Samuel Huntington again

i know there are some individuals on gupshup who admire Samuel Huntington’s work, what to say of armchair pundits in today’s most largest cities. Here is a taste of more of his admirable writings - this time, it is a new target. Before it was the Muslims who would be responsible for the clash of civilizations. Today, it’s Latinos who are ‘over here, over paid, and over sexed’.

On the border of disaster, Dan Glaister, The Guardian, 15 March 2004 [Excerpts only]

Samuel Huntington is a man with a history. In 1993, the Harvard academic and one-time member of the US national security council published an essay entitled The Clash of Civilisations. In it, he reasoned that in the new post-cold war world, the “fundamental source of conflict will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” He identified Islam, with its population bulge and transnational appeal, as the most likely source of this conflict.

The world, helpfully, stood up and took notice. An academic storm brewed, which became a media storm. In 1996, Professor Huntington wrote a book with the same title and, with the World Trade Centre attacks of September 11 2001, he had his own personal perfect storm: the book was in the New York Times bestseller list five years after it was published.

A decade on, and Professor Huntington has another theory. **In May his new book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, is published. It is clear who the “We” of the title are: Americans, principally white Americans, the dominant majority, glorying in Old Glory, basking in the heritage of the Founding Fathers and the superiority of white, Protestant culture.

But Huntington has a shock for them: the Latinos are coming. In fact, the Latinos are already here, “washing your dishes, looking after your children” and denuding a once proud, unified country of everything that held it together. “Will the US remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture?”** he asks in an essay entitled The Hispanic Challenge, published in the journal Foreign Policy. “By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual transformation into two peoples with two cultures and two languages.” Welcome to Amexica.

"The single most immediate and most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white natives," he writes. “The assimilation successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America.” The Latinos, to borrow a phrase, are over here, oversexed and will soon be overpaid as well.

As a Huntingdon fan, I suspect a spot of sarcasm in this thread… :hoonh:

Just want clarification - are you suggesting that his argument that the USA’s identity is in danger of being erased by Latinos is false?

MS, Please tell me you are not serious. You are not a "fan" of Samuel Huntington are you ? If you don't mind my asking, what precisely of his work and conclusions have attracted you ? The premise upon which he has become popular, is his whole "Islam-against-us" doctrine; infact he outright stated in his 1993 article that (direct quote) "Islam has bloody borders." For him, there can be no common understanding between the "West" and "Islam".

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
**Just want clarification - are you suggesting that his argument that the USA's identity is in danger of being erased by Latinos is false?
[/QUOTE]
*

Yes, absolutely.

Not only is it false, but i also find his argument patently racist. It reminds me of that Times article published in the early 1990s, the front cover of which showed Islam (represented by the colour green) slowly taking over the planet, their main argument being that Islam was slowly gaining in strength through military, violent means and the "civilized" quarters of the world should be cautious and vigilant against the spread of this green disease (i.e., Islam). Huntington is doing the same thing, playing on xenophobia and fear, but this time it is a new target: the Latinos. Note where he asks, "Will the US remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture?" What is "Anglo-Protestant culture" - is that supposed to typify the US today ? It has hundreds of diverse ethnic (and religious) groups. Seems to me if Latinos were Caucasian immigrants from eastern Europe, Huntington would have less of a problem with accepting them into the US. i can't imagine him saying the same things about Poles or blue-eyed Swedes. Since Latinos are part of the nonCaucasian impoverished masses, he is more wary of seeing them immigrate to the US. That, to me, sounds slightly racist.

I think intelligent idiots like Huntington are useful to society in a Devil’s Advocate sort of way. He’s just another eloquent fool who figured out being a contrarian pays.

There are counter-arguments to his latest essay all over the web, but I think this might be one of the better ones.. if not the author’s website links to plenty more info:

TNR: Hash of Civilizations
The author’s blog (huntington is discussed a week or so ago)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
MS, Please tell me you are not serious. You are not a "fan" of Samuel Huntington are you ? If you don't mind my asking, what precisely of his work and conclusions have attracted you ? The premise upon which he has become popular, is his whole "Islam-against-us" doctrine; infact he outright stated in his 1993 article that (direct quote) "Islam has bloody borders." For him, there can be no common understanding between the "West" and "Islam".

[/quote]

Unfortunately, his work became a victim of post 9-11 hype - it has been grossly misrepresented. I purchased book "The Clash of Civilisations" expecting to find a tirade against Islam and being pleased at just how scared he was of Islam, and instead found a generally well constructed, logical argument about future geo-politics that had relatively little mention of Islam.

The core principle of "Clash of Civilisations" is that recent history has demonstrated that apeing the West is not the sole way to success, and that the world's constituent primary civilisations are looking inwards for strength and success, are trying to succeed with their own values. It's not a tirade against Islam in any way, shape or form. His logical conclusion is that the three largest civilisation-blocs over the next century will be Western, Islamic, and Oriental, all competing for dominance (economic, military, political, scientific, etc), but with an alliance emerging amongst the two weaker ones (Islamic and Oriental) that will almost certainly overcome the currently dominating one (Western). In short, he says that the age of Western civilisation dominating the world is ending, because the Western Way is NOT the only successful way.

Unfortunately, post 9-11, the media seized upon his mention of Islamic civilisation being ONE of the rising civilisations and focused exclusively on that. They ignored the fact that the Clash of Civilisations in fact predicts Oriental civilisation to lead the counter-Western movement.

I do seriously recommend that you buy the book, or at least take it out of a library.

Even the context of his "Islam has bloody borders" comment has been twisted - he made the comment on mentioning the fact that many of the interfaces between Muslim and non-Muslim lands tend to experience conflict (though he does not state anything such as Islam being intrinsically hostile). After all, looking at examples from Bosnia to Chechnya to Azerbaijan to Pakistan / India, tensions do exist between Muslims and their non-Muslims surroundings that have led to armed conflict. In the context of his comment, he did not lay blame for the tension on either side. These tensions are very rarely as strong between Muslim nations, Iran-Iraq being an example of one of the few exceptions.

As for the second issue, whether or not it's true that Latino immigration is redefining the USA. Consider the leadership of the USA - with a few (catholic) exceptions, the Presidency of the USA, the supreme representative of its people, has been a white anglo-saxon protestant. You try and give the example of how many other ethnicities immigrated to the USA without changing its character, and that Huntingdon is unfairly picking on Latinos. However, those Swedish and Polish and German and other caucasians (and even blacks) who came to the USA and had large parts of their cultural identities replaced with the white-anglo saxon identity.

Latino immigrants, however, are clinging much more strongly to their identity, not letting go of their culture, their language, their values. This is all very well and good when done by a relatively tiny minority such as Muslims or Indians or Chinese, because they are not in a position to eventually become the demographic majority in a century or two.

Latinos are. The traditional identity of the USA, into which immigrants assimilated, is being changed into something different, something Latin American rather than North American.