Debating American Identity

In the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt, New Mexico governors Miguel Antonio Otero and Octaviano Larrazolo, and Arizona legislator Carl Hayden—along with the voices of less well-known American women and men—promoted very different views on what being an American meant. Their writings and speeches contributed to definitions of American national identity during a tumultuous and dynamic era. At stake in these heated debates was the very meaning of what constituted an American, the political boundaries for the United States, and the legitimacy of cultural diversity in modern America. In Debating American Identity, Linda C. Noel examines several nation-defining events—the proposed statehood of Arizona and New Mexico, the creation of a temporary worker program during the First World War, immigration restriction in the 1920s, and the repatriation of immigrants in the early 1930s. Noel uncovers the differing ways in which Americans argued about how newcomers could fit within the nation-state, in terms of assimilation, pluralism, or marginalization, and the significance of class status, race, and culture in determining American identity. Noel shows not only how the definition of American was contested, but also how the economic and political power of people of Mexican descent, their desire to incorporate as Americans or not, and the demand for their territory or labor by other Americans played an important part in shaping decisions about statehood and national immigration policies. Debating American Identity skillfully shows how early twentieth century debates over statehood influenced later ones concerning immigration; in doing so, it resonates with current discussions, resulting in a well-timed look at twentieth century citizenship.

Scholars of International Relations (IR) have long recognized national identity as an important influence on international politics. However, the use of American identity language by politicians in national debates about American foreign policy is puzzling in today's political environment: why use an ostensibly unifying rhetorical strategy when today's polarized political environment appears to reward partisan rancor over bipartisan coalition building? I approach this problem through the lens of social identities and representation in modern American politics. Combining public opinion surveys and experimental data with quantitative and qualitative analysis of congressional press releases across three empirical chapters, I show that contrary to IR lore, American identity language is not used today to build bipartisan coalitions around foreign policy objectives. Although foreign policy is seen as fundamentally related to American national identity by the American public and elites alike, national identity language is likely to be wielded by politicians for partisan purposes and interpreted by constituents through a partisan lens. Politicians face few incentives to use national identity language to unify the American public around foreign policy objectives and are likely to be ineffective when they attempt to do so. This work contributes to the growing literature on the role of partisan polarization in American foreign policy and the influence of domestic identities in international politics. Because national debates about who we are "at the water's edge" are driven by the most polarized politicians and constituents, we should expect to see increasing partisan polarization in the realm of foreign policy--a trend that undermines both the ability of the U.S. to lead in the international sphere and the stability of the U.S.-led liberal international order.

During the years leading up to World War I, America experienced a crisis of civic identity. How could a country founded on liberal principles and composed of increasingly diverse cultures unite to safeguard individuals and promote social justice? In this book, Jonathan Hansen tells the story of a group of American intellectuals who believed the solution to this crisis lay in rethinking the meaning of liberalism. Intellectuals such as William James, John Dewey, Jane Addams, Eugene V. Debs, and W. E. B. Du Bois repudiated liberalism's association with acquisitive individualism and laissez-faire economics, advocating a model of liberal citizenship whose virtues and commitments amount to what Hansen calls cosmopolitan patriotism. Rooted not in war but in dedication to social equity, cosmopolitan patriotism favored the fight against sexism, racism, and political corruption in the United States over battles against foreign foes. Its adherents held the domestic and foreign policy of the United States to its own democratic ideals and maintained that promoting democracy universally constituted the ultimate form of self-defense. Perhaps most important, the cosmopolitan patriots regarded critical engagement with one's country as the essence of patriotism, thereby justifying scrutiny of American militarism in wartime.

Debating American Identity is an innovative look at four national debates over the inclusion of the Mexican-origin population in the United States in the early twentieth century. Linda C. Noel explores different conceptions of American identity through disputes over Arizona and New Mexico statehood, temporary workers, immigration, and repatriation.

