The term nativism, also known as Americanism, first gained meaning after the Civil War. The nativist goal was to protect the interests of the so-called “natives,” descendants of the original Anglo-Saxon settlers, above those of more recent immigrants. Nativist views were sometimes ugly and often resulted in racism, discrimination, mistreatment of immigrants, unjust immigration policies, and other deplorable parts of U.S. history. However, unlike another very ugly chapter in American history books, slavery, many believe nativism persists today. They point to President Trump's recent campaign platform as evidence that nativism is alive and well. Americanism incorporates many ideas and concepts: some remain racist and represent the worst human characteristics. However, within the broader scope of nativism, there have always been legitimate objectives mixed with racist elements; although the particular goals and elements may have evolved over time, nativism was and remains today a popular political topic and part of the political agenda of many politicians. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The beginning of the nativist movement is usually traced to the period following the Civil War, when immigration policies led to waves of new immigrants from countries such as Ireland, Germany, and then China. Immigration to the United States further accelerated due to the severe economic depression that hit Europe during the 1890s, when millions of immigrants arrived from Southern and Eastern Europe, including Catholic and Jewish immigrants; “Between 1871 and 1900 alone, 11.7 million immigrants arrived; and between 1901 and 1920 another 14.5 million arrived.” Many original Anglo-Saxon settlers and their descendants (ironically self-labeled “natives” without considering indigenous populations) felt threatened by these new immigrants. Nativists argued that the newcomers took jobs from Native Americans, and worse, they argued that Catholics, through the Papal Conspiracy, and Jews, through the International Jewish Conspiracy, posed a threat to society. This led to the birth of the original “anti-immigrant” sentiments that spread throughout the United States. Domestic support for the nativist movement was further strengthened by events around the world. Shortly after the Bolsheviks took power in the Soviet Union, the American Communist Party was founded in the early 1920s. This frightened Americans greatly, as they believed that the working class would eventually overthrow the middle and upper class. The resulting paranoia became known as the first Red Scare. This led President Woodrow Wilson to pass the Sedition Act: banning “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or offensive” speech about the United States. This was one of the first true representations of nativism in modern American law. Wilson used anti-immigrant sentiment in his campaign to get elected. Hans Vaught, of the University of Illinois, described that “Wilson, like most progressives, moderate or otherwise, detested not only the anarchist and socialist beliefs of some foreign-born, but completely failed to understand their conception of politics as an exchange of favors." His strong commitment to maintaining a nativist America ultimately helped him gain support and end up sitting in the White House. Wilson wanted to promote a strong sense of American nationalism and, in doing so, prohibited that feelingsnon-Americans developed in the United States. Extreme manifestations of this protectionist mentality and paranoia regarding the nefarious motives of “anti-Americans” led to the rise of such groups. such as the Ku Klux Klan, which targeted, among others, African Americans, Catholics and Jews. From there, nativist sentiment took off exponentially. Not only did many Americans not want any anti-American ideas in the United States, but the tide also shifted toward people who did not want any non-Americans in the United States. Nativism continued to gain influence during the Great Depression and World War II. In the early 1930s the national economy was crippled by record unemployment rates, food shortages, homelessness, and other widespread economic obstacles. Nativists argued that the country was already very busy trying to take care of its citizens, and there certainly weren't enough jobs or resources for non-Americans. Although World War II slowly began to bring some economic relief to the economy, underlying anti-Asian racism led President Franklin Roosevelt to issue the infamous Executive Order 9066, which called for the internment of more than 110,000 Japanese residents, many of whom were American citizens. . As a clear indicator of the underlying racism involved, General John L. DeWitt, the officer in charge of protecting the West Coast of the United States, argued that the internment was necessary because “The Japanese race is an enemy race and while many seconds- and third generation Japanese born on US soil, holding US citizenship, have become 'Americanized' and racial tensions are not diluted”. FDR sought to gain much political ground by implementing the internment program and pandering to anti-Japanese sentiments, while creating a strong, nativist front. This pleased many because, while keeping the “enemies” prisoner, it made FDR seem very nationalistic; overall, helping him gain