american identity assignment

Find what you need to study

Theme 1 (NAT) - American and National Identity

34 min read • march 2, 2021

Ashley Rossi

Exam simulation mode

Prep for the AP exam with questions that mimic the test!

The one thing you need to know about this theme:

College Board Description

This theme focuses on how and why definitions of American and national identity and values have developed among the diverse and changing population of North America as well as on related topics, such as citizenship, constitutionalism, foreign policy, assimilation, and American exceptionalism. 

Organizing Question

How did American identity, exceptionalism, and culture develop throughout its history?

Key Vocabulary

Historical examples of this theme:, period 1 (1491-1607).

The AP Course Description does not recognize American and National Identity (NAT) as a central theme in Period 1, which makes sense. For one, America was not actually a nation and British colonization (from which the nation would arise) had not yet been cemented.

Nevertheless, there are a few things to mention.

The Roots of Colonization

For one, the seeds of colonialism were sewn here. The Age of Exploration ⚓ 🗺️ was motivated by the Three G’s: Gold, God, and Glory. 

Prior to the Age of Exploration, the Crusades created a huge demand for new trade routes and the Renaissance sparked a desire for knowledge and growth. Europe continued to move away from feudalism and more towards capitalism as monarchs began consolidating their wealth. 👑

This development spurred competition amongst nations and it is here that colonization of the Americas began.

More so, before Europeans arrived, this nation was already claimed by indigenous people. Columbus technically did not “discover” anything. These tribes had complex and diverse societies that developed around their geography, albeit with very little cultural consistencies between various tribes. 

It is important to acknowledge this history when considering this theme, as it provokes the discussion of who America truly belongs to and what makes a person an American.

Period 2 (1607-1754)

Even before America was “America,” the basis for our national identity was laid. 

European nations colonized the Americas for a variety of different reasons. The Spanish colonized with the goal of harvesting raw materials and spreading Christianity. They created the encomienda system based on the subjugation of Natives and developed a new caste system within their colonies. The French, on the other hand, were less interested in developing empire and more interested in trade with Natives. Thus, they developed generally peaceful relations with Natives which were centered around trade. Britain settled along the east coast of North America and its colonies developed their own regional identities based on settlers, their motivation for settling, and geographic factors.

Chesapeake and Southern Colonies

England’s first permanent colony of Jamestown was settled in 1607. It was settled as a joint-stock company , meaning that investors pooled their wealth in hopes of making a profit. Its settlers were mainly young, single men who were looking to get in, make money, and get out. Times were very difficult at first and during the Starving Time of 1609 , 80% of settlers died ☠️. Tobacco eventually saved the region and, here, the agricultural basis of the area was set. 

Since the South had a long growing season and fertile soil, farming of cash crops 🌱 became the main source of income. Tobacco remained the primary crop in the Chesapeake region, while rice, indigo, and cotton dominated other southern colonies. Large rivers in the south meant that port cities were not necessary, ships could travel via rivers right up to plantations in order to gather exports.

Systems of government in the Chesapeake area represented male land-owning settlers. Most notable was Virginia’s House of Burgesses . This government was a legislative body that was meant to represent the settlers of Virginia. 

The headright system incentivised settlement and allowed land for anyone who paid for their own voyage over. Laborers who could not afford their own ticket could have one paid for them and, in exchange, would work for several years to pay off their debt. These individuals were known as indentured servants .

Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 highlights the early notion of a right to revolt against an unjust government and also marks a major transition to slave labor in the Chesapeake and Southern colonies.  

Agricultural economies require a lot of physical labor and, initially, indentured servants were the preferred source of labor in the Chesapeake colonies. However, as the colonies became wealthier, enslaved African people became the more common source of labor exploitation and the Middle Passage came to be the lucrative route through which thousands of slaves were stolen to the Americas.

New England Colonies

The New England settlers originally migrated to the Plymouth settlement and, later, to the Massachusetts Bay colony seeking freedom from religious persecution. Even while still under British rule, the colonies were seen as a land of freedom and opportunity.

The governments of these colonies, though devoutly Puritan , laid down some serious principles in democracy. The Mayflower Compact of 1620 illustrates the idea of sacrificing personal gain on behalf of the greater good. These pilgrims recognized that they were a long way from home and were undertaking something major, and so they laid out (in writing) the need for equal laws and a government that serves the governed. 

Another important document to outline the early ideas of American Exceptionalism is John Winthrop’s A Model of Christian Charity (you may know it as the “city upon a hill” sermon). John Winthrop illustrated the idea of a city upon a hill-- a model society for all other. He stated that “we shall be knit together in this work as one” and suggested they were bound for greatness so long as they kept God on their side.  

