Glazer, Nathan. "Multiculturalism and American Exceptionalism". In Multicultural Questions, edited by Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes, 183-197. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Glazer, Nathan. "Multiculturalism and American Exceptionalism". In Multicultural Questions, edited by Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes, 183-197. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

• In the 1990s, most Western European states and the USA actually had the same proportion of their population as foreign-borne, roughly 9% of the total, similar tensions regarding these populations, despite protections under liberal legal orders, also exist. Despite this, the fact that immigration was primarily driven by factors other than need for cheap labour, American celebration of immigration as a national value, and the existence of a deep racial divide all make the American situation radically different than that in Europe (183-185).
• The use of the term 'multicultural' in Europe and America reflects these deep difference. In the European context, multiculturalism refers to treatment of immigrants in national societies, whereas in America it refers to treatment of native-borne minorities, primarily Blacks, Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans (186).
• The distinction, unlike in Europe, is thus between native Whites, although not including certain White ethnic groups like Arabs or Latinos, and native-borne ethnic groups considered minorities (186-187).
• The different use of the term 'foreigner' in Europe and America also reflect this difference. The term foreigner is reserved for those who are temporarily visit the USA, never for immigrants or those who intend to permanently settle in the US. This leads to an essential eradication of the distinction between native and foreign-borne citizens, as demonstrated by the prominence of foreign-born Americans like Henry Kissinger (187).
• The entire idea of minority status in the USA has been an evolution, with the term intially focusing on Italians, Jews, Poles, and other European minority groups within the US. Since the 1960s and the incorporation of minority status as a legal concept through affirmative action, the term has come to refer specifically to Asians, Blacks, and other non-European minority groups (187-188).
• By the late 1960s, the government considered all European minority groups to be 'assimilated' into the majority White population, and stopped making any cultural or societal distinction between this group and other White ethnic groups. This is demonstrated from no census or employment tracking of White ethnic minorities (188).
• At various historical points, essentially during the Interwar period, America did try to implement multicultural policies intended to maintain the distinctions between different White minority groups, especially the Catholics and Jews, who were largely considered unable to assimilate to the dominent Protestant culture. These efforts did little to stop the actual process of assimilation, and these distinctions largely dissappeared by the 1960s (188-189).
• Within two or three generations, almost any immigrant group in the USA becomes incorporated into the dominant White culture. This occured for European and Middle Eastern immigrants, and is currently in the process of occuring for Latinos and Asians: think of the inclusion of Cuban immigrants into the category of White. The exception is Blacks, who are permanently excluded and marginalized, creating the tension surrounding race in America (189-190, 193).
• The sole immigrant group which the US still cannot or refuses to assimilate are Blacks, the vast majority of whom have been in America for generations due to the slave trade. While huge differences exist in the experiences of African, Carribean, and American-born Blacks, these distinctions are not noted by the general population and these groups are treated the same. It is the social problems that stem from the constant marginalization of Blacks which result in American discomfort around multiculturalism (190-191).
• The author recognizes that this dichotomy: Black versus non-Black, is limited and opposes other models such as White versus 'people of color', or a more diverse array of different racial groups all with opposing and overlapping interests. The author finds that the 'people of color' coalition is practically unsustainable, since the experiences of these minority groups are vastly different (191).
• In particular, Blacks stand alone it terms of their social and physical marginalization from the rest of America. Housing disparity and segregation affects Blacks, but generally not any other minority groups. Additionally, Blacks face social discrimination that other groups do not, reflected in lower rates of interracial marriage and continued segregation in schools (191-192).
• The particular American anxiety over multiculturalism stems, not from its general form, but from the Black variety of 'Afrocentrism' or 'Black pride'. These attitudes emphasize the differences of Blacks, forcing Americans to recognize the uncomfortable truth that Blacks have been excluded from the assimilation which all other ethnic groups have experienced or can expect to experience in the future (191).
• The author makes several contraversial claims regarding multiculturalism in the US, suggesting that Asians be removed from affirmative actions programs to reflect the general end of anti-Asian discrimination in education and employment, and that billingual education is a mistake likely to retard assimilation (192-193). Contraversial claims, although by no means entirely incorrect; he is just missing how contested these issues are.
