2004 April 30 Friday
Samuel P. Huntington On Cosmopolitans, Imperialists, And Nationalists
Harvard history professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of the recent book Who Are We : The Challenges to America's National Identity which examines the various threats to American national identity and how to respond to them. An essay by Huntington that sketches ideas from his book is called Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite
Growing differences between the leaders of major institutions and the public on domestic and foreign policy issues affecting national identity form a major cultural fault line cutting across class, denominational, racial, regional and ethnic distinctions. In a variety of ways, the American establishment, governmental and private, has become increasingly divorced from the American people. Politically, America remains a democracy because key public officials are selected through free and fair elections. In many respects, however, it has become an unrepresentative democracy because on crucial issues--especially those involving national identity--its leaders pass laws and implement policies contrary to the views of the American people. Concomitantly, the American people have become increasingly alienated from politics and government.
The gap between public and elite is especially great on America's economic relations with the rest of the world. In 1998, 87 percent of leaders and 54 percent of the public thought economic globalization was mostly good for America, with 12 percent of the leaders and 35 percent of the public thinking otherwise. Four-fifths of the public but less than half of foreign policy leaders think protecting American jobs should be a "very important goal" of the U.S. government. Fifty percent or more of the public but never more than a third of leaders have supported reducing economic aid to other countries. In various polls, 60 percent or more of the public have backed tariffs; comparable proportions of leaders have favored reducing or eliminating them. Similar differences exist with respect to immigration. In two 1990s polls, 74 percent and 57 percent of the public and 31 percent and 18 percent of foreign policy elites thought large numbers of immigrants were a "critical threat" to the United States.
These and other differences between elites and the public have produced a growing gap between the preferences of the public and policies embodied in federal legislation and regulation. One study of whether changes in public opinion on a wide range of issues were followed by comparable changes in public policy showed a steady decline from the 1970s when there was a 75 percent congruence between public opinion and government policy to 67 percent in 1984–87, 40 percent in 1989–92, and 37 percent in 1993–94. "The evidence, overall", the authors of this study concluded, "points to a persistent pattern since 1980: a generally low and at times declining level of responsiveness to public opinion especially during the first two years of the Clinton presidency." Hence, they said, there is no basis for thinking that Clinton or other political leaders were "pandering to the public." "A disturbing gap is growing", one analyst concluded, "between what ordinary Americans believe is the proper role of the United States in world affairs and the views of leaders responsible for making foreign policy."19 Governmental policy at the end of the 20th century was deviating more and more from the preferences of the American public.
Significant elements of American elites are favorably disposed to America becoming a cosmopolitan society. Other elites wish it to assume an imperial role. The overwhelming bulk of the American people are committed to a national alternative and to preserving and strengthening the American identity of centuries.
America becomes the world. The world becomes America. America remains America. Cosmopolitan? Imperial? National? The choices Americans make will shape their future as a nation and the future of the world.
Bush's half-baked immigration amnesty guest worker proposal is an example of a policy promoted by elites in the face of poll after poll showing widespread popular opposition to current levels and types of immigration.
Daniel Pipes provides a summary of the three visions that Huntington sees as competing for how America should relate to the rest of the world. (same article here)
Along the way, Mr.Huntington observes that Americans can choose among three
broad visions for their country in relation to the outside world.
- Cosmopolitan: America "welcomes the world, its ideas, its goods, and, most
importantly, its people." In this vision, the country strives to become
multiethnic, multiracial, and multicultural. The United Nations and other
international organizations increasingly influence American life. Diversity
is an end in itself; national identity declines in importance. In brief, the
world reshapes America.
- Imperial: America reshapes the world. This impulse is fueled by a belief in
"the supremacy of American power and the universality of American values."
America's unique military, economic, and cultural might bestows on it the
responsibility to confront evil and to order the world. Other peoples are
assumed basically to share the same values as Americans; Americans should
help them attain those values. America is less a nation than "the dominant
component of a supranational empire."
- National: "America is different" and its people recognize and accept what
distinguishes them from others. That difference results in large part from
the country's religious commitment and its Anglo-Protestant culture. The
nationalist outlook preserves and enhances those qualities that have defined
America from its inception. As for people who are not white Anglo-Saxon
Protestants, they "become Americans by adopting its Anglo-Protestant culture
and political values."
