Talk:Nativism (politics)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Nativism (politics). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

removed part lifted from other text

" Their ?Code of Principles? had a clear objective: ?to release our country from the thralldom of foreign domination? was the way they put it, thinking to embody Americanist principles. In the following four years, twenty-one local chapters were established in the state of New York. Within a decade the fraternity could boast of chapters in sixteen states and a total membership of at least fifty thousand. The least progressive among the Whig party found sympathetic reception among the Nativists. "

I removed the above section because it was copied directly from http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1994/4/94.04.05.x.html

Kingturtle 00:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV

"Palestine, where Israeli Jews are committing genocide against Native Arab Palestinians." Im no fan of Israeli policies towards Palestinians, but this is blatantly POV

Is Nativism a real thing? Can it be proven?

I don't think there is a single nation or tribe that can be said to be truly "native" to a certain geographic area. If you go back in history long enough, there's always one tribe/people who invades the land, exterminated/assimilated/enslaved/expells the previous inhabitants, and claims the land as their own. As far as we know, this kind of inter-ethnic warfare has been going on since before recorded history, back to neolithic times. If you look at any modern-day nation, if you go back in time long enough you'll find that land was once occupied by another nation/people who were killed/driven out by the new invaders.

Immigration reduction

American nativist resentment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at 'illegal aliens,' largely from Mexico,South America and Asia resulting in the passage of rather harsh immigration laws in 1996--that did little to restrict overall levels of immigration. Much of this anti-immigration sentiment was associated with opposition to NAFTA which was considered to be a major factor in accelerating immigration from Mexico. After the attacks on New York City and other landmarks in 2001, nativist resentment and islamophobia were amplified and directed towards immigrants in general and individuals perceived to be either Arab and/or Muslim being the target of hate and hate-related crime as well as the passage of even harsher anti-immigrant laws. Laws directed at employers of illegal aliens were rarely enforced under the 2000-2004 Bush administration-which had the effect of creating a large workforce in the United States with limited political rights.

The above paragraph was moved from this article to Immigration reduction. However it really belongs here, not there. The immigration reductionist movement claims to not be nativist, and the way this paragraph is written it is more about nativism. Why doesn't it belong in this article? It seems to address recent nativism in America. -Willmcw 23:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

American nativist resentment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at 'illegal aliens,' largely Asian and Mexican resulting in the passage of rather harsh immigration laws in 1996. After the attacks on New York City and other landmarks in 2001, nativist resentment and islamophobia were amplified and directed towards immigrants in general and individuals percieved to be either Arab and/or Muslim being the target of hate and hate-related crime as well as the passage of even harsher anti-immgrant laws.

The above paragraph, in its unrevised form, remains untouched here at Nativism, where it is indeed relevant. The edited version's interpolations rendered it more relevant at Immigration reduction. Nothing has been edited, removed or suppressed. Quite to the contrary, now there are two similar texts, one relevant to Nativism and one relevant to those recent developments of nativism that are treated at Immigration reduction. One is sorry to hear that "the immigration reductionist movement claims to not be nativist" in the face of perfectly clear connections. Denying the connection is a task to take up at Talk:Immigrant reduction, of course, not here. --Wetman 00:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If the material is duplicated then I will edit down the copy at Immigration reduction to make it relevent there and move it to the correct chronological position. A sentence or two along these lines may be appropriate in the anti-immigration article as well. As for the claims of immigration reductionists - well, don't get me started..... Cheers, -Willmcw 01:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Vet my recent addition to link your revised, but moved, text. Nothing's lost! There should be brief statements at Anti-immigration embodying links here and Immigration reduction. I was unaware of that article.--Wetman 01:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the Anti-immigration article in a while - I realize now that it contains material that became the core of the Immigration reduction article, and so is no longer needed there. Another editing task for the list. It should definitely include a link back here. Cheers, Willmcw 01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should Anti-immigration (awkward adjectival heading!) be merged with Immigration reduction? --Wetman 02:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-immigration and potential companion, anti-immigrant, actually would be better to merge to Nativist. The immigration reductionists insist that they are not anti-immigrant, and also aver that they are not anti-immigration. (They do not want to stop immigration, simply reduce it by 95%). Whereas no one would argue that nativists are anti-immigration and even anti-immigrant. The anti-immigrant article was written to include an NPOV consideration of the late 20th-century American immigration reduction movement. With that now in its own article, the Anti-immigration article can more directly cover the nativism, xenophobia, and other issues that are involved. The American focus can also be removed, making it a more internationally general article. I think it will be useful article after a re-write. (Which you're welcome to do.) Cheers, -Willmcw

Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? The two forms of Nativism here deserve their own pages, I think. If no one objects I'll move it in a few days. --babbage 11:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good. The connection is very slim. --Wetman 11:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJ: I removed multiple errors from original article (such as references to WASPS, Bavarian Illuminati, Erie Canal, 1st KKK) and adds two of the 3 most important nativist episodes, 1798 and 2nd KKK. Drop "natalism" which is an unrelated issue (the strongest natalist groups are Catholics and Mormons, both anti-nativist). Anti-Chinese sentiment in 1870s was led by the Irish Catholics (Kearney). 7 Nov 05 67.176.74.236 15:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Richard Jensen

Disambiguation page

Since political and psycholoigical nativism are extremely different and unrelated, shouldn't we have a disambiguation page for the term "nativism"? -- dzou

Yes. Separate bedrooms too. Divorce seems inevitable... --Wetman 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Proceeding to disambiguate. --Smithfarm 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WASP was invented by Irish Immigrants who resented the Nativist Americans of English Heritage. They couldn't didn't like them because of their resentment to them. But, in reality the Nativists were justified in their anger. As a Catholic with "WASP" heritage, I understand why they felt that way.

NPOV?

"For instance, while Mexican President Vicente Fox faults the US for not opening its borders, Mexico simultaneously cracks down harshly on "undocumented migrants" who breach her southern borders from other Central American countries. Yet no public discussion accuses Mexico of being nativist in immigration policies."

This doesn't sound NPOV to me. How does everyone else feel?

There's definitely some value-laden language there. I'd say it's heavily POV. However, the same thing could be said in a less antagonistic manner, and provided a source citation is added it could pass muster. --Smithfarm 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

actually it's a statement about things that did not happen. That does not belong in an encyclopdia-- LOTS of things don't happen! Rjensen 09:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Give examples but dont show your opinion...State them dont judge it!

This doesn't make sense - or maybe I'm missing something

This form of nationalism often identified with xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment (anti-papism). In the 1840s, small scale riots between Catholics and nativists took place in several American cities. In California, Irish immigrants vented their resentment against the Chinese. Nativist sentiment experienced a revival in the 1880s, led by Protestant Irish immigrants hostile to Catholic immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many nativist acts of congress to limit the flow of immigrants into the U.S.

In California, Irish immigrants vented their resentment against the Chinese. Are these Itish immigrants nativists? Then it makes sense. If so, then say so. Wallie 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Irish in California were intensely opposed to Chinese immigrants. The Irish were themselves immigrants so it's awkward to call them nativists. Rjensen 08:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nativism used to focus more on East Asians, now it focuses on South Asians

Until WWII, the Chinese were targeted. After WWII, Chinese and Japanese became "model minorities". How that happened is another discussion.

In the 80's and 90's, South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) were mocked as "towelheads" (referring no doubt to the Sikhs) and because they seemed to have a lockhold on motels and convenience stores.

Apu of "The Simpsons" is a gentle caricature that represents the kinder side of this phenomenon.

It is easy to forget that version of American nativism because we are now on the current "immigration reform" debate which focuses on Latinos (primarily Mexicans).

If my text doesn't communicate the above points, then let's fix it. However, please don't say that American nativism only focuses on Latinos. They're just the current target of the day.

--Richard 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Assertion that immigrants form violent gangs that seize control of work

The assertion that nativists allege that "newcomers form violent gangs that seize control of work" needs some support. It's not that I don't believe these allegations are made. It's more that this is not, in my experience, one of the common allegations and so may need some support to establish credibility.