The economy of the New England societies was a mixed one that profited off of trade and shipbuilding . Cities began to develop as centers of commerce around ports. Agriculture was mainly limited to self-sustenance farming 🐮🐷🐔 and, although slavery existed in the North, there was much less demand for labor. 

Colonial Cultural Identity

Since they were so far from Britain, the colonies began to develop their own identities. For most of this period, Britain followed a policy of salutary neglect , which allowed the colonies to operate fairly independently from their Mother country. The erratically enforced Navigation Acts led to some early tension between Britain and its colonies, but for the most part, colonists identified as British citizens.

Governments were unusually democratic for the time. Town Hall Meetings in the New England colonies allowed the community to come together and form legislation. Meanwhile, the Virginia House of Burgesses was (at least in theory) a representative legislative body. 

Still, the colonies also absorbed a fair share of English culture through a process known as Anglicization . Thanks to the transatlantic print 🖨️ and Protestant Evangelists , English ideas were brought to the colonies and, in turn, a great deal of colonial society was modeled after English society. 🇬🇧

The First Great Awakening and Enlightenment

Two of the most important factors in the development of national identity during this time were the First Great Awakening and the Enlightenment . Both movements began in England and traveled to the colonies; however, they impacted the colonies in a very unique way. 

The First Great Awakening was a revival of Protestant Evangelism ⛪ . It was all very “fire and brimstone,” 🔥 but (in case you haven’t noticed) American identity is steeped in this tradition. When we pledge allegiance, we pledge to “one nation under God.” Our patriotic songs boast lyrics such as, “God shed his grace on thee!” Even our currency comes with the phrase “in God we trust.” 

Through the First Great Awakening, colonists also learned that they could resist the “old way” of doing things. Gone were the days of the divine rights of the King-- people now sought a more personal relationship with God and individual understanding of religion. A religious reformation may not seem particularly nationalistic, but it was crucial in developing a unique sense of autonomy. 

Equally important was the Enlightenment 💡 , which also made its way to America via the transatlantic print. The ideas of Locke, Rousseau, and others revolutionized the way people thought about government and would play a critical role in the development of the nation. 

Period 3 (1754-1800)

Clearly, Period 3 is extremely important to the theme of National Identity-- it is not only when the United States became an independent nation 🇺🇸, but also when it formed its own government via a series of experiments in democracy. 

The American Revolution

After the French and Indian War , tensions began to rise between the colonists and Britain. The war spurred contempt on both sides. After the war, Britain felt the colonies should pay for the massive debt incurred during the war.  

This began a period of taxation and attempts at greater imperial control, which spurred on the revolutionary movement . Bolstered by the ideals of the Enlightenment, colonists began to fight against both real and perceived constraints on liberty with the rallying cry of “No taxation without representation!” 🚫

In addition to this, the colonists also felt they had been victimized in other ways: they were forced to quarter soldiers, faced Britain’s attempts to seize their arms, and had their attempts to petition shut down multiple times. These problems were seen as fundamental violations of inalienable rights and, in the future, would be explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights . Still, it is important to remember that during this time most colonists still considered themselves British citizens and identified more with the colony and region they were from. Years prior, they had rejected down Ben Franklin’s Albany Plan of Union , which was the first colonial government. Even within the Patriot movement , very few thinkers had come to accept the vision of America as a united front. 

Enlightenment thinkers 💭 like Thomas Paine (author of Common Sense ), Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin fanned the flames of rebellion by using Enlightenment ideals to bolster the patriot cause . 

Average people-- the artisans, farmers, and women in society-- fueled the Patriot cause by aiding in boycotts , creating revolutionary groups like the Sons/Daughters of Liberty , and serving in the colonial militia (initially known as Minutemen ).

In 1776, at the start of the war, the colonies officially declared their independence from Britain with the Declaration of Independence 📜 . It is one of the most important documents in US history because it so clearly frames what the United States stands for. 

The ideas in this document were shaped by Enlightenment ideals and modeled partially off of documents such as the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. It  was created on the basis of four important themes of American identity: inalienable rights, the social contract, the right to revolt, and popular sovereignty. 

Impacts of the American Revolution

After the Revolutionary War, the United States of America became a sovereign nation with the Treaty of Paris (1783) . The revolution spurred what became, arguably, one of the most central themes in the country’s national identity: the idea of egalitarianism -- the belief that an individual’s success should be determined by what a person does, not who they are born as. 