The left tends to the cosmopolitan vision; the right divides among imperialists and nationalists. Personally, I have wavered between the latter two, sometimes wanting the United States to export its humane political message and at other times fearful that such efforts, however desirable, will overextend the American reach and end in disaster.
Count me as firmly in the ranks of the unreconstructed American nationalists. I want America to remain America. Pipes, on the other hand, has definite neoconservative imperialist leanings. He would like to see America do more to reshape the world and especially to remake the Middle East. But he sounds like a conflicted neocon who realizes that the neoconservative foreign policy prescription has echoes of "A Bridge Too Far" from the World War II Operation Market Garden. The important difference in the case of neocon foreign policy is that the gap between means and ends is alot more than just one bridge too far.
There are people on the Left who favor the "Cosmopolitan" future who simultaneously oppose the "Imperial" future. However, many neoconservatives are for open borders at the very same time they are for an aggressive military policy of attack upon various countries such as Syria and Iran that they view as enemies. Curiously, Steve Sailer's labels to sum up neoconservative domestic and foreign policy map fairly well to Huntington's categories of "Cosmopolitan" and "Imperial".
Domestic Policy: Invite the World!
Foreign Policy: Invade the World!
I see serious problems with the neoconservative project because the neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan are unwilling to acknowledge the size and costs of the military that would be needed to properly handle Iraq. To pursue the much bigger foreign policy program of David Frum and Richard Perle to invade and occupy Iran and Syria might require a doubling or tripling of the size of the US Army. The invasion could be done with a smaller force. But as Iraq has shown the occupation would be very labor intensive as well as expensive. Iran has about three times the population of Iraq. The US Army isn't even big enough to properly occupy Iraq. So Iran is out of the question unless the Army can be made much larger. Of course, that would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to pursue a policy which has questionable benefits. Invade Syria? The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudi Arabians.
Contra William Kristol and Robert Kagan, that the US Army isn't big enough to occupy and pacify Iraq is not the fault of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld. Rumsfeld did not have a military big enough for the job. That is not his fault. Bush has yet to ask Congress for the money needed to build a military that is big enough. Given the current one half trillion dollar US federal deficit and Bush's desire to keep his tax cuts in place don't expect Bush to make the argument for an expansion of the US Army by hundreds of thousands of troops either.
The "Imperial" future is effectively held back from full development by the fact that various segments of the American population would rather have lower taxes or more social spending for old folks or more spending on education and medical care for the teeming masses of poor immigrants. The neoconservative support for open borders therefore is creating domestic spending pressures that are undermining the Imperial project. At some point will they acknowledge this?
America's biggest problem is not the Imperialists. There are large financial constraints and reality in Iraq is bursting a lot of illusions of those who think that democratic transformation of a Middle Eastern country is easy to do. America's bigger problem is on the home front.
Writing for the neoconservative publication The Weekly Standard James W. Ceaser reviews Huntington's arguments on the threats to American national identity and of American culture and civic society.
THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE of national disintegration lies in the realm of ideas. Although an intellectual himself and a faculty member at Harvard University, an institution with considerable intellectual pretensions, he has not flinched from launching a frontal assault on the dominant opinion of the intelligentsia. Intellectuals, according to Huntington, have widely abandoned the concept of the nation. Their opposition manifests itself first in the movement that encourages primary identity with sub-national entities linked to racial and ethnic groups. Known as multiculturalism, this movement has promoted a sustained campaign in our schools against any form of civic education, having as its objective, in the typical jargon of one of its proponents, the transformation of the schools into "authentic culturally democratic sites" that give emphasis to the cultures of sub-national groups. But encouraging identification with these cultures hardly begins to describe the depth of multiculturalism's opposition to America. Its moving spirit, according to Huntington, is above all an animosity to Western civilization, which is regarded as the engine of oppression of all nonwhite peoples. Multiculturalism, writes Huntington, "is basically an anti-Western ideology."
An even more serious attack against the American nation comes from a group of thinkers whom Huntington labels "transnationals." These are intellectuals "who argue the moral superiority of identifying with humanity at large" and don't place value in the idea of the nation (let alone this nation). As his centerfold Huntington features the ubiquitous Martha Nussbaum, who denounces "patriotic pride" and urges people to give their allegiance to the "worldwide community of human beings." Where Nussbaum treads, others are certain to rush in. And sure enough Huntington spots Richard Sennett trotting along behind, condemning "the evil of a shared national identity," and Amy Gutmann opining that it is "repugnant" for Americans to learn that they are, "above all, citizens of the United States." Huntington might be dismayed, but certainly not surprised, to learn that Gutmann's heartfelt expressions of repugnance have since helped elevate her from a professorship at Princeton to the presidency of the University of Pennsylvania.
