After spending chapter 8 discussing assimilation patters in America, Huntington turns in chapter 9 to discussing Mexican Immigration. Mexican immigration is different than almost any other ethnic group in many ways. America and Mexico have a special relationship because of their 2000 mile long contiguous border, as well as the fact that they are the only instance where a first world country borders a third world country. Mexican immigration by numbers vastly exceeds those of any other groups by far, with the number in 2000 being almost 6 million higher than the next highest. (Mexico: 7,841,000 China: 1,291,000) Mexican immigration happens illegally at higher rates than other groups. Immigrants concentrate regionally in a way that other groups of immigrants have not, especially as they lived in the country for a couple of generations. Mexican immigration has been persistent in a way that no other major period of immigration from a specific area has been, with the civil war and the great depression having stopped previous waves of immense migration. Perhaps most importantly, no group except for Mexicans is migrating into territory that used to be theirs. Many of the southwestern states were Mexican territory until Texas independence and the Mexican American war. A combination of these factors is hindering the assimilation of Mexican immigrants, and Huntington postulates that this could have disastrous consequences for American identity. He fears that the country might be split into two, with two dominant languages and cultures. Traditionally, nations with that kind of political and cultural organization have had trouble staying together.
Author: Oliver Herndon
I think that the film is highly inaccurate in its portrayal of the sentiments of ordinary Americans. I recognize that the film takes place during a period of “hard times,” but I am not at all convinced that the American people would respond so enthusiastically to criminals in this way.
The thief and the gangster and the outlaw and so on have always been common tropes in American popular media, oftentimes as the heroes. But those narratives are so compelling because, usually, they are the stories of these people reckoning with their lives of evil and, in some cases, choosing to leave the criminal life. Bonnie and Clyde distinctly do not fall into this category as they were excited about the prospects of committing crimes up until the moment it got them killed.
I believe the authors got it wrong that average Americans would cheer Bonnie and Clyde, especially in the small town/rural setting of the time period the film takes place. The main characters kill a significant amount of police officers and some civilians as they go on their crime spree. These officers likely had wives, families, and were active in their church and their local communities. These are the kinds of men who provide an often life-saving public service and will be mourned by their entire community upon their death.
While portrayed as heroic outlaws, Bonnie and Clyde are more akin to domestic terrorists. They kill innocents and law enforcement, along with causing economic loss and destruction wherever they go. I’m am skeptical that the American public truly felt as warmly about Bonnie and Clyde as the film portrayed them to. If you agree, disagree, or have the facts to either prove or disprove me, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Categories
Short Essay #3
In Cormac McCathy’s novel “All the Pretty Horses”, John Grady Cole serves as an accurate representation of the Anglo-Protestant culture described by Samuel Huntington in his book “Who Are We: The Challenges to American National Identity.” Huntington describes America’s Anglo-Protestant culture as concisely defined by an almost universally accepted American Creed. Scholars differ in their specific articulations of the creed, but whether its a commitment to “the essential dignity of the individual human being, of the fundamental equality of all men, and of certain inalienable rights to freedom, justice, and a fair opportunity” (Huntington 68) or “to liberty, equality, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and private property” (Huntington 46), all definitions center around the same core principles found in early American dissenting protestant culture. John Grady Cole is an excellent exemplar of these principles. His tale of riding into unknown territory with nothing but his wits and his work is as American as can be. Three principles of the American creed that he embodies most obviously are strong individualism opposition to hierarchy, and commitment to principles, no matter the cost.
Before departing from his home country, John Grady Cole is distinctly aware of all the reasons he should not go to Mexico: the country is foreign to him, it is more dangerous than the United States, the same work will pay less, among others. In spite of this, he chooses to venture onward with only his horse and his most trusted companion. Along the way he faces challenges and setbacks, but no obstacle shakes his resolve. The same unquenchable spirit that in America has demanded neverending progress flourishes within John Grady Cole. What else could sustain him through loss after loss but a foundational belief in his individual will?
When John Grady Cole moved to Mexico he entered into a hierarchical environment that runs directly contrary to his American principles. When he and Rawlins arrive at Don Hector’s hacienda and see Alejandra ride by, he does not let hierarchy stand in the way of his desires. Cole’s position on the hacienda as a ranchhand places him at the bottom of the social order and thus, according to the prevailing social rules, the Don’s daughter is completely out of his reach. His opposition results in imprisonment and near assassination, but neither deters him for an instant. In the end, it is Alejandra who says no to John Grady Cole, but had she not, he would have continued disobeying the hierarchy with her for the rest of his life.
The most significant way in which John Grady Cole exemplifies the American creed is his commitment to his values, no matter the cost. After he and Rawlins are arrested but before they are taken to prison, an official gives them the chance to sell out Blevins in exchange for their freedom. The official makes it explicitly clear that this is their only out, refusal will result in them being sent somewhere from which they can not escape. John Grady Cole refuses to comply, demonstrating his commitment to honesty and loyalty regardless of the consequences. Another fundamentally American principle he holds sacred is the inherent dignity of human life which becomes particularly relevant to the plot of the novel after he captures the captain who facilitated Blevins’ execution. After being taken deep into the desert, the captain fears for his life and asks John Grady Cole if he plans on killing him. Cole responds he will not; “I ain’t goin to kill you…I’m not like you.” (McCarthy 278) Even though the captain is burdening him and may seize an opportunity to attack him, John Grady Cole will not kill him because that is simply the wrong thing to do.