The idea of egalitarianism resounded amongst many groups. Abigail Adams urged her husband to “remember the ladies” and republican motherhood was born. Abolitionist movements formed and northern states gradually began emancipating slaves. Inspired by the success of the American revolution, revolutions also formed in France, Haiti, and Latin America.

Experiments in Democracy 

The first government of the United States was ultimately unsuccessful. The creators of the Articles of Confederation were so fearful of centralized power, they created a federal government that was essentially paralyzed. 🔒

As mentioned before, most colonists identified as a member of their colony, not as a citizen of the United States. This meant that most representatives desired to act on behalf of what was best for their colonies or regions, not on behalf of the nation as a whole.

With the drafting of the Constitution , the founders eventually got it right. The spirit of compromise was present as various regions and interests compromised on what was best for the nation. The 3/5’s Compromise , the Great Compromise , and the electoral college 🗳️ all display this notion.

The Bill of Rights ensured civil liberties to all citizens. The scars of Britain’s infringements on colonial liberty can be seen directly through these ten amendments: the right to bear arms, freedom to assemble, reserved powers of the states and the people, amongst others. 🗣️

The US Constitution is a living document. It was formed so that it could be changed and adapted over time. It gives the federal government power, but also limits that same power. It separates federal power into three branches 🏛️ and ensures that no one branch becomes too powerful via a system of checks and balances. 

As the first President of the nation, George Washington set many precedents that would further define national identity. Within his cabinet, political parties began to form. This division between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans concerned many (including Washington) but, in hindsight, set the tone for US politics.

The country also had to iron out remaining foreign policy issues. Although an independent nation on paper, several European powers (namely Britain and Spain) were failing to recognize America’s sovereignty . Both nations remained on American territory, restricting our freedom of trade and ability to negotiate with Native tribes. 

The French Revolution 🇫🇷 was another contentious issue that the new nation was faced with. Despite opposing views on the matter, Washington decided to stay out of the dispute completely with the Proclamation of Neutrality. 

In his Farewell Address , ✌️ Washington warned against political factions and permanent foreign entanglements. The latter of these two warnings would be echoed time and time again in American history. 

Period 4 (1800-1848)

While the AP Course Description does not identify American and National Identity (NAT) as a central theme for Period 4, there are many ways in which our national identity developed in this time frame.

The Revolution of 1800

Period 4 begins with the Election of 1800 . In this election, Democratic Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson was elected following the single term of Federalist John Adams . It is sometimes called the Revolution of 1800 because it was the first time power between opposing political factions changed hands. 

This happens frequently in modern-day America without any second thought. Yet, at the time, this was pretty revolutionary. Nobody really knew what would happen-- Would the Federalists refuse to give up office? Would there be a military coup? Would we have a second revolution?

In reality, nothing happened. One party left office as the next one entered and it was all done in a fairly tame manner. This, in retrospect, is pretty central to our identity as a nation. 🤷🏻

The Early Republic

Jefferson would further set the tone of American Exceptionalism . In his inaugural address , he described America as a nation blessed by God with fertile soil and room enough for many generations to come. He also famously quoted, “We are all republicans, we are all federalists.” Yes, the nation had its internal disputes, but at the end of the day, we were Americans.

With this address, he placed our identity as Americans above political factions or personal differences. He also welcomed dissent and poignantly explained that this was the beauty of our nation-- it is a place where dissent may be voiced and heard with no cost to the nation or its dissenters. He stated that this alone proved how strong our government would be.

His inaugural address also further promoted the idea (initially insisted upon by Washington) that the president was not a sovereign leader, but rather a steward of the people. He gave credit to his advisors and apologized in advance for any errors he might make.

His presidency itself continued to develop the fledgling national identity. He struggled with the Louisiana Purchase, not wanting to overstep his boundaries as president. Eventually he did go through with it (obviously) because it helped us to become the great agrarian empire 🌾 he had dreamed it would be. 

Defending American Sovereignty in the War of 1812

The nation was trying to prove its sovereignty once again as Britain and France were violating our ability to trade freely. More so, Britain’s nasty little habit of impressing American sailors (which meant capturing them at sea and forcing them to serve in the Royal Navy) was getting pretty old. These trade issues and violations eventually forced the nation into the War of 1812. 

While the nation was divided over whether another war with Britain was appropriate, it seemed pretty important to defend our sovereignty… once again. 