supporters. After World War II, there were approximately 11 million displaced persons (DPs) in camps across Europe, many of whom were Jews. Some managed to return to their home countries. However, those who could not return needed somewhere else to live. Many hoped to come to the United States. Unfortunately, the United States refused to change the highly restrictive immigration policy passed in 1924 to assist these displaced people. In essence, nativists strongly opposed revising existing immigration policies to help displaced Jews, largely due to fears that Jews would bring radical ideas to the United States. Nativism certainly led to some very regrettable chapters in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, many argue that nativism is not a thing of the past, as evidenced by President Trump's recent campaign platform. They compare the current treatment of Mexican immigrants and immigrants from some Muslim countries to the past treatment of Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Catholics, and other groups targeted because of nativist beliefs. Trump's campaign, which emphasized building a wall along the Mexican border and strong border enforcement as well as limiting Muslim immigration, resonated well with many voters. Trump's critics point out that current suspicions about Muslim immigrants are very similar to the nativist and anti-Catholic views of the mid-19th century, when large groups of Catholics left Ireland and Germany: the papal conspiracy, the danger they pose to society , etc. This is also comparable to the reasons why Jews sinceDisplaced people after World War II were not permitted to immigrate to the United States in significant numbers. While it is entirely possible that Trump privately holds racist views, many aspects of his platform that are labeled as racist are really nothing new. Trump's so-called "Muslim ban" was essentially already in force having been adopted by President Obama. Indeed, “Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan were already on the list by the [Obama] administration's original law in 2015, and in February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Yemen and Somalia to the list of “countries causing concern, which imposed some Visa Waiver Program travel restrictions on those who had visited countries after March 1, 2011.” Likewise, Trump's “Mexican wall” has been on the table for many years. Historian and editor of the book Line in the Sand: A History of the Western Border between the United States and Mexico, Rachel St. John explained that even as early as 1918, building a border wall was being discussed. Trump simply underlined what already existed: Voters found it much more exciting to hear him talk about these concepts than his real estate deals. The fact that these elements of his electoral platform resonated so strongly with such a large portion of the electorate demonstrates that nativist views are still very much present in current American culture. Trump was looking for an easy place to gain political advantage, much like previous politicians who had incorporated nativist concepts into their platforms. The “undesirables” may have ranged from Catholics, Asians, and Jews to Mexicans and Muslims, but the principles are the same: prevent these groups from coming to the United States because of the threats they pose, that they want to change America, that immigrants will take jobs, resources, etc. Americans. Obama, Bush and Clinton, and others before them, such as Roosevelt, in taking action against the Japanese, in one way or another incorporated these types of "nativist" themes into their platforms because it always had great resonance with large part of the electorate. In short, politicians will continue to frequently resort to nativism as an easy way to gain support and popularity. There is always a large portion of the population who will vote for someone who promises strong borders and restrictive immigration policies. This was true after the Civil War and remains very true today. When examining nativism closely, it is necessary to make a distinction between parts of nativism based on racist principles or unfounded conspiracy theories, such as the papal conspiracy, or the idea that all Muslims are terrorists, and the legitimate desire to control the flow of immigration to ensure that Americans have jobs and that there are sufficient resources available for its citizens. For example, few argued that it was racist to want to curb immigration during the Great Depression because of the already scarce jobs. It is widely believed among political scholars that “a country has the right to secure its borders and protect the interests of current citizens at the expense of potential immigrants. [E]ach country has the sovereign right to control its own borders.” Friedman points out that the desire to protect a country's borders is not in itself racist. Indeed, it is fundamental for the existence of a democratic state to be able to regulate its population, determine who can enter the country and under what conditions. Furthermore, Kaufmann goes a step further by writing that it is also entirely legitimate for a group to protect its own individual culture and share of the population, and to protect that group at the possible expense of others. He noted that these./27501140.