In a now famous essay entitled The Ideological War Within The West John Fonte argued that transnational progressives (a.k.a. tranzis) are hostile to local democratic rule and determined to shift power up into undemocratic transnational institutions. The tranzis map fairly well to Huntington's "Cosmopolitans". However, at least at this stage the greatest source of threat to American identity probably comes less from increasing power in international institutions than from use of existing national institutions and policies to teach and promote policies that break down nationalism and patriotic feelings. Also, there is the huge problem posed by immigration.
Huntington sees the greatest threat to national identity coming from massive immigration from Mexico. On that point see my previous post Samuel P. Huntington Comes Out Against Immigration From Mexico and also see my post Samuel P. Huntington On Nationalism Versus Cosmopolitanism.
Update: One big problem I have with neoconservative foreign policy is that it has an underlying assumption of a universally held desire for freedom, democracy, and other American values. In an April 2003 speech at Georgetown University Huntington calls this the universalist's illusion.
He named one British Ambassador who seemed to capture Huntington’s interpretation of the world standpoint.
“One reads about desire for American leadership in the United States. Everywhere else,” the diplomat said, “you read about American arrogance and imperialism.”
Huntington blamed this split in interpretations as something he called the universalist’s illusion — the idea that everyone in the world holds the same ideals as United States citizens. “If they do not have them,” Huntington joked with an eerie seriousness, “they desperately want them. If they do not want them, they don’t understand.”
Huntington is definitely on to something. How long before a popular revolt takes place against the cosmopolitan/transnational elites that seem to control both major political parties? And in which of the two parties is it more likely to take place? Alternatively, if a new political party is founded, which of the two existing ones is more likely to be replaced?
My main problem with Huntingdon and the comments are the absloutuioist tone..It doesnt take into account the various shades of opinions on the issues, he seems to be demanding consistency. For examle, I am definitely in the Cosmoppolitan camp, although I oppose unlimited unskilled immigration, for economic reasons. I also am opposed to such nonsense as Bilingual Mis-Education and a lot of the PC suff leaves me cold. I do not object to Spanish or other languages being used and havent spent a minute worrying about the future english or patriotism,During the gulf war at the Mexican school I worked at the number of people who had relatives over there (cannon fodder)was much greater than in my daughters school. Also I have a problem with this 'elitist' label, Just because one has an opinion , how does that classify one as an elite after all look at Bush and Kerry identical backgrounds, old money from New England, Yale educated etc. I know plenty of people, who have the same socioeconomic status who have differing views on subjects like immigration. One more thing I dont want my government to rapidly make 100% swings in policy based on changes in popular opinion I am a beleiver in gradual change Dan
Dan, Any attempt to abstract hundreds of millions of people out into groups is going to create fuzzy groups with poorly defined boundaries. He is talking about group-average phenomena.
As for Bush versus Kerry: They talk about how they differ from each other and you notice the differences as well. But they are both for more immigration. Kerry will do nothing about outsourcing except complain. Neither will raise tariffs. On these subjects they both disagree with the majority of the American population. Kerry is not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He's somewhat more friendly to the UN. Bush and Kerry share most of the Cosmopolitan outlook whereas Bush is more heavily weighted toward being Imperialistic.
The Bush Administration makes changes in policy that run in the opposite direction from public opinion. He's not making 100% swings because he's pushing against the populace. He's not going to gradually align his policies with those of the majority as his immigration amnesty proposal demonstrates.
Luke, I don't know how this is going to play out. I see a bigger split within the Republican Party than within the Democratic Party. But I understand the Republican Party better and so maybe I'm missing some internal conflicts within the Democratic Party on some issues.
You wrote: "Count me as firmly in the ranks of the unreconstructed American nationalists. I want America to remain America. "
But what does this mean?
CSpan recently aired a book reading given by Otis L Graham, author of "Unguarded Gates: A History of America's Immigration Crisis" about the immigration reform movement of the 1920's. He was arguing along the lines that immigration without assimilation is a disaster for the US. Someone in the audience (coincidentally, from an oppressed group) asked straightforwardly "but assimilate to what?".