This conflict intertwines with another APUSH theme of America in the World (WOR) but, just to note, the eventual War of 1812 was extremely important for our national identity. It is sometimes referred to as the Second War for Independence and, afterwards, America would never again have to fight for our independence and sovereignty. 

The end of the War of 1812 spurred a period of intense nationalism. With the decline of the Federalist party after the Hartford Convention , America was launched into a super patriotic period of only one political party: The Era of Good Feelings. 

The Era of Good Feelings, the Market Revolution, and National Development

During this Era of Good Feelings, the United States issued what is known as the Monroe Doctrine . Issued under president James Monroe, the doctrine stated that any further intervention in US politics or further attempts at colonization of the Americas by European powers would be considered an act of aggression. 

While this dabbles in the themes of politics (POL) and foreign affairs (WOR), it was also a huge power move for America. We established not only our supremacy over our own territory, but over territories we believed might become ours. 

During this period, the Market Revolution ⚙️ also defined America as a nation. Our economy switched from a traditional economy to a market economy and capitalism became more of the status quo.

Regional differences heightened with the Market Revolution as the North began to industrialize rapidly and the South became more entrenched in agriculture and dependent on slavery. Even as nationalism soared, sectionalism also continued to drive the North and South apart. 

Work and home became separate spheres and gender roles were further defined. The development of railroads 🛤️ and canals opened the West and manifest destiny became a pretty big deal. 

Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of Democracy

On that note, Manifest Destiny refers to the increasingly popular belief of the time that it was America’s god-given destiny to be a great nation spanning from one coast to the next. This idea was rooted in American exceptionalism and a belief in the superiority of American culture and civilization. It was the notion that America was destined to do great things because we are a great nation founded in liberty and with God on our side.

No work better summarizes the idea of Manifest Destiny than John Gast’s American Progress . The piece summarizes everything that American exceptionalism was built upon. The female figure (named “Liberty”) moves westward. In her hand she carries a school book (a symbol of education) and telegraph wires. With her follows light and symbols of technology, civilization, and industry. 🌄

When Andrew Jackson became president in 1828, democracy was greatly expanded for the common man. As the first “self-made man” to become president, Jackson believed that everyone should have the opportunity to participate in government. 

While it can be debated how democratic Jackson’s presidency truly was, his presidency saw the elimination of property qualifications for voting and the implementation of universal white male suffrage 🗳️ . With that, democracy definitely grew. 

But who is American and what does the nation stand for? This expansion of Empire was not without its costs. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced Native Americans further west out of their homeland and culminated in the Trail of Tears, the forced relocation of 16,000 Cherokee natives. One fourth of them died along the way. 

Manifest Destiny also led us into the Mexican-American War from 1846 to 1848. Under President James K. Polk (nicknamed the Manifest Destiny President) the US acquired its largest territorial gain since the Louisiana Purchase. The Mexican Cession officially expanded our nation from one coast to another and consised of land that would later comprise ten states including California.

Image Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Again, we must ask: At what cost? Mexico lost nearly half of its territory with its defeat. More so, the status of thousands of Mexican settlers living in the area was now in question. 

The Second Great Awakening and the Goodness of America

The Second Great Awakening ⛪ revived Protestant religion once again. Beliefs in human goodness and perfectibility led to a period of Antebellum reform movements. Most notable amongst these movements were abolitionist reforms and women’s suffrage movements.

In the 1830s, English ministers Andrew Reed and James Matheson quoted the now famous line, “America will be great if America is good. If not, her greatness will vanish away like a morning cloud…”  Ideas such as this once again speak to American Exceptionalism and attempts to explain what makes American a great nation.

Just to note, this quote is frequently misattributed to Alexis de Tocqueville and has been quoted (mostly incorrectly) by politicians time and time again. While its particular origins are hard to pin and the exact phrasing becomes murky over time 🤨, the notion is still incredibly important: America is a special nation, founded in liberty and endorsed by God.

Period 5 (1844-1877)

The nation splits.

As land was increasingly added to the nation throughout the first half of the 1800s, sectional tensions continued to rise. Just like they had in colonial times, Americans once again began to identify more with their specific region than with their nation as a whole. 

The issue of states’ rights and the question of slavery became an increasingly moral and political issue. On the political front, the nation floundered with a series of failed legislative compromises. Looking at slavery as a moral issue (rather than a political one), abolitionists fought to defend the rights of the enslaved individuals in this country. 

The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford brought the issue of African American citizenship and the constitutionality of slavery to the SCOTUS ⚖️. Dred Scott was a slave who had lived in free territory with his owner to live for several years. Upon his owner’s death, Scott petitioned to the Supreme Court for his freedom.

