All of the articles are an exploration in the current historiography of the field of migrant/ ethnic studies. Wrote by scholars in the field in all cases being asked to write how they very the current state of the field of where it is going. Contained within these articles is what is the hallmark of all historians, the simple message of “ it is more complicated”.
First the essay titled “Globalizing Migration Histories? Learning for two Case Studies” involved an erudite scholar commenting on his perspective on the state of the migrant studies. By using two case studies of Italian and Candian migrants and how that they are misrepresented or not spoke on enough has he believes. The article focus on the shift to a purely global perspective of migrations and the shift away from the Eurocentric view of the past on migrations. Using example like the traditional perspective on Italian immigration is much more complicated with varying migrants not just to the US. Also on the importance of Canadian immigration to the US also those who came to Candian at the same time as the US. With the being said I personally found the article dense and long-winded to an unnecessary extent while containing a French Candian and Italian biases.
Second, “Nation of Migrants, Historians of Migration” tries to counter popularly help beliefs by applying the scholars’ angle to what the author states as cliches within America. The most important being that “ America is a nation of immigrants” by spending large portions of the article discusses the lack of novelty of the migration stories of the US. The picking apart of that cliche with things like citing where it first came from and how the way of thinking effects scholars today. Even the point of what it seemed like that scholar’s goal is to prove that statement or “myth”, as the author puts it, false. I could not follower the logic applied in the article, it said both, America is not a nation of immigrants and that it is an area of study which involves complex ethic history where people of all backgrounds globally traveled to America. Which to me seems like trying to frame the discussion into scholar court even though meaning the same thing.
Lastly, “A Part and Apart: Asian American and Immigration History” discussed the importance of Asian Americans in the history of the US. Another survey of the field of study and also provides an interesting view of a heated argument between scholars. The bulk of the article seems to be a personal explanation of their career path and current any of the studies. The section that discussed the shift in their department in the methodological approach to migrant studies and the authors own studies and research into the Asian American experience in US migration history. The author also discusses the assimilation of culture and that affects a large ethnic community, along with how the field studies it. The article did seem strangely biographical in nature describing in an almost narrative like sense on the author’s careers and how they ended up where they are now, which I found odd.