In the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt, New Mexico governors Miguel Antonio Otero and Octaviano Larrazolo, and Arizona legislator Carl Hayden—along with the voices of less well-known American women and men—promoted very different views on what being an American meant. Their writings and speeches contributed to definitions of American national identity during a tumultuous and dynamic era. At stake in these heated debates was the very meaning of what constituted an American, the political boundaries for the United States, and the legitimacy of cultural diversity in modern America. In Debating American Identity, Linda C. Noel examines several nation-defining events—the proposed statehood of Arizona and New Mexico, the creation of a temporary worker program during the First World War, immigration restriction in the 1920s, and the repatriation of immigrants in the early 1930s. Noel uncovers the differing ways in which Americans argued about how newcomers could fit within the nation-state, in terms of assimilation, pluralism, or marginalization, and the significance of class status, race, and culture in determining American identity. Noel shows not only how the definition of American was contested, but also how the economic and political power of people of Mexican descent, their desire to incorporate as Americans or not, and the demand for their territory or labor by other Americans played an important part in shaping decisions about statehood and national immigration policies. Debating American Identity skillfully shows how early twentieth century debates over statehood influenced later ones concerning immigration; in doing so, it resonates with current discussions, resulting in a well-timed look at twentieth century citizenship.

This book explores public opinion about being and becoming American, and its implications for contemporary immigration debates. It focuses on the causes and consequences of two aspects of American identity: how people define being American and whether people think of themselves primarily as American rather than as members of a panethnic or national origin group. Importantly, the book evaluates the claim – made by scholars and pundits alike – that all Americans should prioritize their American identity instead of an ethnic or national origin identity. It finds that national identity within American democracy can be a blessing or a curse. It can enhance participation, trust, and obligation. But it can be a curse when perceptions of deviation lead to threat and resentment. It can also be a curse for minorities who are attached to their American identity but also perceive discrimination.

The philosopher Jorge J. E. Gracia engages fifteen prominent scholars on race, ethnicity, nationality, and Hispanic/Latino identity in the United States. Their discussion joins two distinct traditions: the philosophy of race begun by African Americans in the nineteenth century, and the search for an understanding of identity initiated by Latin American philosophers in the sixteenth century. Participants include Linda M. Alcoff, K. Anthony Appiah, Richard J. Bernstein, Lawrence Blum, Robert Gooding-Williams, Eduardo Mendieta, and Lucius T. Outlaw Jr., and their dialogue reflects the analytic, Aristotelian, Continental, literary, Marxist, and pragmatic schools of thought. These intellectuals start with the philosophy of Hispanics/Latinos in the United States and then move to the philosophy of African Americans and Anglo Americans in the United States and the philosophy of Latin Americans in Latin America. Gracia and his interlocutors debate the nature of race and ethnicity and their relation to nationality, linguistic rights, matters of identity, and Affirmative Action, binding the concepts of race and ethnicity together in ways that open new paths of inquiry. Gracia's Familial-Historical View of ethnic and Hispanic/Latino identity operates at the center of each of these discussions, providing vivid access to the philosopher's provocative arguments while adding unique depth to issues that each of us struggles to understand.

Seminar paper from the year 2018 in the subject American Studies - Culture and Applied Geography, grade: 1,7, University of Frankfurt (Main), language: English, abstract: This paper focuses on what it means to be an American and if it is possible for people and immigrants with different cultural backgrounds to acquire an American Identity. In want to find out if the American exceptionalism and its three dimensions give an impression of what it means to gain an American identity. Obviously, being American means to share the same values, but it is not clear if it means to also share the same citizenship. I take a close look at the idea of multiculturalism that challenges the current ideological solutions for equality and diversity in the United States, trying to answer the question whether multiculturalism is or is not a threat to the idea of an American Identity. The meaning and consequences of national identification have long been the subject of debate among philosophers, historian, and social scientist. The identification with the American country through national attachment, pride, and loyalty is self-evident for many Americans. A national identity shared by fellow citizen creates a sense of unity and a bond of solidarity. The question of what defines an identity or the American identity, to be specific, is not clarified. What is clear, however, is the important and vast difference between a patriot, who feels a sense of pride and love for his country, while the nationalist views his country as superior with a desire to dominate other countries. However, both are bond by their trust for the American values. Freedom, Truth, Justice and the American way of life.