attitudes have been represented by conservative groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform. This group has based its attitude against immigration on economic and sociopolitical factors (bringing into relief abuses of political asylum, increased delinquency, skepticism of certain immigrant vis-à-vis linguistic and cultural integration). These so-called negative aspects of immigration have been viewed by such conservatives as conducive to the creation of separate polities and as threats to civic values and national consciousness. This is especially evident when the definition of American values reaches a "low ebb." One must however bear in mind that in recent years immigrants are welcomed in the U.S. so long as they 1) attach themselves to principles (social assimilation followed by cultural assimilation of the later generation, and 2) are employment-based or skilled, educated immigrants. This is a conditioned acceptance based mostly on the quality of immigrants. Ethnic heritage does not seem to matter as long as it does not interfere with loyalty to the American identity. Ethnicity is viewed therefore as a subjective, voluntary act, not playing an essential role in relating to the host country or in mainstream acceptance.

In spite of certain pessimistic approaches to immigration into the United States, certain factors seem to allow for more positive prospects. Firstly, there has been an absence of an inbred pride in cultural superiority of the type that has influenced France. Secondly, there has been an existence of a consensus around common civic principles and goals. Thirdly, there has been a pragmatic rather than dogmatic conception of American reality. Finally, the civil rights movement has generated an attitude of helping newcomers become Americanized.

CALIFORNIA:
MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

Introduction

California is not only the most populated state in the United States, but is ranked as the most ethnically and racially diverse. It is estimated that by the year 2000 there will be a population of 32,521,000 and by the year 2025 this will increase to 49,285,000. In addition, it is projected that Whites will be in the minority, less than 50% (Brimelow, 1995). The race/ethnic distribution in California shifted during the 1990s from White to Hispanic and to Asian and Pacific Islander. The White population, as a proportion of the State’s population, declined since the 1990 census, from 57% to 53% by 1996. The Hispanic population increased from 26% of the total population to 29%, and the Asian and Pacific Islander population increased from 9%to 11%. Since 1990, Hispanic and Asian and Pacific Islander population changes provided 91% of California's population increase. The percentage of Black and Native American populations in California did not change (between 1990-1996), remaining 7% and 1% respectively.

Between 1990-1996, 55% (1,455,000) of the population growth in California has come from Hispanic natural increase (births minus deaths). Hispanic natural increase averaged 233,400 from 1991 to 1996. Net migration added 188,000 new Hispanic residents to California from the 1990 census to July of 1996. It is interesting to compare the reasons for these increases. For example, Asian and Pacific Islander population increases came primarily from migration. From 1990 to 1996, 452,000 Asian and Pacific Islanders migrated to California, while a net migration of 346,000 occurred for the State as a whole. Asian and Pacific Islander net migration averaged 71,100 from 1991 to 1996, while natural increase averaged 46,600. From 1993 to 1996, Asian and Pacific Islanders were the only race/ethnic group to experience positive net migration to California.

White out-migration from 1992 to 1996 bolstered the shift in the race distribution from Whites to Hispanics and Asian and Pacific Islanders. A net migration loss of 401,000 White residents occurred in California during this four-year period. In addition, the State’s Black population remained at 7 percent of California's population, growing about 1.35% annually since 1990, mostly from natural increase. Native Americans added 9,450 persons since the 1990 census, with natural increase accounting for 12,900. The Native American population lost 3,450 people to out migration from the 1990 census to 1996. The varied ethnic composition of the population of California mirrors the dynamic and changing history of this state.

Spanish set up their dominion over the indigenous Californians in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola led an expedition to settle California. Spanish imperial rule was accompanied by the creation of twenty Franciscan missions near the coast of California. The Franciscans created a chain of missions in which the indigenous population was forced to work as farm laborers. These small farming settlements were known as pueblos. The pueblos were mainly inhabited by poor settlers from Mexico. The Mexican settlers were induced by the Spanish to go to the California region.

Mexico incorporated California to its dominions after gaining its independence from Spain. The region became part of the Mexican Republic under the name of Baja California. The land of the Franciscan missions was given to an elite of long-established families who developed a chain of huge semifeudal states called ranchos.

From 1840 a new population started to arrive to California coming from the United States. The first American immigrants to Mexico occupied the fertile Sacramento and San Juaquin valleys. Although the Mexican government regarded the emigrants with hostility and suspicion, Mexicans were too divided and weak to expel the new population coming to California. In 1846 the United States attempted to purchase California and other parts of the Southwest. The refusal by the Mexican government led to the Mexican War (1846-1848) which finished with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848.

California became a free, or nonslave state of the United States in 1850 and its Mexican inhabitants became American citizens. The United States, however, passed legislation which did not recognize the rights of many rancheros to their lands, and, instead, passed a legislation that allowed multiple appeals on land claim decisions for the new settlers from the East.

New population came to the State attracted by the development of California agriculture, railroads and manufacture. A large proportion of these workers came from China and were employed in railroad construction. Social discontent erupted when many of the Chinese population brought to California were attacked by white settlers in 1877. In 1882 the American government banned Chinese immigration for ten years.

Between 1900 and 1930 the California state population increased from 1,485, 053 to 5, 677, 251. The rate of growth was especially rapid in southern California. Huge irrigation projects and mechanized farming methods dramatically increased agricultural production.

