America's melting pot has become a buffet.
Lately, sociologists and other scholars of globalization have turned away from the obvious evidence of American cultural dominion to consider how cultures cross-pollinate. The instant transmission of images and ideas has its obvious effect, but so does the movement of people from country to country, as visitors, immigrants and "guest workers" shuttle through increasingly hazy frontiers. Some even consider people symbols or signifiers in this process, unwittingly but inevitably reshaping national and local cultures.
No doubt this reversal, which augurs the inversion of U.S. cultural hegemony, lies behind some of the insecurities that color the "debate" over immigration in this country. Many Americans, in interviews, on talk radio and in blog blather (can we call it "blother?") proclaim themselves affronted by Hispanic marchers toting Mexican flags through the streets of Las Vegas and other cities in recent weeks. They claim to be moved by patriotism, but you have to wonder if the end of American iconographic hegemony isn't what really irks them. That, and Guadalupe decals and Piolín bumper stickers gliding around "The Meadows."
What scholars call "cultural flows" have begun the process of flowback in this country. Its signs reach beyond mere market indicators, such as salsa outselling ketchup in the Midwest, or nachos overtaking hot dogs. These two points from an advertising agency's media kit are quoted by Arlene Dávila in her 2001 book, Latinos, Inc.: The Marketing and Making of a People. In assessing how marketers, both Hispanic and non-, have addressed the varied constituencies of Hispanic culture in the United States, Dávila notes a broad, diasporic culture united by language but riven by nationality. East-Coast Puerto Ricans, for instance, often resent Cubans, perceiving that they enjoy privileged status in the U.S. In the warped world of immigration policy, at least, they do.
More to the point, she sees U.S.-born or -based Hispanics struggling to maintain a unique identity in the mediascape of Spanish-language broadcasting networks, which promote linguistic kinship. The perception by corporate and "Anglo" America that Spanish is a hindrance to assimilation helps in turn to reinforce this defensive unity. Dávila quotes an advertising executive of Mexican background: "They can't understand that our wanting to keep our language and our culture is not in conflict with our desire to be considered Americans and contributors to this country."
The Europeans brought to these shores by the waves of immigration a century ago had no unifying language, and sometimes vicious rivalries divided them. They might have settled into distinct Old World communities, but in a less-indulgent, WASP-ier nation. Learning English and getting to the suburbs motivated their assimilation. And so their descendants resurrect the words of Theodore Roosevelt for one of those multiply forwarded e-mails that constitute a forgotten front of conservative media:
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Students waving Mexican flags while chanting "La raza unida jamas sera vencida," ("the united race will never be defeated") only aggravated this revivified resentment. They certainly got the attention (via the Review-Journal) of the conservative blogorama, stirring fears there about Mexicanization-by-stealth. Whether you hold that the Southwest was Mexico before we stole it in the Mexican-American War, or that all the Americas belonged to the people whose ancestors are repopulating its Anglicized portion—and both ideas have their points—it is silly to suggest that history can or should be undone. Besides, it is precisely the sort of nationalist claim that no longer makes sense in the global buffet.
But concern for national interest is not by nature nationalist. Anyone who followed the wrenching retelling of the September 11 story at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial should remember that narrative started with the failure of our immigration system, which still awaits significant reform. Most illegal immigrants, of course, are not here for sinister reasons. But liberals and conservatives alike point to studies showing that cheap labor drives down earnings for everyone. And a "guest worker" program smacks of a smarmy sultanate. As Paul Krugman put it in the New York Times, "Isn't institutionalizing a disenfranchised workforce a big step away from democracy?"
No one can question the loyalty of Hispanic Americans, or the right to preserve and promote one's heritage. But the present impasse does neither side of the border any good. The more their fellows follow them, the less likely it becomes that immigrants will find the prosperity they seek, and that their homeland will apply itself to the problems that impel its people northward.
So stow the flags and let reason prevail.
Chuck Twardy has written for newspapers and magazines for more than 20 years. His website,
www.members.cox.net/theanteroom, has a forum.