Huntington argues that there is a disagreement between the deconstructionalist movement and the public; the latter being against transnationalism and wanting to remain nationalistic. Sec-ondly, immigration is examined. In his study of Latin Americans’ behaviour, Huntington con-tends that Mexican immigrants do not share American values nor will they acquire them over time; they refuse to assimilate and eventually naturalise, and insist on a transnational identity based on non-American values, such as bilingualism and dual citizenship. Controversially, the section argues that an “advancing Hispanization throughout America …” will eventually result in a “demographic Reconquista” of former Mexican territories (2004:221.) In the book’s final section, Huntington proposes a possible future for American identity where he predicts the rise of white nativist movements and …show more content…
Firstly, Huntington’s plead for a return to America’s Anglo-Protestant roots en-tirely neglects the power structures that historically have forced these values on the public; rather, he argues that “[e]xcluding blacks, America was a highly homogenous society …” (2004:44.) It strikes as a cynical defect of argument that his claims are dependent on depicting certain groups of the American society as inferior to the “true” Anglo-Protestant public, thus, contributing to an ongoing nativist sentiment in America. This disregard for minorities is per-sisting throughout the book which is also seen in how Huntington further argues that British settlers had no constraints in creating a new society as “[a]part from Indian tribes, which could be killed off or pushed westward, no society was there …” (2004:40.) Thus, Huntington ne-glects Native Americans’ legal right to their tribal lands by applying white supremacy to the settlers. This is a significant discourse of power that echoes in his survey of current