Most Americans are surprised to learn that the Germans were among the first groups to be resented and feared by the “old stock” English speaking Americans. No less a figure than Benjamin Franklin, a framer of the United States Constitution and supporter of the Bill of Rights, once complained that the Germans of Pennsylvania, “ will be shortly so numerous as to Germanize us and [who] will never adapt to our language or customs anymore than they can acquire our complexion.”
The reasons for this widespread prejudice against Germans –“Palantine Boors, ” Franklin called them-- were as follows. The Germans spoke a different language, there were a lot of them, they were often successful, and they were of a different and very threatening religion –namely Roman Catholic. Of course events did not work out as Franklin and many others had feared. In not very much time (about a generation, as is usual) German speakers learned English, no one was forced to convert to Roman Catholicism, and if Germans voted as a block, it was chiefly on matters dealing with the brewing industry or sausage production. German ethnicity in the United States is now an abandoned or fragile identity imperfectly betrayed by German surnames, the way that names of rivers often reveal the passage an ancient tribe
The anti-German sentiments of the late colonial period set the pattern for far more virulent outbreaks of American Nativism. The massive immigration during the 1840s and 1850s of Irish Catholics inspired the formation of secret and often violent anti-immigrant groups. Once again, religion was a fundamental fear, as was competition for jobs, and political power. Only a couple of decades, later nativistic phobias raised the specter of race. Amidst fantastical tales of white slavery, and “ opium dens,” the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was passed by Congress—the first of many such laws.
Despite the present American concern over the “vast” numbers of new immigrants, by far the period of greatest immigration into the United States was during the period from the 1880 until shortly after the First World War. In many eastern seaboard cities, and especially New York City , foreign born Americans outnumbered native born citizens. Coming chiefly from southern and eastern Europe, these new immigrants, who were often Jewish, were greeted with rising tides of nativism and virulent Anti-Semitism. The Ku Klux Klan, a secret society, first organized to terrorize African-Americans after the Civil War, experienced a resurgence following the First World War and grew to have a membership approaching 4,000,000 that was anti-black, anti-catholic, anti-Semitic , and anticommunist. The political power of this violent organization, which was exclusively white, protestant, and native born , should not be underestimated. Here again we find the standard set of fears but with the added danger of communism often used heighten domestic fears.
Hispanics are now defined in the traditional, nativistic manner as a threat to the well being of the “true” citizens of the United States and to its traditional values. Once again matters of “race,” and language enter into the public discourse. Restrictive laws are passed and fences are built along the southern border of the United States. All to little effect; it seems that when confronted with a fence, people will climb over it.
The most recent anti-immigrant legislation, and the most notorious , is Arizona Senate Bill 1070 allowing any police officer within the state of Arizona to detain anyone on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. That, at any rate, is the gist of the law and it is in absolute contradiction to the letter and principle of the US Constitution. As such, it is a case in point of just how far legislative authorities will go when pressed by fears of an “alien” presence.
The dramatic reaction to the influx of Mexican Hispanics represents nothing new; it is merely a minor variation on the traditional nativistic concerns of language, “race, ” competition for good jobs, crime, and large numbers of supposedly unassimilable outsiders. Religion would surely have been included into this supposedly indigestible mix except that concerns over Roman Catholicism as an alien and threatening entity are nowadays nil. Few people, outside of a mental institution, are concerned about Papal influence over the executive although this strange delusion was not so long ago an absolute conviction on the part of many Americans.
How closely might the Islamic experience in the United States be expected to follow this pattern? To be sure, the pattern of discrimination against Muslims in the United States shifted dramatically after the attack on the Twin Towers. Anti-Islamic activities, some violent, were numerous and clearly in response to 9/11. This did not last. Efforts by community leaders, political leaders (including the President) and religious leaders were surprisingly effective in dampening down the anti-Muslim atmosphere which conformed to the usual definition of Islamophobia. What followed was a gradual return to the anti-Muslim attitudes that had prevailed before the attack on the twin Towers and the invasion of Iraq. These attitudes are much along the lines of American nativism.
Muslims first arrived in the United States in the early 19th century and now make up something over three percent of the American population. This percentage is expected to increase. Just as with other ethnic and religious groups, anti-Muslim prejudices arise from fears of the Islamic religion, foreign customs, language (s) and a perception that Muslims do not wish to assimilate to the American mainstream. In short, anti-Muslim feelings stem from essentially the same concerns that fostered American nativism in the late 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. The greatest correspondence lies with the pattern of bigotry and “hate crimes,” ( such as the defacement of sacred artifacts) that are also directed against members of the Jewish faith. There is a steady, but widely spaced, occurrence of such acts directed toward Mosques or Islamic centers, just as there are against Jewish Temples. There is also a pattern of discrimination in the workplace and acts of low level bigotry in general. This pattern of prejudice and occasional violence directed toward the followers of Islam is strikingly similar to the pattern of anti-Semitism in the United States during the nineteen thirties. But there is one fundamental difference: anti-Semitic bigotry, widely practiced in the workplace and elsewhere, was not then illegal; such practices today whether directed toward a Muslim, Jew or any group would now be regarded as discriminatory.
To be very sure, any effort to impose pattern on social history suppresses complexity and the history of American immigration and American nativism is most complex. Nevertheless, the most reasonable expectation of the future of members of the Islamic faith within the United States is that it will conform to past patterns of assimilation and accommodation. Islamophobia, however virulent worldwide, will be a passing hindrance to this traditional and desirable outcome. Moreover there is another parallel and supporting pattern by which nativism is replaced by acceptance and support. Immigrant communities are often closely knit and supportive socially. They are deeply religious and disciplined economically. Frequently the place of worship is a center for the immigrant community, a source of news, support, political advice, and financial assistance. In greater or lesser degree, this has been true of all immigrant groups. It is especially true of Moslem immigrants. In short, the full acceptance of Moslems within the vast and diverse community of the United States will come not despite their religion but because of their religion.
(Jon T Oplinger, Professor Sociology, University of Maine at Farmington, USA)