This seemed to completely nonplus Mr. Graham to such an extent he backtracked on assimilation saying to the effect that assimilation doesn't have to preclude everyone maintaining their own separate cultural identities. Basically he folded and fell back on multicultural cliches.
I'm bringing this up because it seems that alot people don't really come clean about what they mean. Even Huntington fudges a bit: it's not the continuation of American Anglo-Saxons as a people he is concerned about but only their values. Whatever that means. VDARE is sometimes more explicit.
From your website I sometimes get the impression (mistaken,maybe) that the problem with US immigration is that we let in too many low(er) IQ Mexicans and not enough smart Chinese and Indians. If that is the problem then the solution still leads to cultural disintegration and the same rancor over multiculturalism.
As a trivial example there is 'Razib' from Gene Expression blog (www.gnxp.com) getting bent out of shape over how some TV network programs sometimes use an Indian-accented English for comic effect (though lots don't: on ER the Indian doctors all seem to have British accents). This is in bad taste, sure, but does it requre a civil rights movement by aggrieved Indian Americans? What is apparent in the reaction is the affront to their pride as Indians, not seeing the humor in it from an American perspective (think "Beverly Hillbillies" or "Hee-Haw" for American subcultures getting a similar ribbing).
This example isn't so trivial as it first appears. It is impossible to build a commonweal out of so many disparate cultural elements.
john d., asks "but assimilate to what?"
Well, for starters, how about the values of our liberal democracy, as they are enshrined in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence? Thus, e.g., when a Muslim immigrant family engages in "honor killing" because their 18-year- old daughter disobeys her father and takes a job working at a pizza shop, not getting home until close to midnight -- this is a kind of multicultralism that we cannot and should not tolerate. Ditto for genital mutilation, polygamy, anti-Semitism, and probably a number of other cultural practices we might name if we stop for a moment to think about it. No doubt, john d, you would agree in these cases yourself.
But there are other problems with immigration. In the preamble to our Constitution, it states that one of the purposes of our union is to promote the general welfare -- which I understand to mean the welfare of the American people. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the whole world lived at a third world level and there was enough land on the frontier in America to absorb large numbers of new immigrants without pauperizing ordinary Americans, you would have a case. But that is not the situation today. Instead, large-scale immigration drives wages down for most ordinary wage earners (especially those at the very bottom of the wage scale, including a diproportionate number of African Americans, who can least afford it) even as it boosts the incomes of businessmen and upper-middle class families who can now afford to hire gardeners, nannies, house cleaners, and the like -- in a word, servants! This is the situation, john d, and is why a very strong case can be made against unrestricted immigration. The attitude of a lot of privileged people in our political class who call themselves "liberals" nowadays (Brad Delong being a good example) amounts to addressing the lower orders in this country and abroad with the admonition: "Let's you and him share."
But there is more, john d. Our current immigration policies are hurting the very countries from which these people are moving: the most ambitious and enterprising (and often the most intelligent and educated) get a free pass into a society that has already lifted itself up out of poverty after a 200 year struggle, thus depriving the much larger number of their fellow countrymen, whom they leave behind, of the benefits of their energy and ambition -- thereby delaying the day when their own country becomes developed. Now if we could let the whole world in, maybe that wouldn't be an insurmountable objection -- but 3 0r 4 billion? I think not.
I consider myself cosmopolitan too, as a matter of fact, but I am not prepared to sacrifice the welfare of the American people on the altar of my cosmopolitan principles, notwithstanding the fact that, as a small business owner and member of the upper middle class, my own economic interests are served by current immigration practices.
So you see, john d., the case is not so simple. I would like to hear a reasoned response?
john d, It is obviously very difficult to define the essential features of a culture. People with different values will disagree in many points. However, I do not see the difficulty with definition as an argument against cultural preservation.
The most compelling reason I can see to argue for cultural preservation is that we can look at cultures around the world which have many characteristics we would not want to have for our own culture. Do we want Arab attitudes toward women? I think not. Do we want Latin American attitudes toward government and civil society? Again, I think not.
As for Otis Graham caving on multiculturalism: How sad. I don't. I do not see all cultures as equally valuable or good. Even if they were my reaction is that I want to live in my culture, not some other one.
I agree with your final point:
"It is impossible to build a commonweal out of so many disparate cultural elements."