• One of the major lessons of the American experience for Europe is that formal legal equality cannot bridge ethnic, racial, or cultural divides. The continued marginalization of Blacks in America demonstrates that these divides in Europe cannot be easily overcome (193).
• The other lessons are less clear. Ease of accessing citizenship and willingness to let in immigrants are important, as is requirements of political knowledge and loyalty for citizenship. This would require a radical change in European culture, however, and these policies really require a transformation from a culturally uniform nation-state into a diverse 'melting pot' state (197).
• The author provides two anecdotes that I like so I'm going to include them. If you don't like then, well then fuck you:
• "The first is from Ronald Takaki, a third-generation Japanese-American, a writer of important books on multiculturalism and American ethnic history, and a professor of ethnic studies at the University of California, Berkeley, who tells of a common experience. He describes how he will enter a taxi on his way to a college to give a lecture, and the taxi-driver will ask, 'And when did you come this country?' Takaki has no accent. He was born in the United States, and his parents were born in the United States. Other Asian-Americans tell the same story. Very possibly the taxi-driver himself is an immigrant. But his assumption is that an Asian must have just recently come to the United Sattes. The point of the story is, how long does it take a person who is neither black nor European in appearance to be considered an American, like all other Americans?" (193-194).
• "The second story is from the African-American economist and writer and professor of economics at Boston University, Glenn Loury. 'On a recent visit to Australia [he writes], I spent some time with a group of economists and sociologists at the local Bureau of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. They were eager to explain to a visiting American how well their country was managing its immigration policy. They stressed two main goals: to encourage newcomers to seek Australian citizenship, and to promote the idea of a multicultural identity, so that these newcomers will not feel it necessary to abandon their cultural heritge as the price of adopting a new nation. What struck me about this policy was its seeming incoherence. In what precisely did these analysts imagine Australian national identity to consist? Why would anyone feel loyalty to a country that required so little of him in order to join it?" (194).
• American policy encourages and pressures immigrants to become American citizens and makes it easy for them to do so. Welfare reform laws passed in 1996 severely restrict welfare services for non-immigrants, while reforms under the Clinton administration limited citizenship tests to English language and basic American history and civics (194).
• The expectations of immigrants to the US are greater than those in most European countries, requiring full renouncement of all previous national ties, requiring male immigrants between 18 and 35 to register for the draft, and demanding good knowledge of American history and civics (195).
• "Perhaps the paradox is best expressed in the comment often addressed to immigrants, when it turns out the person is not a citizen and doesn't intend to become one. The question of the interlocutor will often be an astonished and not friendly 'why aren't you a citizen?', expressing simultaneously annoyance that this person is not a citizen, but also, [...] a willingness -- more than willingness, an insistence -- on enrolling this person as a citizen, a new member of the all-embracing commonwealth" (195).
• Recent pressures on the citizenship regimes, especially following cuts to social services to non-citizens, have been met with increased resources for those wishing to apply for citizenship, including allowing easier access to the test and materials for study (195).
• Unfortunately, the fact that these laws apply equally to everyone and allow anyone to become an American citizen do not guarantee that the cultural and social recognition of citizenship is equally extended: in particular to Blacks and Asians (195).
• "So there will be no foreign enclaves in the United States, if the laws and common opinion can help it. All should be Americans. That seems to be the lesson of American immigration and citizenship practices that almost all Americans embrace. Multiculturalism, whatever the degree of its acceptance in one or another formulation, and it is widely accepted in schools and colleges, does not mean the new Americans should be different from the others who preceded them in loyalty, in language, in commitment to the common Constitution and the laws. The requirements for citizenship make all this clear. We are more tolerant in accepting difference than we were thirty years ago. But we do insist on a change of political identity in our naturalization laws —there is nothing multicultural about them yet. Our chief problems of diversity and divisiveness have, as I have argued above, quite another source, a home‐grown inability to incorporate black Americans fully into American society and economy. But concerning immigrants, we have no such problem" (196).