Shared History, Subcitizenry & My Aunt Mary's Crack Problem
Among the most heinous linguistic developments of the 21st Century has to be the semantic transformation of the word bubble. Children revel in all types of bubbles. There are ones made of snot, most useful for preteens when they want to gross-out a friend. Native to middle school lockers, there are bubbles made from Bazooka gum, which migrate every spring to Little League dugouts. Then of course, there is my favorite: Willy Wonka’s Chewing Gum bubble. Violet’s shade of purple provided the color to much of my childhood.
As children morph into adults they are expected to perceive familiar terms differently. Once reserved for how you feel about a classmate, crushing becomes a description of how your finance guy is handling your 401k. Between texts to a girlfriend, sneaking out was once whispered to a buddy out of parents’ earshot, but is now used during the work day to inform your coworker that you’re meeting an accountant to drop off your W2. We went from playing tag to tagging organic face-wash startups in an attempt to become an Instagram influencer, and alarmingly so.
As much as I’ve tried to be its protector, bubble is undergoing the same fate. I first saw the signs of things to come when The Wire used it as a nickname for a toothless, drug-addicted informant. Then I allowed its twisted usage during AP Economics when discussing the Great Depression, unaware I was already ceding too much ground. But the death blow to this symbol of youthful frivolity might be on its way. After the 2016 election, nary a pundit could be found who did not use bubble to depict the echo chambers that American partisans were living in. If the words managed to escape past their bleached teeth and collagen-pumped lips, right-wing, Mayflower-descendant media figures would reluctantly utter “Get out of your bubble, pollsters.” And when left-wing meritocrats were done chastising the very system that landed them powerful, seven-figure jobs, they would voice much of the same.
Naturally, I shoved critical-thinking to the side and heeded the advice of America’s national media. One way in which I entered another political sphere was by listening to Andrew Sullivan’s podcast. Sullivan, a remarkably well-credentialed British-American, has grown to fame by publishing a political blog and also editing The New Republic. He is surely a conservative, but his independent thinking often results in him challenging Republican dogma. He trumpeted for Gay Rights (Sullivan is a gay man, for what it’s worth) during a time of immense conservative pushback. Yet, he still supports some stalwart G.O.P values like opposing the codification of hate speech crimes, arguing that it would be an assault on the first amendment. Additionally, he has adopted the Republican position on immigration.
Last Spring, Sullivan’s podcast defeated The Eminem Show for radio supremacy during my homeward commute. I tuned into an episode where Sullivan enlisted Mickey Kaus to converse about what many in the media have deemed a “crisis” at America’s southern border (I would argue that the real crisis is happening between Cartels and citizens of Juarez, poverty in the Northern Triangle, etc.) Kaus, a pundit who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary but cast his vote for Donald Trump in 2016, was more than happy to provide his views on immigration to the States.
Equal parts enlightening and provocative, this podcast birthed a moment that has lingered in my mind like coffee breath from an amicable albeit garrulous coworker. In an attempt to explain how mass migration could have undesirable cultural reverberations among U.S born citizens, Sullivan and Kaus recalled a time of similar immigration in American History. Their back-and-forth is presented below, but before reading, it is imperative to understand the tone of this discussion. Both Sullivan and Kaus were merely trying to contextualize immigration and their tones reflected the casualness of a friendly conversation while not sacrificing the scholarly nature of their dialogue.
Sullivan - “At the same time you’ve had this massive shift...in terms of foreign born, here I am, I’m one of them...14 percent of the (American) population is now foreign born, which is roughly where it was in the early teens (1910s) a century ago.”
Kaus - “If you look at what happened in the early teens, as soon as the foreign born population hits 14 percent, people start freaking out, perhaps for the cultural concerns… and they do something about it.”
“They used to talk frankly about assimilation...we have to assimilate these people and we have to have time to assimilate them and people thought that was a cover for racism. But in fact, even Charlie (indistinguishable) in his book says… the restrictions in the 20s bought us time to assimilate the huge flow of Italians and Europeans...I think we do need some sort of pause to assimilate all people who are here.”
Kaus - “Latinos make very good Americans...we’re very fortunate to have Mexico and even Central America as our neighbor...I mean it could be Algeria.”
It was at this part of the podcast where I had to press pause. The only thing more dangerous than driving when angry is having a DEFCON 1 level sneeze attack while doing 72 on the highway, so the combination of being infuriated while simultaneously in the middle of allergy season meant I was well positioned to cause at least a six car pile-up. Why was I so upset? Kaus and Sullivan were starting to give me Daniel Day-Lewis vibes, something you think would be a compliment. But what if I was talking about the Gangs of New York version of Daniel Day-Lewis? The one-eyed nativist who had a particular perception of what shades America should be colored in.
If given the chance, Kaus may reword his statement about Latinos making “good Americans.” This type of language divulges an ethnocentric worldview that is as ugly as it is prejudiced. Clearly, Kaus has an idea of what qualities, values and characteristics embody “good Americans” and he believes some Latinos and Central Americans possess them (although Algerians certainly do not.) But Kaus’ comments reverberate assumptions both unintelligent and nativist. They presuppose that the bones which constitute the American physique are superior and in doing so these comments reveal that Kaus has clearly never watched Jeff Daniels famous Newsroom monologue. What’s more, they frame Latinos and Central Americans as faceless properties who must be tallied as nothing more than contributors to or detractors of American growth, both culturally and economically.
