The stigmatization of Hispanics is unwarranted
 
By Alfredo Lanier
a member of the Tribune's editorial board

Samuel P. Huntington, the prominent Harvard political science professor, is a worrywart.

In his influential 1996 book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order," he warned about the threat to the United States from militant Islam and, to a lesser extent, Asia, whose "economic sunshine" will generate an "Asia of political shadows, and an Asia of instability and conflict."

Now Huntington has turned his scholarly eye, not nearly as persuasively, to a threat far closer to home--Hispanic and specifically Mexican immigrants--in his forthcoming book, "Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity." Because of their huge numbers and proximity to their home countries, stubborn bilingualism, fertility rates and different culture, Hispanics are not just the latest immigrant group. They are more like ethnic termites gnawing at the very foundations of America's "Anglo-Protestant" culture--Huntington's phrase.

Got to give credit to the professor for putting controversial topics on the discussion agenda, even if it makes some Latino leaders and scholars apoplectic. In many respects, Latino migration is indeed unique and its impact needs to be considered.

Problem is Huntington's data are sometimes incomplete and self-serving. In others, the facts don't lead to his "Omigod!" conclusions, but to a far more boring, "So what?"

Or as one would say in Spanglish (Spanish and English)--that ominous lingo Huntington frets about--"Hey, man, calmate!"

First some undeniable demographic facts. Millions of Hispanic immigrants have come to the U.S. during the past 20 years, and have settled mostly in the Southwest (Mexicans), Southeast (Cubans) and Northeast (Dominicans and Puerto Ricans, even if the latter are U.S. citizens). Hispanics have surpassed African-Americans as the most numerous minority in the U.S. Moreover, a large portion of Hispanic immigrants, particularly Mexicans, are here illegally.

Those facts are worthy of discussion but not of the alarm running throughout Huntington's provocative article in the March-April issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

He suggests that the Southwest's historical connections to Mexico, and the explosive growth of a Mexican immigrant population there, could lead to a Latino version of a separatist province like Quebec. Maybe even one more dangerous--France is 3,000 miles from Quebec, while Mexico is right next door, its mere proximity stoking separatist fires.

Except there is no evidence whatsoever that a reconquista--a reconquest--of the land lost by Mexico to the U.S. in the 19th Century is brewing in the Southwest. No matter how loudly they may celebrate Cinco de Mayo, Mexicans--like many immigrants--came here to get away from the poverty and corruption in their own country. It would be odd indeed if, once in America, they were to launch a movement to reattach New Mexico to Chihuahua, Mexico.

If Huntington is troubled by Mexican-Americans' failure to assimilate and their potentially separatist tendencies, he would not be altogether comfortable in Miami either. There, Cuban-Americans have assimilated so well they have taken over the place, leaving some native Miamians feeling like foreigners in their own city.

It's a puzzling concern. Huntington admits the obvious--Cuban refugees revived Miami's near-dead economy by making it the financial and commercial capital of Latin America. Politically, Cuban-Americans also assimilated with a vengeance. As Huntington points out, the mayor of Miami, plus the mayor, police chief and state's attorney of Miami-Dade County, plus several U.S. representatives and state legislators, are Cuban-American or of Cuban descent.

Isn't that the ideal of Americanization?

Not really, because Cubans, and the Colombians and Central Americans who followed them, insist in speaking Spanish. By 2000, it had become "not just the language spoken in most homes, but also the principal language of commerce, business and politics," says Huntington.

Just try to pick up your bags at the Miami International Airport and you'll run into a smorgasbord of languages--including English, Portuguese, Creole, French and Spanish.

The obvious reason is that Miami is the U.S. gateway to Latin America. To close a multimillion-dollar business deal with a Brazilian, some Portuguese might be handy. And to reunite passengers from Port au Prince, Haiti, with their luggage, an announcement in English and Creole would help.

What is the problem, especially if the overwhelming majority in Miami can also speak English? Even in the heart of Miami's Little Havana, no full-blooded American ever got lost because he couldn't get directions in English.

To Huntington, however, bilingualism is a bad omen, symptomatic of divided loyalties or worse, contempt for traditional, English-speaking American culture.

Huntington is right that Hispanics take longer to learn English, and that they tend to hang on to Spanish longer. But not for too long, according to most research. New arrivals speak Spanish with some version of English. About 90 percent of the second generation speaks English with some version of Spanglish. Third generation speaks English and not much Spanish beyond "Hasta la vista." Even California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can say that.

The Hispanic population is increasing rapidly, particularly because of undocumented workers from Mexico and Central America. The impact of those numbers on local economies and communities bears study. But stigmatization of Hispanics for not being sufficiently Anglo-Protestant, or by raising specters of cultural or linguistic fifth columns, is not going to get us there.

That is not constructive or fair to the millions of Hispanics who have successfully entered the American mainstream, from lowly factory workers to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. Yes, that Ricardo Sanchez, commanding officer of American troops in Iraq, who was born in Rio Grande City, Texas, of Mexican ancestry.
----------
E-mail: alanier@tribune.com

Copyright © 2004