There is a lot more room for cooperation and it is a lot easier to reach consensus on laws and regulations if there are more shared values. Our society works so well because it is a high trust society and one that has a large component of voluntary organizations. Reduce the trust and reduce the amount of common values and the politics will become much more bitter and, in the extreme, even violent.
However, we have more than just shared values. We happen to have specific values that promote the formation of the volunteer organizations. There are many societies around the world that are quite homogeneous and with a lot of shared values which have little in the way of voluntary organizations. There is the private sphere and the government and not much in between. I do not want to live in that kind of society.
If Indians are going to be so sensitive and other groups are going to be so sensitive about perceived insults then I for one do not want to live in the ridiculous politically correct society that results. Yes, we can make fun of Southerners on Hee Haw or Beverly Hillbillies and everyone accepts it. If groups can't stand to be made fun of then I'd just as soon they not come here.
IQ problems and immigration: I probably spend more time writing about economic problems of immigration because they are easier to quantify. Also, people may dispute the causes of differences in outcomes of groups and I want to avoid getting distracted by that debate. The empirical outcomes are what matter. The fact is that there are large differences in average outcomes between different immigrant groups and those differences do not decline much even into the 3rd and 4th generation of immigrants. As long as we can not find a way to change those empirical outcomes then those differences should play a large role in setting policy.
There is another reason why I'm opposed to high level immigration: It is getting crowded in some parts of the country. Southern California is getting ridiculously crowded for example. Plus, crowding translates into more air and water pollution and more pressure on wildlife habitats.
Another argument I'm going to make more on in the future is net lifetime taxes paid versus services received. Such a large portion of taxes is paid by the top 10% that I suspect that only immigrants who earn in the top 10% or 20% of income are net assets from a tax and spending standpoint. The top 20% pay about two thirds of all federal income tax for example.
john, can you cite the post? i personally don't care about the accent issue, and have posted on the importance of humor and ribbing. but i guess some people see what they want to see....
btw, props on the post randall.
P.S. and yes, there will be South Asian groups agitating against "stereotypes" soon enough, and there are some already. Frankly, this is the result of some kids not getting into medical school or being able to hack engineering, the modern American culture has a fat lucrative niche open for verbally clever, if technically unintelligent, non-whites. But this is a symptom, not a root cause, whites can find the "class action lawyer" niche, or the "lesbian activist" niche, etc. etc. Of course, white males are excldued, right, or are they? Morris Dees has made quite a bit of money on "hate."
Razib, Consider the logic of your argument. Given that whites can be much dumber and poorer without demanding special preferences isn't this an argument for imposing higher IQ requirements on any other group? These other groups come with the added cost of "diversity" preferences demanded at some point down the road.
assuming that the political context is the same, that is highly plausible. but "diversity" preferences are a recent phenom (that is, they aren't axiomatic, but current parameters). after all-hispanics, and now asians, simply are responding to measures introduced to "redress injustice" for blacks (and even then, they weren't intended to be open ended). poor & dumb whites are making attempts to do the same thing-ergo, the push for "class based affirmative action." of course, gender based affirmative action does generally help whites, many not so poor or dumb. some marginally white groups, like armenians, simply re-classify themselvse as non-white when they can.
but the general context are the costs (social anomie) vs. benefits (potentional social capital) of "diversity" as against a "homogenous" society. there are arguments to be made for both sides, and it is not a black & white issue (race obviously is not the only axis, eg; post-1800 united states witnessed the destruction of the regional religious cartels and the emergence of a market-place of religions that many at the time thought might be socially disruptive).
On affirmative action, another point to mention is that there is very little grass roots agitation for preferances among any of the ethnic groups involved; rather, it is certain types of ethnic policy entrepreneurs who do the agitating, and who try to make a career out of it, knowing full well that the white policy elites in government and college admissions tend to cave on the issue. At least this is my impression of the way it works.
Razib, the gnxp post you cited is the one I was recalling, especially the first 2 paragraphs. I'll eat crow on my remark about you "getting bent out of shape" which wasn't warranted given the rest of your essay, which, ahem, I may have skimmed at the time.
But the fact that "South Asian Americans should be very cautious of pursuing a strategy like blacks or Jews" shows, imho, Americans are witnessing another ethnic identity block in the making.
The murder of Vincent Chin in the ‘80’s galvanized the Asian community creating a pan-Asian consciousness. This incident was real and not a shakedown. So it’s not just tech-college dropouts or shakedown artists driving these changes.
