This week’s readings gave me a lot to consider as Liz and I prepare to undertake the task of telling the story of a group of migrants. Reconsidering the “immigrant paradigm” was an interesting exercise. I do, of course, know that certain immigrants have a position of privilege in American history, but I thought the Social Darwinist theory about the over-heated melting pot in Is Everywhere Nowhere? Nomads, Nations, and the Immigrant Paradigm of the United States History by Donna R. Gabaccia was particularly interesting. There was already so many different groups of people that some groups just couldn’t be absorbed…  Then I wondered, what are the effects of this refusal to fully embrace certain groups of people? I’m sure it causes a certain level of alienation, but—as Gabaccia points out—complete acceptance and assimilation into a new society leaves little to no room for homeland loyalties. If a group fully integrates into a society, does that cause a loss of cultural identity? Would it make a project like ours more difficult? If a group is not embraced by the new society, does this push them to form the enclaves that we are about to study?

I also thought it was kind of funny that one individual identified in Gary Gertle’s American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century called the ideas of democracy, equality, and inalienable rights the “American Creed.” Talk about American Exceptionalism. Gertle’s theory of civic nationalism vs. racial nationalism made me think deeper about the immigration policies of those who have lead the U.S., the presidents and congresspeople. Even when they were “liberal” they walked a fine line between the two “nationalisms.” All humans were equal, but since some were supposedly lesser humans or lesser groups, it was not problematic that these folks weren’t treated as equal. At least until they won their (what I will call) whiteness, as the Italians did in Gabaccia’s essay.

Again, plenty to think about as we begin this journey. Something that I will bear in mind—at least more than I already did—was the whole “us vs. them” issue, of being careful not to letting the immigration paradigm version of history become more important or prevalent than the history of the group whose story we tell. I thought this idea, from Adam Goodman’s Nation of Migrants, Historians of Migrants, served as a good warning for what to be careful of. As with writing any history, there are biases that one must be aware of so they can try to avoid them to maintain neutrality (at least, as much as one can). This is one of those biases that one may unwittingly fall into, especially because this is how the nation has wanted its history written in times past.