But to dwell on the red flags raised by Kaus’ remarks distracts from this essay’s main intention. Both Kaus and Sullivan believe that foreigners can successfully assimilate to whatever they believe the American way of life to be. But their discussion also implies that there must exist some criteria to determine if assimilation has been successful. Additionally, the conservative duo believes that the road to successful assimilation is best walked when foreigners are surrounded by more Americans than they are foreign-borns. Although they never expanded on it, Kaus and Sullivan lead us to believe that foreigners will have less incentive to Americanize if they are encircled by fellow foreigners in whichever town or city they move to. This only further exposed the dubiousness of Kaus’ “good Americans” statement. If Latinos and Central Americans already have the qualities necessary for assimilation, what does it matter if they immigrate in large droves?
This arouses an even more concerning question. When Kaus and Sullivan discuss assimilation, who are they worried about? Are they nervous for the adjustment foreigners will have to endure in America, or are they more concerned with the way Americans will react to these newcomers? If the latter is true, then we can strike tolerant, accepting and neighborly from the list of qualities Kaus believes makes for “good Americans.” There is a more important list to focus on, however. And it is the one that determines what it means to successfully assimilate to the American way of life. Here, my Great Aunt Mary can help.
The story of my Great Aunt’s journey to America is partially a head-scratching one. She found a way to immigrate to America during the 1930s in spite of the restrictive quotas in place during this time, a mystery that has berthed intrafamilial rumors of bribery. Joining other members of her family who had already made the move to the States, Aunt Mary settled down in New Haven, Connecticut, helping solidify the city’s dual reputation for having the highest concentration of Italian-Americans and by extension, the best tasting pizza in the country.
My aunt lived in America for the majority of her life, passing away in 2007 in her late 80s. Like all departures, her passing was mourned and brought plenty of grief, but I found solace and even a laugh or two when remembering her own thoughts about death. Whenever it came time to say goodbye to my aunt, she would reply in her Italian accent, “Hopefully dis issa da last time Imma gonna see you, god weeling.” I’d reply with an “alright Aunt Mary, I’m sure I’ll still see you next Sunday for dinner.” And then one Sunday, I didn’t.
Like all good paesans, every Sunday afternoon my father and I would drive to Aunt Mary’s house and help her into our Ford station wagon. My old man would guide her by the hand and arm while I would be responsible for making sure all of her walker’s tennis balls made it into the backseat. Soon enough our proud Amalfian matriarch would be seated at the kitchen table, yelling at our dogs to get off of her while simultaneously sneaking them pieces of homemade bread. In traditional guido fashion, dinner would be served by 3:30 in the afternoon, for reasons still unknown.
Before digging into whatever pasta was lucky enough to serve as the vessel for my aunt’s homemade sauce, my father would lead us in prayer. Good Catholics we were, all of us. Right around the “give us this day our daily bread” I would peek up at my aunt and my father (her nephew) and realize just how seriously they prayed. The pair was always sincere when they thought He was listening in on them, and from their perspective, He always was.
Throughout the meal my father would lead our family in discussion, making my sisters and I tell our aunt about some unimportant science project we were working on in school. Aunt Mary would nod along but my father knew she could only understand half of the words we were saying and he would translate the necessary parts into Italian dialect. When dinner was over, my aunt would literally scream at my old man to, “getta da crack fromma da bag! Forra da kids, eh!” No, my sisters and I were not drug-addicted preteens and my aunt was not an octogenarian Nino Brown. Despite living in America for over 50 years, Aunt Mary never learned the word for “cookies,” opting instead to call them crackers which was inevitably and hilariously shortened to “crack.”
We had crack in our cupboards. Crack hidden away above her fridge. Crack in her purse. There was always enough crack for her grand nieces and nephew. Trips to ShopRite to buy more crack were always an adventure. Yet again my father would have to drive Aunt Mary to the grocery store and watch her closely as she shopped. Although she was decades removed from haggling local grocers in her quiet, Mediterranean village, Aunt Mary continued to treat American megastores like they were Italian markets, smacking fellow shoppers with her cane if they moved too slowly or ramming their heels with her cart. Before buying a pepper, she had to take a bite out of it to determine if it was hot enough, and if it wasn’t then back it went. Same went for half-eaten grapes that fell short of her approval.
She became a pro at sneaking crack into her carriage, avoiding the careful gaze of my father. The weekly crack reveal and ensuing fight at the checkout counter caught many a 17-year-old cashier off guard. “Ah come on, lemme giva da kids just a leetle bit of crack! Dey a gooda kids!” Never once embarrassed, my father - a well known localite who ascended from humble beginnings to become a revered state judge - always retorted, “Aunt Mary, we have plenty of crack at home!” While curious onlookers peered into our aisle to make sure we weren’t really arguing over drugs, I would grab two out of the three Chips Ahoy packets then rush them back where we found them. My aunt and father negotiated their usual agreement; we could choose one out of the three packages of crack.
I have a working theory that midlife Italians simply awaken one day and find their hair turned white, disposition turned ornery and height diminished. But even someone as foolish as myself knows that there was once a time when my Great Aunt Mary only had one of those qualifiers in her title. As hard as it is for me to imagine, it was rumored she was young once, and when she was she worked on-and-off as a dressmaker, selling hand-sewn garments from her home. Perhaps she would have found consistent employment at a local shop, but my aunt never learned how to drive.