Multicultural societies are unstable and the most stable condition short of political dissolution is one of separate competing ethnic blocks. These separate blocks or phases will condense out of ‘e pluribus unum’ triggered by something: offense at comic accents or revulsion at a brutal murder.
And the corporate elites will accept this state of affairs as satisfactory because they will get privileged positions as brokers between these groups (sort of Paul Gottfried's thesis I believe in 'Multiculturalism and its discontents').
Gee, it looks like I completely misread John d. myself. Pardon my haste.
But the fact that "South Asian Americans should be very cautious of pursuing a strategy like blacks or Jews" shows, imho, Americans are witnessing another ethnic identity block in the making.
well, the most recent CENSUS indicated that 50% of young south asian amerians marry non-south asians-and extremely high rate for a first generation immigrant group (recall that jews were still at 10% outmarriage back in the 1950s). if there is a reduction in the stream of immigration any time in the near future, the block seems likely to be swallowed up rather quickly.
The divergence between the governing elite opinion and that of the majority that is detailed above is an alarming registry of a drift towards dictatorship. Traitorous attitudes have become so common among these elites that they imagine themselves to be fully camouflaged by the others, perhaps. Or, what is more likely, it would be that most don't even realize that the majority doesn't and can't agree with them. It takes strong motivating factors to produce a willful blindness of this magnitude. Is it that people who are very smart and well-educated find it especially hard to not believe that their theories might be beneficially dictated to the majority? The passion for racial conflict and all that tends to promote it is alluded to also in the mention of the anti-nationalistic or anti-patriotic views of these leading circles. This would come from their will to power: how is the absolute power that is needed to establish a theoretically perfect dystopia, going to appear without a major domestic conflict? When the excuses for promoting such negative developments are in contradiction (within themselves and with each other), must we not look to the results of what is proposed, and discount the advertising for them?
Hi, everyone. I am doing a project at Michigan State University on this topic. I think several interesting points arise:
1) Must a nation be founded on culture?
2) Where does multiculturalism blur the lines of civic value?
3) When will cosmopolitanism be overthrown by nationalism?
To rebut. I am a Japanese American. My mother is half Japanese and half Native American, and my father is the grandson of an Austrian migrant. I feel more belonging to an international community- and in terms of culture because I am mixed, I really don't have a culture-- I have to create a culture.
I am a passionate American. I believe that America has a lot of promise. But I do not feel that Mexicans are a threat to national security. The same question was raised in the French-speaking province of Quebec. I do feel that Mexican migrants will transform American society- but I feel in positive ways.
Huntington's thesis falls apart at the point to where he cannot prove citizens really have control over the government. That is why rich, and whole, white people like Bush will always control the reigns. And so long as that happens- the people will just have to endure what the rich elite want. I don't see our class system changing- even with an increase in Mexican migrants. So how does this wrest power from the rich white men who already control the United States? More importantly, is Canada a threat?
P.S. Nobody in this post points out that everything left of the Rio Grande belonged to these "Mexa" people in the first place. Which begs the question of how they must have felt when their home was being "invaded" by white people, and their women and children were beaten, murdered, and raped at Wounded Knee.
As for what belonged to "these "Mexa" people": Just what politically incorrect nonsense gets taught at Michigan State U? Let us review some basics:
Lots of Amerind/indian tribes fought each other for control for centuries. Along came the Spanish and they partially conquered them. But the Spanish did not have firm control over the West. The US Army wouldn't have had to fight the Comanche and other indian tribes if those tribes had all been defeated by the Spanish. The Spaniards very sparsely populated the West.
The Spaniards were conquerors. Did their conquest entitle them to perpetual rule of the West? If so, then should we return California to Spain?
If we are instead talking about the various indigenous indian tribes then note that the vast bulk of the indians flowing up from Mexico now are not the indians who were in Arizona, Colorado, and other Western states before the US Army showed up. No, those Souix, Commanche, and other tribes are annoyed by the Mexican deluge and do not see brothers showing up. The people living on Indian reservations along the Mexican border complain and demand the US government stop the deluge that is bringing crime and vandalism to their property.
What I'm telling you is obvious. You already know much of it. But your leftist professors spew propaganda you show up parrotting their nonsense.
Your comment amuses me, because I am a moderate republican.