Since this article doesn't have any citations, it's not so important that the statement have a citation. It might be useful to provide examples of allegations of violent gangs. I suspect that this allegation is not a common charge in the contemporary United States but might have been an allegation from earlier in our history or other countries (France, Germany?). Help me understand what this sentence is trying to say.

As a more general comment, there is one reference provided in this section (Bennett's "Party of Fear"). Is it the source for the entire section or just part? If only part of the section can be sourced to that book, then it should be made clear what is sourced from it and what is not.

--Richard 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The assertion about violent gangs that seize work sites goes back to Irish gangs (1840s). Chinese gangs (tongs) in 1880s, Italian Mafia (1880-1930s), and more recently to Russian and Hispanic gangs. So it's a recurring theme. Rjensen 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted incomprehensible sentence

I couldn't make sense out of this sentence...

"In the wake of H.R. 4437 and the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests, some Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives excised debatably nativist sentiments in claims that illegal aliens would come to the U.S., take advantage of social welfare programs, and overwhelm state and federal governments."

What is intended by the use of the word "excised" in the above sentence?

I have excised this sentence until someone can explain to me what it means or fix it so that its meaning is clarified.

--Richard 06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is garbled. Perhaps it should read: "In the wake of H.R. 4437 and the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests, some Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives vented nativist sentiments in claiming that illegal aliens were flooding the U.S., taking advantage of social welfare programs, and overwhelming state and federal governments." Rjensen 09:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I had been meaning to fix that, it was a typo and nothing more. I had meant to type "...[those parties]] exercized debatably nativist sentiments." This has such been fixed. Scrabbleship 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "exercize" is the wrong word here. I think of "expressing, displaying or venting" a sentiment but not "exercizing" one. Moreover, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word "debatably" in this sentence. What is it intended to convey here?

--Richard 14:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of nativism in the 20th century U.S. needs to be broadened to cover other states

The mention of Colorado makes it sound like the phenomenon is limited to Colorado in 2006. There needs to be mention of similar events in other states such as the attempt in 1994 to limit access to social programs in California (Proposition 187).

--Richard 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

in 2006 Colorado seems to have taken the lead among states. Rjensen 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if that's true, it would provide a "snapshot" of nativism in 2006. To be encyclopedic, we need to cover more than just 2006 in order to describe nativism in the U.S. in the 20th century. I mention California's Prop 187 because I'm familiar with it but there have been a number of other nativist movements in other states such as attempts to make English the official language and, I believe, attempts to restrict access to social programs. We don't need to document every single one of them but we need to paint the picture of a more widespread movement. Otherwise, it looks as if Colorado is the only one that has a nativist movement.

--Richard 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Discuss whether to merge anti-immigration with political nativism. I would say yes. They're the same thing. Nativism is the older term and more widely used in political science. On a separate issue I also think Political Nativism should be renamed something more like Nativism (politics) so the actual term political scientists use is more prominent. KleenupKrew 22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed merge. Also agree with the proposed name change. --Richard 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Agree the article should be called Nativism (politics) Rjensen 12:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since ther has been no discussion on this proposed move in over two weeks, I assume the consensus is "move and merge". I have done the move. Let's start the merge.

--Richard 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have executed the merge and have redirected anti-immigration to this article.

Please review the anti-immigration article and this newly expanded Nativism (politics) article to ensure that I have done a complete merge. Also, please help complete the merge by cleaning up this article as it now uses "anti-immigration" in some places and "nativism" in others.

--Richard 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nativism inacurate term, split the article

I added the USA-centric tag, follwing the merger with Anti-immigration. That was a bad title, but moving the content here has made things worse. Nativism is a term from American politics, and it arose because the majority in the USA are themselves of immigrant descent. The term distinguishes between native-born descendants and first-generation immigrants. It is inaccurate to apply this model to Europe, where the nation-states are founded on 'indigenous' nations. 'Nativism in Europe' is a short-sighted attempt to describe European politics with US terminology.