In fact, she never learned to speak or understand English fluently. Never engaged in any form of American education and hardly received one in her native town. When the demographics of her neighborhood diversified and olive skin tones were exchanged for ones of a darker hue, she never learned to embrace those living next-door. And if she had ever gotten her driver’s license, she likely would have sought out other boulevards, avenues or culs-de-sac to relocate.
She never volunteered at community centers. Never became truly engaged in the American political system. When she married into my Aunt Mary’s family, my mother - an outsider whose family tree was watered with as much Russian vodka as it was blue collar sweat - was met with my Aunt’s closed arms and an ancient curse still commonly whispered among the Amalfi hillside.
Now, I love my Great Aunt Mary and always will. I am not a monster sacrificing the legacy of a beloved family member just to make a point about the status of citizenship in America. Moreover, I am fully aware of the challenges women, especially immigrant women, faced and continue to face when pursuing the America dream. Academic and career opportunities were surely hard to come by for her as the forces of both institutional and cultural sexism acted as impediments. Nevertheless, Aunt Mary failed to integrate herself into American society and although my love for her is undying, her story unearths the barriers to American citizenship as much as it serves as a commentary on why some people never truly gain entry at all.
I have two assumptions. Kaus and Sullivan have criteria for determining successful assimilation to the American way of life, and that my Aunt Mary failed to meet whatever that criteria is. I’ll go a step further. Imagine if like bullet points on a resume the details of my aunt’s life were presented to this duo, albeit with one major exception: Kaus and Sullivan could not be informed of my aunt’s country of origin or any of her life details (i.e language) that would divulge where she hailed from. For all intents and purposes, she could be a socially conservative, unaccepting, childless Roman Catholic from Sinaloa, Mexico or East Timor. If this experiment were conducted, I believe that both Kaus and Sullivan would find it difficult to define my aunt as a “good American.”
Why? My aunt failed to learn the predominant language of her new location. At best her work ethic was fluctuant, resulting in a failure to maintain stable income and one that would have contributed tax dollars to the municipal, state or federal governments. She showed zero signs of valuing her own education. She remained intolerant of most ethnic minorities, including African Americans, Hispanics, Latinos or essentially anyone whose name did not end in a vowel. This disdain spilled over into those souls who did not practice Roman Catholicism, either. Mostly due to her hesitancy to speak English and inability to travel sans bus or walking, she stayed away from community activities unless they strictly involved family. Eschewing the dutiful, independent critical thinking that American liberalism thrives on, she blindly voted for whatever candidate her husband supported.
Be it language, education, work ethic, civic engagement, social tolerance or community involvement, my Aunt unquestionably never met the integration criteria many Americans deem to be important. Moreover, she failed to meet not all, but many of the integration criteria that Kaus and Sullivan likely deem to be important. Perplexingly, Sullivan and Kaus would likely still prioritize my Great Aunt for entry into America over immigrants from Latin American countries. Whether it was in their podcast together or other episodes where the host was engaging guests like economist Bryan Caplan or political scientist Charles Murray, Sullivan routinely manages to gravitate towards the driving force behind conservative immigration hesitancy: shared history. For reasons soon to be delineated, my Aunt Mary, in spite of the ample evidence proving her to have failed assimilation - would have a greater chance of adopting a history that was not her own and therefore becoming a welcomed member into the exclusive club of Americanism. This dangerous, prejudicial and ultimately discriminatory concept of shared history must be examined further if the conservative position on immigration is to be both properly portrayed and justifiably critiqued. More importantly, however, this inquiry will disrobe Uncle Sam’s jingoistic outerwear to reveal the ugly nakedness of subcitizenry; the guiding principle behind nativist fervor and most alarmingly the rise of Western illiberalism.
For the vast majority of Americans, their origin story is nothing more than a choice to adopt something that isn’t theirs. According to USA Today and the New England Historic Genealogical Society, as of 2018, around 10 million Americans could trace their lineage back to Mayflower descendants. Congratulations to those of you who can sincerely claim not only the eldest of American origin stories but follow your family history backwards throughout our patriotic timeline, across every war, political movement and economic crisis. You may extract the soil from America’s most significant moments and in doing so cultivate your own garden of culture. You are one of a tiny minority of citizens whose ancestors lived through the Revolutionary War and Constitutional Convention, periods which Sullivan must believe uphold the shared history many Americans rely upon to find identity and meaning within our nation.
What about the rest of us? A steadfast presence in scholarship, the Pew Research Center shines light for us. In the 1900’s opening decade (1900-1910), 34.5 percent of Americans were either first or second generation born. The Migration Policy Institute further paints this demographic canvas, informing that 13.6 percent of the population was foreign born in the year 1900. Simple math determines that sometime during the 20th century's first decade, 48.1 percent of the population quite literally possessed no connection to Sullivan’s concept of the shared history he suggests is the lynchpin of American nationhood. More basic math and a bit of logic details how this number remained pretty constant throughout the decade and the ensuing century.
