It was interesting to read about discourse between historians in Erika Lee’s “A Part and Apart: Asian Americans and Immigration History” regarding how immigration should be studied. The work provides insight into the field, and how it is evolving, recognizing that past non-European immigrants and contemporary immigrants are affected both by having migrated and by having experienced racial prejudice. Lee explores how immigration history is an increasingly interdisciplinary field through the intersections of immigration history with Asian American studies, since Asian American migration has a long history that involves experiences of immigration and racial prejudice. Lee ultimately suggests that incorporating other fields is necessary to more closely study and understand immigrant experiences. Personally, I feel that making fields more interdisciplinary is beneficial to contribute to a greater, more complex understanding, and I find it difficult to comprehend a past in which historians did not incorporate other fields.
Adam Goodman’s “Nation of Migrants, Historians of Migration” makes a compelling argument for rejecting the perception of the United States as a nation of immigrants and studying migration rather than immigration, as migration is more inclusive, less political, and provides a more global perspective. I had never heard of studying migration instead of immigration, but it makes much more sense and supports a more nuanced study of the movement of people. Goodman is right, language matters very much, and ideally institutions will change the title of courses and organizations, but for that, I think it the change to migration and what it means needs to become more mainstream, because institutions need to be able to communicate effectively with their audiences. I assume it will need publicity and time. The perception of the United States as a nation of immigrants is pervasive in school, politics, and popular culture, and although I have often heard criticism of the term “melting pot,” I had not previously heard such a strong argument to not just broaden the stereotype, which excludes African Americans and Native Americans and reinforces American exceptionalism, but to completely change how immigration is studied, with different language, a more global perspective, and with more interdisciplinary studies.
In “Globalizing Migration Histories? Learning from Two Case Studies,” Bruno Ramirez argues that the term “globalization” should be used cautiously, case by case. He uses Italian migration and Canadian migration as examples, exploring how Italian migration had a global range and became a phenomenon, whereas Canadian migration was regional and did not capture attention from historians. Ramirez suggests that the term global requires scale and spatiality. However, I was a little confused. How does attention from historians fit into his definition or perception of globalizing migration? Ramirez writes that Canadian regional migration “could have become globalized from a historiographical sense” but did not because it “failed to attract the interest it deserves” (Ramirez 5) which seems to suggest that an element of globalization relies on the attention certain migrants receive.
I agree that the Ramirez reading was a bit confusing. However, I think that when he referred to the amount of attention of each case he meant that because migration studies were so focused on European movement, it received more attention and therefore there was more research.
The idea of connecting Immigration History field and Ethnic Studies field is very important, as they are interrelated within a historical context. A past that did not embrace this idea is very hard to grasp, as it makes complete, logical sense. I feel the same way regarding not thinking about migration versus immigration; I now understand and agree with Goodman’s conceptualization of migration, including all minorities such as African Americans and American Indian that tend to be forgotten by immigration historians. As for “Globalizing Migration Histories?” I was a bit confused by some of his analogies and points as well. I did understand his inclusion of history in the importance of globalization through; the definition of historiography includes the importance of migration patterns and achievements made by said immigrant in the past (history) on a global scale.
I completely see where your coming from with the fact that it was never brought to our attention to study migration instead of immigration. but, it really does make sense if you really think about it. I was also confused on that point of why attention had anything to do with what the reading was about, which was about global migration. Again, it be cool to look into it to why it held a great significance. in a way.
I really like your discussion post because I can see where your thought process appears. As you mention the readings I can see how your own thought and opinions are stated. Like you agreeing with Goodman in terms of words being important. I really liked how you stated that.