Samuel P. Huntington is Racist

My response to The Hispanic Challenge, which I will submit at 12.30pm today as one of my Final Exam responses.

The “traditional identity” of a nation drives its citizens to have a nationalism that exhibits passion, love and pride for a country and the beliefs on which it was founded. In Huntington’s article, The Hispanic Challenge, the writer postulates that with the rise of Mexican and Chicano/Latino immigrant groups into the United States, peril will arise, as “the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream” (Huntington) will be shattered.

Much value can be found in the “traditional identity” of the United States or of any nation because this identity provides individuals with a sense of hope—the nation in which an individual lives, I argue, should elicit an idealism and pride that pushes him to love his country (more than any other country, state, city or even, company). There are three main reasons why I believe such. First, individuals should be enabled to celebrate their individual values, for it is their upbringing that makes them unique. Second, a citizenry needs to have hope for “something”; I argue that an individual that lacks a dream that he wishes to live out will not have any pride, passion or love for his country. Third, citizens should feel empowered to take control of their country in any manner, so that they are enabled to participate in the process by which their country was founded. With these three foundations, I intend to counter Huntington’s racist critique of Mexican and Chicano/Latino immigration.

A nation is made by the individuals that live in it—the individuals of a nation are the ultimate drivers of innovation, creativity and culture. Quite simply, should a person be unable to innovate, he will be unable to continue driving the ingenuity of a nation. For example, if Henry Ford, Jerry Yang or the next American (whether he be Mexican, Black, Asian…) were unable to innovate, the nation would not have a strong foundation. This is the same for creativity: without the artists of today, a generation of today’s musical virtuosos, contemporary artists and creative writers would not create the pride that exists in America. Ultimately, it is the aggregate culture (more specifically, ethnicity and personal experience) of each individual that defines a nation’s innovation and creativity. While Huntington states that the American identity is defined by [Anglo-Protestant] culture and creed [which came about from this “singular” culture], I contend that it is the ingenuity and creativity of all individuals—including those who are not Anglo-Protestant—that must be celebrated even during times of civil strife in order to mature a nation. Without the Civil Rights movement, Internet boom and American Industrialization, the United States would not be what it is today. Considering this, however, the people who do not belong to the nation should have a hope for “something.”

For many newcomers to the United States, the dream has always been, simply put, to have a better live (for themselves and their children). Huntington cites Stanford University historian David Kennedy, who points out that “the income gap between the United States and Mexico is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world” (Huntington). In a world where individuals live rationally, the person looks out for his own economic interests and seeks out the best ways in which these interests can be achieved, Huntington’s citation of Kennedy supports that notion that individuals who want a better life, which very likely includes economic prosperity, should move to the United States regardless of their country of origin. Just as individuals from other continents and countries have found financial refuge in the United States, all individuals should be free to emigrate out of their native homeland and immigrate to any country where they believe they can live out their better lives. While this aforementioned better life is not guaranteed, the sense of hope and the ability to “roll the dice” in the United States should not be withheld from any individual in the world—even if they’re Mexican or Chicano/Latino.

Toward the end of Huntington’s essay, the “Cubanization” of Miami is explored, albeit with a disturbing racist eye. Most impressively, Huntington notes that Miami’s economy is larger than those of many Latin American countries by citing Professor Damian Fernández of Florida International University who said, “We built modern Miami” (Huntington). Just as individuals want to live out their hopes and dreams in the United States, I ask Mr. Huntington why any city, state or nation should be limited in producing large economic prosperity if the producers of this prosperity are not Anglo-Protestant. Given that Huntington’s analysis is overtly racist, I counter with the following economic argument: any rational individual will create economic prosperity for himself and, if willing, will do so for his city, state or country. In the interests of himself and those around him—shall I say, “para la familia y la nación”—a citizen should not be limited to creating economic prosperity, regardless of their national origin or ethnicity.

In conclusion, granted that I view Huntington’s article as racist, I believe that much importance should be placed on the dynamic and developmental aspects of the United States identity. The evolution of this identity will only improve the cultural diversity and economic vitality of the nation. Just as revolutions in Civil Rights, the Internet and Industrialization took place in our nation, the new America should not be limited by its past; rather, Americans should look to the future, by welcoming newcomers to its land, who wish to live out the American Dream.