Average Americans and surely many, if not most readers of this essay, will recognize that their ancestors were simply not in the States during its most seminal moments. In fact, half of my grandfathers fought on the wrong side of World War II, and yet I conveniently overlook that glaringly noteworthy part of my personal history; one which should assuredly lead to some serious internal conflict. Scores of millions of our forefathers contributed not one drop of ink to pen the pages of our cherished History; a monograph where the tales of heroism, classic liberalism and exceptionalism were written. Still, I, a second generation citizen, have curiously seized upon this discriminately accessible History. Not only have I chosen to adopt it as my own, I have prioritized it over the other fabled stories of my family’s past. It is as if the Italian heritage of my identity occupies a mere footnote within my Life’s novel, with the bulk of written words dedicated to delineating a relationship to an American past which I have no direct linkage to. I have claimed the sacrifices of forefathers not my own and commandeered their legacy for myself, all in an attempt to gain exclusive membership into one of the world’s most elite nations. Like a toy on the shelf, I pick up my Italian heritage while eating pasta with lobster sauce on Christmas eve or ordering zeppoles on St Joseph’s day. But I hardly ever identify myself as an Italian.
White, Anglo-Saxon Americans find hardly a single barrier when performing this ethnocentric dance. Most never take a moment to wonder why they deemphasize their European origins only to identify with a History they have no blood associated with. More importantly, however, most will never wonder why they cringe at the thought of non-White immigrants adopting this same History. Why do some Americans, but assuredly not all, retain the luxury to engage in a shared History that isn’t theirs? Possibly, the answer lies with the human instinct of group identity and survival. And while the strength of atavistic psychosensation cannot be understated, it is not to be tolerated either, especially when anti-immigrant Americans and their ancestors are living proof that our Central American neighbors can abandon their former history in exchange for a new one.
If Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - both first generation offspring from Cuban parents - can shed the garments of their Latin American ancestry to drape themselves in near cartoonish levels of America-First Trumpism, perhaps Manuela and her children, after fleeing from bullet sprayed Guatemala, can also embrace a past that isn’t their own. After all, millions of White Americans are vivid examples that embracing an unfamiliar, nonnative history - with the hopes of gaining access to citizenship - is entirely achievable. One might go as far as to state that the very definition of racism is using skintone to determine which American residents are permitted entry to our shared history. But in order to solidify this practice of cultural gatekeeping as prejudiced in its modern form, it is imperative to discuss how it sank into the collective consciousness of White Americans.
In the middle of a forest, America was founded as a paradisiacal sanctuary for the oppressed; an oasis where, at least in theory, all were welcomed to warm their bones around a campfire of ideals, and all that was necessary to breath life into these sacred embers was a commitment to liberty, civic duty and individualism. Early patriots honored these virtues, demanding allegiance to principle, never person. It was a country of laws, not Men. It is why George Washington held Cincinnatus so closely to his heart, opting to forgo a lifelong presidency in an effort to demonstrate that it is the governing laws of our nation, not the administrator of them, which make nationhood a worthy endeavor. Before the term president was agreed upon for the title for America’s leading executive, it was this thinking that led to the lengthy, “His Highness, President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties” being debated. The duty to uphold America’s foundational values was ultimately more important than the individual who inherited the responsibilities to do so.
But paradoxically, Time serves as both the great agent and undoer of progress. Freedmen with the sour taste of tyranny in their mouth are quick to spit out authoritarianism when it creeps onto their tongue. But as democracy becomes commonplace, it forces despotism into dormancy, where citizens forget that it is a lurking threat until a noise so unignorable draws it back into the world. But what is that ominous sound? In the States, we are hearing a raucous chorus of nativist discontent. Its harmony forsakes the meaning of the word, as tenors sing disconcerting diatribes against those wanting to teach structural racism. In the direction of the Northern Triangle, sopranos belt out border wall mantras while altos chant vitriolic verses towards transgendered athletes. Conducting this symphony are a handful of demagogues, each manning the post of lead maestro depending on which one of them is suffering the least legal or public scrutiny.
It is critical for the conductor to fine-tune and provide direction to this chorus. Moreover, he or she must posture as an ethical peer to our nation’s most righteous men, the Jeffersons and Adams, Lincolns and Roosevelts. They must claim to be a defender of threatened liberties, changing ways of life, and the pilfering hands of global elites, even if such problems exist more prominently in fantasy than reality. Doing so does more than merely mimic the inherent nostalgia of America’s national heroes. Disguising culture wars and ethnocentrism as an existential battle for one’s country must elicit a strong sense of nationalism; for many an intense feeling that runs parallel with moral correctness. After all, to be a good person in America is to be a good American, and in a literal sense, for millions of patriots, to fully be an American citizen is to be White.
One existential war was already fought to prevent non-Whites from gaining the last ⅖ required to reach full citizenship. Fast forward roughly 150 years to August 2019 and then president Donald Trump discussed further ways to limit non-White citizenship, informing reporters that, “We’re looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby - congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen... It’s frankly ridiculous.” One can infer that the border he was referring to was the one he claims is home to “rapists'' who are “bringing drugs'' and “crime.” Both Trump’s rhetoric and ideological approach to citizenship is hardly shocking. According to a 2016 NBC poll, 72 percent of Republicans - whose party is currently ⅘ White - still doubt that president Barack Obama is a United States citizen; a conspiracy theory made popular by his successor. Undoubtedly, the impetus for such a baseless claim was that president Obama simply did not look like he could be a citizen and therefore his birth must be subject to investigation. Or perhaps his name did not sound White enough. After all, in neither name nor race does Barack Hussein Obama resemble the figures who form the foundation of American shared memory.