Throughout the plot of the novel, John Grady Cole spends most of his time adventuring through a foreign country, which only serves to make his Americanism stand out. In a land with a different culture, Cole continues to exemplify the American Creed, and his commitment to these principles infinitely outweighs the expedience of changing himself; there is no greater testament to American individualism and identity than that.
This section begins with John Grady Cole going back to the police unit who detained him, Rawlins, and Blevins to get their horses and belongings back. In the process, he decides to take the capitan who gave the order to have a family member of one of Blevins’ victims kill Blevins as a hostage. John Grady Cole successfully escapes with his belongings but is shot in the leg in the process. In the desert with the Capitan, he uses a pistol barrel to cauterize his wound.
One morning, a group of strangers happen upon John Grady Cole and the Capitan who is handcuffed. They peacefully make John Grady Cole release the Capitan, at which point the hostage situation ends.
John Grady Cole returns to America and tries to determine who the rightful owner of Blevins’ horse is. He goes to court and a judge, upon hearing his story, grants him legal ownership of the horse. Then John Grady Cole goes to the house of who he thinks is Blevins’ family, only to find out that they are not Blevins’ family. He then goes to Rawlins’ house to return his horse. After that, he sets out on his own, riding off into the desert.
What stood out to me most in this section was the conclusion, or, rather, the non-conclusion. Where is John Grady Cole going? What is he going to do now? How is he going to pay for food? No idea. At a seemingly opportune time for John Grady Cole to reflect on his experiences and realize how toxic the lifestyle he loves has been for him, the main character does not decide to go and reunite with his mother and start over. He decides to continue on the exact same path as before.
Knowing John Grady Cole as a character, this should come as no surprise to readers. He is the type of character who, once committed to something or someone, will let nothing change his course. It just seemed to me that, if there was ever a time in his life he should have allowed himself to change course, it should have been at the end of this novel. What is left for John Grady Cole out on the open plains? He is no longer with his best friend, he lost the woman he loved, and every day the “West” gets smaller and smaller. The world is leaving him behind, yet he is a 17-year-old with the work ethic, dedication, and commitment to truly make something of himself regardless of what he decides to do. It is strange that his heart leads him somewhere where his potential success is so limited by the environment he is putting himself into. Automobiles are only improving at this time period, and the world becomes more urban and industrial every day.
This is why I am having trouble conceiving of a plausible path for John Grady Cole after this conclusion in which things go well for him. If you agree, disagree, I’d be happy to hear your thoughts.
“All the Pretty Horses” seeks to explore American myth and American identity through its presentation of the story of John Grady Cole. What I have found interesting throughout the novel so far is how McCarthy strives to accomplish this through the eyes of a largely uneducated 16 year old. John Grady Cole has never read Alexis De Toqueville or taken a 100 level sociology course, but through his actions and his very being he is exploring and exemplifying many of the same themes that Huntington touches upon in his book “Who Are We.”
One section that specifically caught my attention was a scene from when John Grady Cole and Rawlins were trekking through the Mexican desert after they lost Blevins. The pair lacked most provisions, and they sat down for dinner one night only because Rawlins was lucky enough to spot and shoot a buck. As they sat cooking and eating, they talked amongst themselves.
The conversation was exactly what you would expect 16 year olds living the life of Grady and Rawlins to talk about. They talk about hunting, food, and cooking. But seemingly out of nowhere, the conversation turned towards the existential. Rawlings and Grady discussed whether or not they think about dying as well as their positions on the existence of Heaven and Hell. These themes and others are the chief themes that Huntingdon argues have characterized the American national identity since before the country’s founding.
The boys in the story are living a life full of religious symbolism as well. They are currently out in the wilderness on a journey to an unknown land. Echoes of the story of Abraham and God’s call to him or Jesus venturing out into the wilderness pervade this seemingly simple story about two boys looking for work on a ranch.
John Grady Cole and Rawlins may be discussing life’s big ideas, but what is remarkable is that they do it in the language of largely uneducated 16 year old boys. To provide some examples…
“You fixin to get religion on us?”
“You think about all the stuff that can happen to you,” he said. “There aint no end”
“You aint fixin to quit on me are you?”
The point about American culture that I believe McCarthy is trying to make is that these fundamentally Anglo Protestant ideas and eternal human questions are so pivotal to the American psyche that even boys as unrefined as these who spend their time hunting in the wilderness to keep themselves alive have an affinity for such serious topics as God and fate. What distinguished certainly the Puritans and most definitely the American population generally throughout all its history was their habit of keeping these questions and their answers always close at hand. I think one of the ultimate testaments to that is Rawlins and John Grady Cole talking about life and death and God in simple terms while eating freshly killed venison somewhere between the USA and Mexico. While enlightenment philosophers and theologians could have articulated their points in a much more sophisticated way, the American identity exemplified here is one and the same.