Coming to America

I really dig Good Magazine. They do these cool graphic pieces on important issues. Here is a recent one on immigration to the United States (click to enlarge):

What do you think? Does this graphic reveal anything about immigration that challenges the dominant narrative of the issue in the mainstream media today? Or, does it confirm the basic narrative?

Juan Crow?

I think this article provides an important paradigm shift on the immigration issue. I hope you will take the time to give it a read:

Juan Crow: The Deep South's New Second-Class Citizens, by By Roberto Lovato, The Nation.

Here is the heart of the matter:

...younger children of the mostly immigrant Latinos in Georgia are learning and internalizing that they are different from white -- and black -- children not just because they have the wrong skin color but also because many of their parents lack the right papers. They are growing up in a racial and political climate in which Latinos' subordinate status in Georgia and in the Deep South bears more than a passing resemblance to that of African-Americans who were living under Jim Crow. Call it Juan Crow: the matrix of laws, social customs, economic institutions and symbolic systems enabling the physical and psychic isolation needed to control and exploit undocumented immigrants.

When we come at the immigration issue from a divisive and reactionary place, we dehumanize immigrants and, in the process, denigrate not only them but ourselves, too.

In Nebraska, we have had a number of recent examples. For instance, the Unicameral tried to pass legislation blocking in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants, a purely mean and punitive move designed to take away one of the key ladders to independence and self-determination. Or, our bone-headed Attorney General, John Bruning, has refused to enforce federal fair housing legislation because a couple of the cases involved undocumented immigrants, even though federal law is clear that immigration status does not justify discrimination. In both instances (and others), conservative politicians and their followers have forgotten the humanity of immigrants, instead opting to exploit them as symbolic pawns in an increasingly desperate political game.

People! Let us wake up to the humanity of others: Immigrants - documented or not - are PEOPLE, HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, deserve to be treated with compassion and justice, regardless of their status.

What does all this reaction say about us? What does it reveal about the soul of our nation?

In An Absolut World

Absolut brand vodka recently caused a bit of a stir when they ran this print ad, featuring Mexico as it was before the U.S. took over about a third of that country in the mid-19th century. What do you think? Controversial or not?

Look What I Saw On Mulberry Street...

(click to enlarge any of the following photographs)

Among other specialized topics, I also teach the second half of the U.S. History survey course (1877-present), as well as a class called "The Historian's Craft," where I introduce students to the art of historical research, analysis and writing. In both classes I use a lot of primary documents to bring the history alive or to help students hone their skills. One of my absolute favorite images in this capacity is the above photograph of Mulberry Street from 1900. Mulberry Street is located in Little Italy on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, New York City. The photo offers such a rich window into the life of "new immigrants" at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries.

Prior to 1870, very few Italians came to the United States as immigrants. But, faced with growing economic distress at home, more and more came during the late-19th and early-20th centuries, seeking new opportunities. From 1890 to 1900, 655,888 Italian immigrants, 2/3 men, came to the United States and between 1900-1910 the number soared to 2.1 million! During the broad period 1820 and 1920, over 4,190,000 people emigrated from Italy to the United States. Only Ireland (4,400,000) and Germany (5,500,000) came anywhere near these figures. The majority of Italian immigrants came from rural communities and possessed little formal education. They intended to stay just long enough to make some money before returning to their families in Italy. In the end, though, only 40% made it back to their homeland; roughly 60% stayed in the U.S. for good. As with many other immigrants, Italians gathered in overcrowded, often dilapidated ethnic neighborhoods in cities like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit. The main ethnic rival of the Italians was the Irish and in many cities the two groups clashed as they competed for unskilled jobs, housing, political patronage and other scarce resources. And for the record, despite popular media portrayals of the Italian mafia, the US Department of Justice has estimated that less than .0025 percent of Italian Americans have had anything to do with organized crime.

One of the cool things about this amazing photo is that it offers the opportunity to zoom in on more detailed views of working-class immigrant life during this time period. Here are some examples (click any image to enlarge):

Here is a view of the street market. Note the clothing.


Here is a man standing on a balcony. Note the architecture.


Here is a deep view of the background. Note that this scene of immigrant life goes on and on and on...


I like these guys sitting on the back of a wagon. Looks like they might be messing with someone...


This is a detail from the dead center of the photo. I like the vehicles and the way things are piled super-high!


Here is a detail of one couple.


This one shows a detail of women's clothes hanging off a rickety storefront.


Anyone for a beer?


I think that a close examination of photos like these allows us to better access the humanity of these immigrants and their lived experiences.

"Are the foreign-born more likely than the U.S.-born to commit crimes?"

One of the many tropes used against immigrants today is that rising immigration brings rising crime rates.

A recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research group, asked the question: Are the foreign-born more likely than the U.S.-born to commit crimes?

The answer? "No"

The heart of the matter is found in this quote by the authors of the report: "In California, as in the rest of the nation, immigrants ... have extremely low rates of criminal activity." Available data "suggest that long-standing fears of immigration as a threat to public safety are unjustified."

The report also noted that native-born men are incarcerated at a rate 2.5 times higher than foreign-born men. Moreover, the research indicates that "limiting immigration, requiring higher education levels to obtain visas, or spending more money to increase penalties against criminal immigrants will have little impact on public safety."

The study did not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants.

Here is the full report: "Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?"

Melting Pot or Mosaic?

The mythic image of the "melting pot" has been a powerful trope throughout American history to describe how such a diverse country becomes one nation. Yet, over time, this narrative has come under fire from activists and academics. During the 60s, political activists in the civil rights movement saw the melting pot as another form of forced assimilation and cultural/historical erasure. Academic historians also have seriously challenged the idea that America has ever successfully "melted" its various constituent parts into some unified American character. Some have offered, instead, the metaphor of the "tossed salad," which emphasizes both the distinctness of individual cultures/histories, while also acknowledging that we share some sort of common experience/destiny as USians.

This is not a purely academic question. The narrative we use reveals quite a bit about how we think of ourselves and how we deal with diversity.

Recently, I came across an interesting article - "American Melting Pot vs Indian Cultural Mosaic" - which speaks to these issues over at New American Media. The essay is written by Punit Arora and originally appeared in India Currents.

The article defines "cultural mosaic" this way:

Cultural Mosaic is a term that was first coined by John Murray Gibbon in Canadian Mosaic. Gibbons disapproved of the American concept of the melting pot because he felt it asked immigrants to cut-off ties with their roots and culture and adopt completely alien practices. In contrast, he felt that Canada should promote a mosaic approach in which each wave of immigrants could contribute something new to the society.

Arora further argues that India offers more support for the mosaic approach:

While the United States necessitates that we each adapt to dominant cultural norms, India, more than any other country in the world, emphasizes the adoption and promotion of the “cultural mosaic” approach. By celebrating differences and by according legitimacy to the values held by all communities, India makes it possible to negotiate and develop a synthesis.

How do you think about diversity in America? Do these narratives matter? If so, how? To what extent do immigrants have a responsibility to assimilate ("melt") into mainstream American culture and to what extent should they maintain their cultural and historical ways?