In addition to military or legal strategies, there are cultural means to relegate non-Whites to a subcitizen status. A common approach done by both politicians and ordinary Americans is to dehumanize their target. When he grew tired of lambasting liberals for allegedly making America a “dumping ground for people from third world shitholes,” Blake Neff, the former tele-prompt writer for Tucker Carlson Tonight, referred to Asian women as “shrews'' and “megashrews.” It is no wonder that anti-Asian hate crimes were ripe to grow exponentially after the advent of Covid-19. Disgustingly, he made these social media posts while employed by the show, and they likely rubbed off on his boss. But perhaps Neff was merely taking cue from president Reagan, who only a decade before his White House residency was calling Africans “monkeys.”
The popular show’s host, Tucker Carlson, brazenly promotes Great Replacement Theory, which when not being referenced in manifestos for mass murderers, has undeniable ties to White Supremacy by suggesting that elite leftists are purposely promoting illegal immigration with the intent to overpower the White voting electorate. In other words, non-White immigrants are being smuggled into America to drown out the White vote, thereby threatening the enfranchisement of White Americans. And to have one’s vote watered down is to not enjoy the full rights of nationhood membership, relegating one to a lower tier of subcitizenry. It is critical to explain the logic of these linguistics. Carlson and many of his media comrades implicitly believe that it is an impossibility for non-White migrants to live integrated amongst their new neighbors. Rather, they believe that these non-Whites can only live separately from their neighbors, forming some dystopian, ethnically divided bloc of mindless voters who do whatever Democrats tell them to do. And of course, these aforementioned Democrats hate the United States.
According to conservatives, these non-Whites, for either cultural of political reasons, are here to dilute the Whiteness of America, and because the quilt of our shared history is inextricably stitched together with patches of White greatness, any threat to alter its color scheme is seen as a direct attack on America herself. It is why right-wing politicians tactfully deploy the term “invasion” to mischaracterize the plight of immigrants from Latin America, despite most of them arriving emaciated and donning rags while possessing nothing more than prayer and hope. They must be seen as a threat, an enemy, and an enemy posing a threat to America should not and cannot be citizens. Remember, their version of shared history features enemies and terrorists foreign, not domestic. When selecting which trophy to present in their shared history’s showroom, it is much easier for natives to comprehend Washington’s siege against the redcoats at Yorktown than Grant’s siege against fellow Americans at Vicksburg. In fact, the inability of many a White Southerner to disavow the Confederate chapter of their shared history speaks volumes about who they deem permissible for American membership. As recently as June of 2021, 120 Republican members of Congress (192 out of their 211 members identify as White) voted against a motion to remove from the Capitol Building both Confederate monuments and a bust of Roger Taney of Dred Scott infamy. When these sculptures were first erected, they were not done so with the intent to teach future generations about American mishaps. They were made in honor and to honor. So, when White politicians tell you that they wish for treasonous, anti-democracy segregationists to be glorified in the city that houses their shared history, believe them.
Discrimination between immigrant peoples and transgendered peoples share some central similarities, one that should be addressed. They too, alongside African Americans, Latino Immigrants and other minorities have found themselves demoted to subcitizenry. Consider the nuanced albeit ever present difference between American citizenship and the phrase “nationhood membership.” Granted, there are legal criteria to determine who is an American citizen. But do not confuse legal status with what it means to be a member of American society. No, to be granted access to nationhood one must first be granted access to our shared history. During their attempts to gain membership, non-Whites have been met by an innumerable amount of both literal and figurative fencing. For instance, forty-something-year-old Karens are persistently fighting to prevent institutional racism from being taught in our classrooms. When translated into the conversation of Americanism, this means that many are preventing African Americans from inserting their chapter into its rightful place among our shared history. Acknowledging that Thomas Jefferson, an esteemed cornerstone of this shared history, likely raped a 14-year-old, enslaved Sally Hemmings only to force his own children into slavery makes for a messy origin story. Hence, Americans have chosen to sacrifice the accuracy of their legacy to keep intact a glorious yet only partially true account of their collective past.
But what are some Americans doing to prevent transgendered folks from obtaining full status? One tactic is to either enact policies to keep them out of the American military or advocate for lawmakers to do so. Why? American shared history reveres military accomplishments. It has inspired cultural totems such as Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation and Tom Hank’s Band of Brothers; the former notably dedicating merely a single profile to a non-White veteran and the latter ignoring them in total. Many White Americans pay homage to this particular pillar of shared history, reminiscing about the patriotic prestige displayed from Bunker Hill to Iwo Jima and everywhere in between. Enlisting is a surefire way to simultaneously worship shared history and fuse oneself into it, in doing so becoming even further ingratiated as a member of the nation.
Knowing this reveals the cultural intent of Trump’s transgender military policy. The policy, enacted in Spring of 2019, was summarized as disallowing the new enlistment of “anyone with gender dysphoria who is taking hormones or has already undergone a gender transition.” Serving in the American military functions as a vital key for unlocking the door to shared history and consequently, nationhood membership. Transgendered people were prohibited from doing so and thereby denied a chance to surpass their subcitizen status. This tactic embodies the spirit of other kindred policies, such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and segregating units during both World Wars.