Asian immigration was shut off entirely in 1924. On February 19, 1942, the American government ordered the removal of 112, 000 Californians of Japanese descent, two-thirds of them U.S. Citizens, to internment camps in the interior of the United States.

The Second World War increased the industrialization of Californian ports. In the decade after the War the population increased to almost 50 percent. African Americans had moved to California in larger groups. Due to their growing resentment against discrimination in housing and labor unions, members of the African community rioted in the Watts section of Los Angeles in August 1965.

From 1960s to 1970s the huge development of Californian agriculture needed a cheap labor force to multiply production. A large number of Mexican workers, called braceros, were allowed to enter the territory of the United States with a special agreement, which ended in 1964. They created a growing population of itinerant workers that set up their lives in both Mexico and the United States. This frontier population has become one of the most conflictive ethnic groups in California. This is mainly due to the enormous difficulties involved with assimilating to such a geographically dynamic population, which leads to or fosters a problematic legal position.

As we have seen the historical formation process of California makes this state special in many ways. Most of the important social movements in the 60’s and 70’s have started there, such as affirmative action, social security and sexual rights. However, California has in the past 20 years undergone developments that have made for major social and political changes. These changes could be explained by the huge shifts that have taken place in the demographic composition of the state, including a new ethnic distribution. In addition, the persistence of social attitudes against minorities and new immigrants reflect the existence of both nativist movements along with difficulties in the implementation of assimilation or multicultural politics. For example, movements such as "light up the border," Proposition 187 (approved in the 1994 election), rejection of affirmative action for minorities in 1997, and the debate regarding the future of bilingual education reflect the different perspectives in California society. These issues lead to many important questions:

1. How do Californians perceive minorities?
2. Will these changes in ethnic composition affect Californians understanding of "American life?"
3. To what extent will the new minorities push for political changes in the future?

Although California represents an extreme case of what is happening in the United States, it could however, be seen as a good example of many of the problems that the ideology of the Melting Pot tried to resolve at the beginning of the Century. What we see is that California is not currently an example of tolerance and multiculturalism. One of the consequences of nativistic thinking is that the Californian population is more divided than ever. California represents an experiment in American society challenging one of the most important notions of the American identity.

In certain periods, America has been relatively open to immigrants. The American national identity was forged in the late 18^th century and was informed from the beginning by the diversity of the original thirteen states. Priority was given to a consensus around principles and common goals rather than to different ethnicities.

In more recent years there is an attempt to promote multiculturalism as the most viable solution to America’s ethnic diversity. According to the multicultural agenda, ethnicity is regarded as an option and a voluntary act. Moreover, for the first time in American history there is a conscious effort to enable the inclusion of previously excluded ethnic groups for whom ethnicity has always been an ascribed characteristic. America has finally come to realize that those who spoke of the American ‘melting pot’ were thinking almost exclusively of conforming to the Anglo-American identity while ignoring ‘otherness’. It appears that the American society is entering a new stage of respect and dignity toward newcomers and new cultures.

Asian American Experience in U.S.: A Chronological History: 1763-1996:
http://www.askasia.org/frclasrm/readings/t000015.htm

Census Data: 1990: California Census Lookup:
http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup/

Ethnic Distribution by County:
Northern California:
http://www.census.gov/datamap/www/06-1.html

Southern California:
http://www.census.gov/datamap/www/06-2.html

Selected Laws and Policies Affecting Asian Pacific Americans:
http://www.udayton.edu/~race/asamlaws.htm

State of California home page:
http://www.ca.gov/s/

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997: California:
http://www.census.gov/

Voter Registration by County:
http://www.census.gov/

Billington, Allen, Ray. The Origins of Nativism in the United States, 1800-1844.

Brimelow, Peter, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster. New York: Harper Perinnial, 1996.

Daniels, Roger (1990). Coming to America. Princeton, NJ: HarperPerennial.

Fuchs, Lawrence H. The American Kaleidoscope. Hanover: Wesleyan UP, 1990.

Glazer, Nathan. We are Multiculturalists Now. Harvard UP, 1998.

Hammer, Thomas, ed. European Immigration Policy: A Comparative Study. Cambridge UP, 1985

Higham, John. Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America. Paperback, 1984.
Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925. Paperback , 1988.

Hollinger, David A. Postethnic America: Beyond Multicultalism. Basic Books, 1995.

Lowenthal, & Burges, Catherine. La Coneccion Mexico-California, Mexico. Edit. Siglo XX1, 1996.

Michaels, Walter Benn. Our America: Nativism, Modernism and Pluralism. (Post-Contemporary Interventions). Paperback, 1997.

Mills, Nocilaus, ed. Arguing Immigration: Are the immigrants a wealth of diversity or a crushing burden? New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

North, David. Legalization of Undocumented Aliens: Lessons from Other Countries. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1986.

Perea, Juan F, ed. Immigrants Out!: The New Nativism and the Anti- Immigrant Impulse in the United States (Critical America). Paperback, 1997.

Pozzetta, George E. Nativism, Discrimination, and Images of Immigrants (American Immigration and Ethnicity, Vol. 15 ). 1991

Reed, Ishmael (1997). MultiAmerica: Essays on Cultural Wars and Cultural Peace. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.

Takaki, Ronald (1994). From Different Shores: Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America(2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Waters, Mary C. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identites. LA: U of California P, 1990.