The article should be split in two. One part, with the neutral title of 'Opposition to immigration' should cover this phenomenon, which is present in all countries with immigrants. It should refer to nativism as a specific anti-immigration ideology in countries such as the USA (and perhaps Canada and Australia). The details can remain in a spearate Nativism article.--Paul111 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with the general thrust of this proposal but I'd like to know how we should title articles about anti-immigrant sentiments in Japan, Germany and France. I think we need one article called "Opposition to immigration" and then subsidiary articles such as "Opposition to immigration in X" where X can be the U.S., the U.K., Australia, France, Germany, etc. Nativism (politics) could then re-direct to either Opposition to immigration or Opposition to immigration in the United States. Alternatively, Nativism (politics) could be an article that describes the peculiar characteristics of opposition to immigration in the U.S., Canada and Australia (assuming that such exist).

--Richard 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on Opposition to immigration should say that in countries where the population is largely 'immigrant' by descent, immigration takes the form of 'nativism'. It should say that the term originates in the United States but can be applied to Australia, Canada, and possibly New Zealand.Paul111 12:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have split this article as suggested by Paul111. Paul111, can you make review the two articles and make such changes as you feel are appropriate (e.g. the one that you suggest above)? --Richard 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to immigration needs a complete rewrite, which will take some time.Paul111 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the phrasing "nativism arose where the population is largely immigrant population..."! ;) I think a group of descendants of original colonists (not "immigrants" but pre-nation colonists) in a country can still be called "nativists." Perhaps Puerto-Ricans can be "nativist?" I think the term arose to give connotations of racism. Otherwise "anti-immigrant" would work just as well. cuvtixo

First-generation immigrants

Both this article and the new opposition to immigration article use the term, "first-generation immigrants". I'm going to have to take issue with this term as hopelessly POV. Is there any other kind of immigrant? This term seems like a leftist, identity politics based term that implies that "we are all immigrants" (and therefore all members of some minority group deserving of special benefits rather than members of the majority), which as we all know is complete nonsense. If you were born in the country you live in, you are by definition not an immigrant. There are no "second-generation" immigrants - the very conecpt is an oxymoron. I'm going to have to object to the use of this term in any article and in any context. Puppy Mill 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I never thought of it that way. I'm a "second generation immigrant" (Chinese). I understand your point and it is valid but you're assumption that it is based on "leftist, identity politics" is not the only way to interpret the semantics of the term.

Another approach is to consider the idea that there are "second generation immigrants" to be an assertion that there are people who are NOT second generation immigrants, notably "white Anglo-Saxon Americans" and African-Americans descended from slaves. In essence, some might draw a line somewhere in the mid-1800's (for argument's sake, let's call it the Civil War) and say that everybody descended from someone who arrived before then is a "native" and everybody descended from someone who arrived after then is a "nth generation immigrant".

So "second generation immigrant" is also used to draw an artificial distinction between white Anglo-Saxon Americans and "other immigrants".

Of course, this is patent nonsense. We are all descended from immigrants although those of pure Native American descent are arguably "native" because their ancestors arrived over 15,000 years ago.

However, this "patent nonsense" is the original, real-world use of the phrase "nth generation immigrant". To the extent that it is used to support "leftist, identity politics", I would think that this is a case of people adopting the existing use of the term and adapting it to support their own political ends.

In practice, people don't usually count generations past the 2nd or 3rd generation unless they are counting back to the Mayflower.

Object to "second generation immigrant" if you insist. I'm not sure exactly where it's used in the two articles but I'm sure a circumlocution can be found to avoid using the term.

--Richard 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Second generation immigrant" has been the standard terminology in demography and history for 100 years. It is not POV and has proven highly useful. On the other hand, the term "Anglo-Saxon Americans" is highly POV and should be avoided--it's a hostile term. Rjensen 01:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

One might propose using "English-speaking" in place of "Anglo-Saxon" in my little essay above. Much of the "first/second generation immigrant" phenomenon has to do with a generation which grows up in America acclimated to the culture and the language as opposed to their parents who have a more difficult time doing so. It is arguable that English and Scottish immigrants did not have as much difficulty and I'm not sure whether the "first/second generation immigrant" phenomenon applies to Irish immigrants. It probably does not apply to Irish immigrants of the late 20th century. I can't speak knowledgeably about Irish immigrants of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Admittedly, another part of the "first/second generation immigrant" phenomenon has to do with educational level and social mobility (of the second generation vs. the first). This presumably crosses language and ethnic boundaries. I don't have the sense that English and Scottish immigrants had the same experience as immigrants from other cultures and countries. I am willing to be enlightened if I am wrong on this.