Despite the myriad, visibly observable ways in which my Great Aunt Mary failed to integrate into American society, she hardly came under the perpetually scrutinous eye of immigration critics. Escaping their nationalist inspections reveals more about these watchdogs than it does my great aunt, however. She posed no meaningful threat to the native borns’ way of life. To their culture. To their deified although factually selective, and therefore incomplete shared history. If one had headphones in while my aunt was rambling on about crack in broken English, and failed to hear her Italian accent, it would be reasonable to believe that she too idolizes the moments of White glory that constitute our shared history. Considering that this very history is conspicuously absent of prominent, non-White contributions to the nation, I wonder how these nationhood guards would perceive my aunt if she hailed from El Salvador? It takes no longer than a few moments of honest introspection to arrive at the logical, depressing answer to that question.
Zia Mary possessed physical attributes to suggest that her imagined memory of America’s past deeds is overwhelmingly framed by White people. How is Tia Maria, however, supposed to envision the American ancestors of our shared history and perceive them to be her ancestors too? Moreover, how is an African-American supposed to imagine those same patriotic heroes of liberation then praise them, knowing most of them literally perpetuated the enslavement of their forebears? That they willingly chose to remove Jefferson’s polemic on slavery from the Declaration. The price for African Americans to gain entry into nationhood is to not only ignore the wicked treatment of their predecessors, but worship the very ones who whipped, raped and branded them. In order to become who they want, they must forget who they are; a cost so unethical it deserves no serious consideration. Because this entry fee is inapplicable to Latin American immigrants, nationhood protectionists have been forced to try a new scheme, one which altogether prohibits immigrants from entering America. Ironically, it was a famed Spanish speaker that offered the most useful insight for this discussion.
Renowned Spanish philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno, pondered the role of continuity in humankind. Unknowingly, his elegant writings have found new purpose in this essay. “Memory is the basis of individual personality, just as tradition is the basis of the collective personality of a people.” Troublingly, the United States has never agreed upon tradition because tradition stems directly from history. The vast ideological differences in America vary geographically, and logic instructs us to inspect the Southern states for clues as to how separate histories can be taught in this country. In fact, Virginia is a suitable place to demonstrate this point.
Beginning in 1957 and lasting throughout the 1970s, the high school textbook, Cavalier Commonwealth, taught the Lost Cause Theory, which retitled the Civil War as a “Defense Against Invasion, 1861-1865." In an attempt to rally support against the Civil Rights Movement of the mid 20th century, the text appallingly and purposefully misinformed students. One passage regarding slavery stated that slaves, “did not work so hard as the average free laborer, since he did not have to worry about losing his job. In fact, the slave enjoyed what we might call comprehensive social security. Generally speaking, his food was plentiful, his clothing adequate, his cabin warm, his health protected and his leisure carefree.” The state of Georgia included similar wording in their textbook and as recently as 2015, Texas had to rewrite their textbook after a high school freshman complained because the book described the the slave trade as migrating "millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations." Obviously, these slaves were captured and brought to America against their will, going so far as to commit suicide on the ships during the Middle Passage. Moreover, the term “workers” implies being paid wages.
This isn’t the only time Texans were caught trying to paint a false picture of non-Whites. In 2016, a Mexican-American textbook was scholarly reviewed by professional historians, each of whom proceeded to vote against its statewide implementation. When discussing stereotypes, the textbook featured a comparison of Mexican and White workers: “In contrast, Mexican laborers were not reared to put in a full day’s work so vigorously. There was a cultural attitude of ‘mañana,’ or ‘tomorrow,’ when it came to high-gear production. It was also traditional to skip work on Mondays, and drinking on the job could be a problem. The result was that Mexican laborers were seen as inferior and kept in low-paying, unskilled jobs that did not provide a pathway upward.” The scholars who reviewed this textbook noted the passages’ historiographic failure, writing that, “The authors fail to make use of the vast literature on stereotypes to offer a critique of the demeaning and unsubstantiated anti-Mexican views in history. The authors’ use of the term ‘stereotypically’ suggests that they are attributing these views to others, but their uncritical use of anti-Mexican views allows them to stand and reinforces the stereotypes.”
It is no secret that humans are most impressionable during their youth. For decades, tens of millions of Americans were taught that slavery was not as bad as Northerners made it out to seem. That slaves - if that was even the most appropriate title for them - were joyously singing songs in cotton fields and getting fat on pork chops while glad-handing their owners. That Mexicans were lazy and by extension undeserving of the rewards a hard day's work on American soil can offer. And even though those textbooks were updated to include more accuracy and context (a struggle still seen today), it is fair to reason that countless parents and grandparents subjected to that misinformation have passed it down to their offspring. If you are wondering why Americans seem to be living in two separate countries, it is because they have been taught two separate histories of it.
The battles for shared history and immigration are surely married to each other, but what is the status of them today? The most blood is being spilled on right-wing battlefields, where one can witness wealthy, corporate generals instructing columnist soldiers and talk show host lieutenants to shoot aimlessly into the fray. Private first class Cal Thomas, best known for his anti-LGBTQ commentary during the Obama Administration, fired his shots in an op-ed from June of 2021. The boldly titled “Lying about migrants with a straight face,” column tipped Thomas’ hand before the article was even read. To him, Latin Americans are not immigrants; a term which implies permanence. No, they are migratory in nature, ephemeral in both residency and, if Thomas has his wishes, cultural impact. Nevertheless, Thomas says the racist part aloud and in doing so divulges the brash audacity that fuels these conservatives monologues. On immigration Thomas penned, “There are critics who say this is part of a plan by Democrats to ‘import’ new voters and make the party a permanent majority. That may be part of it, but I suspect another reason is to undermine the values and traditions that built and have sustained this country from the beginning.” Adroit observers will notice that Thomas slyly references the racist Great Replacement Theory; however, it takes no more than a 1950s Texas education to notice the major flaw in his explanation.