--Richard 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, before somebody jumps on me for this one, Scots are not Anglo-Saxons, right? They were originally Picts and Gaels but whatever their origin, they're not Anglo-Saxons except by intermarriage.

--Richard 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"inside the U.S." vs. "outside the U.S."

Why is the article organized into "inside the U.S." vs. "outside the U.S."?

The "inside/outside the U.S." split suggests that political nativism either originated in the U.S. or has been more notable in the U.S. than it is outside the U.S. Is this what we want to say?

Or is this just an artifact of a U.S.-centric set of editors?

--Richard 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More likely than not, the latter. People inside the US tend to write about the US a lot, and nativism is a pretty big issue in the US at the moment. I think it might even be an issue in the upcoming US presidential election, actually. It's extremely divisive. 65.182.52.95 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nativism as resistance

Nativism, as a term, is also used as indicating the early moment of anti-imperial nationalist resistance, coming before the more overt political liberationism. The motive behind the movement is explained by Elleke Boehmer in her book "Colonial and Postcolonial Literature" as the following: "The idea was that a people's identity, though long superseded, lay embedded in its cultural origins and was recoverable intact, unadulterated by the depredations of colonialism." There are also Edward Said's arguments concerning these nativist discussions. Although the title here is associated mainly with U.S.A. and anti-immigrant policies, could the title be split into two to talk about the anti-colonial aspect of it as well?

Why did not the author [to this comment] sign this comment?Dogru144 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is hard to read. It is more a discussion of the political sides on Nativism then defining what nativism is.

It is unclear why the illegal immigration parts are even here since what seems to be the definition of nativism doesn't seem to have to do with being against illegal immigration.

The free dictionary defines nativism as: 1. A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants. 2. The reestablishment or perpetuation of native cultural traits, especially in opposition to acculturation. 3. Philosophy The doctrine that the mind produces ideas that are not derived from external sources.

nativism is a term used to slur those who are against illegal immigration, without having a valid reason for targeting them otherwise.

I do not believe the quotes around illegal alien in the article should be there. As I recall illegal alien is the term used in the actual law pertaining to illegal aliens in the immigration law.

Another words, this article is POV, is poorly written, and useless unless wikipedia's purpose is to spread propaganda rather provide valid information.

Wmb1957 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe source citing

In the "Nativism in Europe" section the book by Leo Lucassen is cited using standard APA style. The reference should be converted to the footnote style we use on other Wikipedia articles, even if just for the sake of consitency. Signature ^brendel 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish Catholics "violently attacked" vs "clashed with"

Neither assertion is supported. I reverted and added a {{fact}} tag. --Richard 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Emotive language like "violently attacked" should not be used unless there is really good evidence to support it. Nowhere else in this article is such language used, though violence against and between immigrant groups have always happened. That sentence smacks of gratuitous anti-Irishness. I don't like getting involved in edit wars, but it's either "clashed" or nothing. I'm changing it back to "clashed". 83.71.47.118 16:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse the derogatory language but this is a "lame" justification. We should use "violently attacked" or some other text documenting violence elsewhere in the article rather than removing it from this section. I don't want to have any indication of anti-Irishness or anti-"any other group" in this article but we need to call a spade a spade and document that violence has occurred as a result of nativism. I'm leaving "clashed" in the text for now but please help document violence whenever it has occurred.

--Richard 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought (from what I remember about U.S. History) that the Irish Catholics were being attacked because of the fact that they were Irish and Catholic. We used to not like Catholics, or the Irish (because we thought that they were taking all of our jobs) when they started immigrating here. The violence against the Irish mostly came from the Germans, didn't it? I would go with clashed with, because the Irish were just striking back against be attacked. Legoland12342 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)