Mr. Thomas, what exactly are the “values and traditions” that Latin American humans will “undermine?” Do Latin Americans value family any less than Americans do? Do they not value individualism, self-sustainability and a rigorous work ethic? Does walking hundreds of miles away from bullet-riddled shacks and through Cartel operated drug zones, with hardly a penny to their name, not serve as a testimony to just how much these families embody Americanism? If one needs a visible image of what American values are, observe not only the motive for border-crossing, but the dangers endured when completing it. In spite of this, Thomas still believes Latin Americans are unable to possess these allegedly superior American values and it is precisely because they are Latin American. This is racism by definition. Not only do we now know the discriminatory bile which Thomas substitutes as ink for his diatribes, we know which textbook he was likely taught from during his school years.
Sadly, the more reputable conservative intellectuals have also failed to avoid this battle as conscientious objectors. Ross Douthat of New York Times fame dutifully followed his marching orders. An op-ed published in July of 2021 featured Douthat discussing the recently federalized holiday of Juneteenth. Douthat deployed this federalization as proof that conservatives have “shifted” and become more progressive on race issues, claiming that “recent congressional voting” shows that most of the GOP is “pro-Juneteenth.” This is a flawed grasp at evidence and an intellectual like Douthat should know better. While most of the Republican Party voted in favor of making Juneteenth a national holiday, the vote does not represent the conservative movement at-large. According to a 2021 Gallup Poll, only 17 percent of Republican voters believe Juneteenth should be taught in school while 31 percent believe it should remain out of our classroom and consequently, our shared history. In fact, more than 60 percent of all Americans “know ‘nothing at all’ or only ‘a little bit’ about Juneteenth” according to the same survey. How can White citizens be on the track to rectifying our shared history if we do not know it to begin with? No, Mr Douthat, this is not evidence of progress. More likely, Republicans saw a chance to improve public relations with African Americans at a cost they can stomach; one which does not alter their coveted version of shared history.
Is it merely a coincidence that the state of Texas continues to inject itself into this cultural inquiry? In addition to the conservative intellectuals who are sacrificing their integrity on this battlefield, right-wing legislators have taken up figurative arms. No social debacle captures this culture war for nationhood more than a recent debate over Texas’ Alamo history. When appropriating a $450 million renovation to the famous battle site, Texans weighed including the contributions of slaves as part of the official history for the state’s origin story. Enslaved people helped defend the Alamo and ultimately supported the fight for Texan independence. According to the Texas Tribune, however, “Key members of the state’s GOP leadership and some conservative groups are insisting that the renovation stay focused on the battle. A bill introduced by 10 Republican state lawmakers would bar the overhaul from citing any reasons for the Texas Revolution beyond those mentioned in the Texas Declaration of Independence — which does not include slavery.” Sadly, this nativist Cancel Culture did not stop there. Three hours before authors Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson and Jason Stanford were to present a new book - Forget the Alamo - at the Bullock Texas State History Museum, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick abruptly canceled the event. Why? The book factually challenged the heroic history of Texas’ birth by accurately delineating the ways slaves and Tejanos fought alongside folklorish legends such as Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. More controversially, it argued that a main reason Texas fought for independence was to preserve slavery. Naturally, conservative politicians could stomach neither the tainting of their home state's glorious birth nor the adoration of black and brown persons who assisted in its midwifery, effectively denying the integration of non-Whites into the shared history they worship so mindlessly dutifully.
Before concluding, the irony or downright hypocrisy of the nativist conservative movement must be addressed. Play along in a guessing game or sorts. Pretend you must correctly name the country being described. It features a strongman executive who explicitly brags about not only his machismo, but his illegal sexual conquests. Years of avoiding jail time after defrauding thousands through failed business schemes have only encouraged this strongman to lean further into his authoritarian, above-the-law tendencies. This executive directs an intelligence agency to spy on journalists who write unflattering and vital stories of public interest about him. He pressures an allied country to dig up dirt on political opponents and in doing so engages in international extortion. Precious government jobs are gifted to underqualified cronies and family members. And finally, when this government executive fairly and freely loses reelection, without evidence he alleges mass voter fraud before inflaming a violent attempt at insurrection.
If you guessed that this country was El Salvador, home to Niyab Bukele, you’d be wrong, sorry. Nicaragua and Daniel Ortega would have also proven incorrect. No, by now you should know which North American country and president was being referred to. Many right-wing critics are quick to note the rise in border-crossings happening under the current Biden Administration. In particular, they note that the rise in crossings during Biden’s tenure is greater than those of Trump’s tenure. That is accurate. Perhaps America is now more attractive to immigrants because its leader is ethical, compassionate, empathetic and honest. Perhaps the dream of living under the sagacious guide of an earnest, law-abiding public servant can now be fulfilled. If escaping government corruption is the goal of Honduran immigrants, their journey north to America during the Trump Administration would ironically be little more than a lateral move. Naturally, the question must be broached: on what grounds can Americans hold Latin immigrants to values in which they themselves cannot maintain? Do the same Americans who stormed or supported the January 6th attempted coup have any ethical standing to deny Salvadoran refugees as they flee from a president who stationed military troops in his country’s national congress?
There is no word quite perfect enough to capture the undeserved sanctimony today’s nativists so brazenly display. Their hypocrisy is as ugly as their reason for it. And now, at Trump rallies and pro-Desantis online forums, extreme conservatives are pushing their nativism past what could be the point of no return. The linguistics used by both politicians and rally goers alike ignite xenophobic rage and offer little hope that it will be peacefully extinguished. Simply consider the name of Trump’s recent string of rallies, which he titled the “Save America” tour. Notice Trump lackey Roger Stone’s language when he commented on Trump’s CPAC speech, predicting it will be about how, “conservatives, free thinkers, Republicans, libertarians can take America back.” That word choice sounds disconcertingly familiar to the “Reclaim America” slogan of the Patriot Front - a White Supremacist group that sent scores of marchers to Philadelphia to protest immigration. Unsurprisingly, their latest march occurred over the 4th of July Weekend. Throughout the Trump presidency, many a scholar asked a version of the same question: who specifically did these nativists want America to be saved, taken back, or reclaimed from? These questions missed the mark, albeit only narrowly. Instead of asking who nativists think America needs to be saved from, we should be asking who they believe it needs to be saved for.
If the answer to this question has not been divulged already, present day American mythmaking will certainly do so. Moreover, it will reveal the bifurcation of a nation into two separate realms; one which adheres to the rules of reality and another that bends them to propel forward an idyllic sense of nationhood. Prior to the conservative martyrdom of Ashli Babbitt, it was fair to wonder if a strict adherence to American values could refocus nativist backlash away from immigrants and towards ideological foes. On the surface, Vladimir Putin’s Russia should naturally be the foe that draws the ire of patriots. Putin has been caught infiltrating agents into American political movements, including penetrating the NRA via Maria Butina and the 2016 Trump campaign through Konstantin Kilimnik, who channeled internal polling data to Russia once it was handed over by Paul Manafort. The Russian authoritarian issued bounties to Afghans who murdered American soldiers stationed in the Middle East. He ordered the hack into the 2016 presidential election and is likely giving both consent and protection to recent ransomware attacks. To boot, Russian agents attempted to assassinate Alexei Navalny, who is the democratic opposition leader to Putin.
Something is inherently broken in America if its citizens have not yet bounded together in jingoistic fervor against Russia. In the last five years alone Putin has threatened the sanctity of America’s most sacred ideals; voting rights, economic freedom, and military protection. If one were to create a supervillain capable of uniting all Americans against a singular archenemy, it would be Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, this has not happened. Conversely, Republican Trump voters are more favorable towards Putin than they are towards their current president, by a margin of four percentage points. If conservatives will not hate Putin for his anti-American values, they are not likely to support immigrants who actually do possess the ideals Americans admire.
In fact, the opposite may be true. Pro-Trump republicans have made a martyr out of Ashli Babbitt, the January 6th insurrectionist who banded with armed seditionists to break “ into the Speaker’s Lobby, just outside the House chambers where members of Congress were hiding” with the intent of overthrowing a free and fair election. A member of the Capitol Police shot and killed Babbitt during her attempt to illegally invade congress. Any rational, objective human can determine the myriad ways in which Babbitt encapsulates the antithesis of what it means to be a “good American.” She is closer to Lee Harvey Oswald than she is Crispus Attucks, and yet this did not stop Kmart and Sears from selling t-shirts that feature a flag sandwiched between her name and the phrase “American Patriot.”
There is little hope for those who seek it. Millions of White Americans are digging their heels into the beloved soil they claim to be inheritably theirs. As political and social agendas blur together at a startling pace, America grows more fractured, ideologically and geographically. There is legitimate cause for existential concern. States with large rural populations are passing laws attempting to shape the way history is taught to future generations. If successful, they will exponentially increase the odds that decades of White Americans in their respective states will subscribe to a shared history that misclasses non-Whites as subcitizens. A suspicious American might assume that conservatives are attacking Critical Race Theory to win back suburban voters for the 2022 midterm elections. A cynic, however, knows that their long-term, master plan is to ensure that a majority of Americans maintain that their country is founded on the flawless deeds of White men.
Unfortunately, this culture war has a strong chance of actualizing its figurative violence. What more evidence does one need? The same people who cheered on every one of Trump’s ethnic harangues went on to storm the Capitol after being duped into believing his Big Lie. Is it wise to place one’s hope for multicultural peace in those same people? Conservative intellectuals and ultrafamous media figures are openly promoting White Supremacy conspiracy theories. No, the January 6th insurrection was not a mere wake-up call for Americans. It was not just an indication that worse times could be in our future if wide scale changes are not soon made. Nor was it a warning shot fired from chauvinist vigilantes in protection of their homeland. This was the hunters’ opening salvo. The threat is here, now. It may take decades or centuries, but the United States is on pace to undergo an unprecedented transformation. Perhaps the urban-to-rural, north-to-south population shifts will drastically scale up. States may become regionalized due to similar political beliefs. Regardless, Americans are living during the genesis of a national realignment not experienced since the Civil War. And while the mass bloodshed of that war may be absent this time around, the result may be different.