In the landmark ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford , the Supreme Court deemed that, as a black man, Scott was not a citizen of the United States and, therefore, and no legal standing. The case dealt a crushing blow to the topic of racial equality and the federal government decided that African Americans had no legal rights to which whites were bound to respect. 

The election of 1860 marked a key turning point in the history of American identity. The election of Abraham Lincoln triggered the secession of Southern states, which marked the commencement of the Civil War. 

Like Jefferson, Jackson, and other presidents before him, Lincoln held no pretenses about his views on the country. To him, the unity and sanctity of America came first and foremost. Preserving the Union was always Lincoln’s goal leading up to and during the Civil War. 

As the Civil War raged on, America faced what is still, to this day, likely the greatest threat ever to our national identity. The country had split apart at its seams and citizens had turned from brothers to enemies. 

In 1863, after the Battle of Gettysburg, Lincoln delivered one of the most important and poignant speeches in American History. His Gettysburg Address, lasting just under three minutes in total, reminded listeners of everything the nation stood for. 

The speech recalled America’s foundations, hearkening back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence “four score and seven years ago” (that’s 1776 for those of you keeping track). He spoke only of the nation as a whole and made no mention of North, South, or any other existing division. 

He honored veterans, past, present and future who had died fighting for our nation’s sanctity and he assured that, no matter what, a country made “of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” 👏

Legacy of the War

As the war ended with Union victory , the nation merged back together as one (granted, not all that easily). While resentment still existed, America would be a united front from that point on and, for the most part, citizens would consider themselves to be “Americans.” The United States were, well, united once again. 

The United States was redefined by the Civil War. The war ultimately expanded the power of federal government with conscription , the nation’s first income tax , and the temporary suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 

Given the industrialization that had occurred in the decades prior, the United States moved further away from Jefferson’s vision of an agrarian society. The strong centralized government and manufacturing society Alexander Hamilton had envisioned became more of a reality. The questions of secession and states’ rights were officially ended as well. 

The end of the Civil War also marked the end of slavery with the ratification of the 13th Amendment . Although some historians may argue the Civil War was not necessarily fought over slavery, there is no doubt that the war’s scope changed over its course. 

America Attempts to Mend

The Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, and tireless work of abolitionists made the war a moral one and brought the question of slavery to the forefront. With the end of the war and the subsequent end of slavery, the topic of who was considered an American arose again. 

The period of Reconstruction featured debates over African American rights and citizenship. The 14th and 15th Amendments , along with the work of the Freedmen’s Bureau , made great strides in securing equal rights for former enslaved person. 

Unfortunately, legal loopholes to these amendments, violence inflicted by the Ku Klux Klan in the south, and the Supreme Court’s eventual restriction of the 14th Amendment meant that much of this progress was quickly undone. These issues would not be revisited to this degree until nearly one hundred years later.

Period 6 (1865-1898)

The Gilded Age was a time of major growth for America; however, it was also a period that was rife with social issues and political corruption. The term Gilded Age was actually coined by author Mark Twain for this exact reason. Just like an item gilded in gold, the period looked shiny and new on the outside 💍 🏆, but was teeming with issues within 🏚️ 🐀. 

Closing the West

One important way in which national identity grew was in the settlement of the West. The federal government actively encouraged settlement of the west in this period through legislation such as the Homestead Act, the Pacific Railway Act, and the Morrill Land Grant Act.

As thousands of migrants moved west seeking opportunity 🌾🚜, the United States merged the east and west with the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad 🚂 . By this point, America had reached its true manifest destiny (in the sense that we had achieved territory spanning from sea to shining sea) and the West had become a major part of our national identity. 

In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner presented this famous thesis titled The Significance of the Frontier in American History at the Chicago World Fair 🎡. In this work, Turner claimed that the west was fundamental in shaping national identity.

He argued that all the traits central to the American identity (industry, individualism, materialism, ingenuity, and democracy) were developed via the American frontier. He supported this by developing the idea of successive frontiers -- the claim that the frontier had forced Americans back into a more primitive state time and time again throughout its settlement, eventually cultivating a culture that was uniquely American. 

Turner also saw the West as a hotbed for progressive reforms and as a safety valve -- a place of endless opportunity and hope. With the closing of the frontier, Turner argued that America would soon seek imperial goals in new frontiers outside of our own territory. Let’s just say that he wasn’t exactly wrong on that one. 

Still, who does American identity belong to? The Native Americans of the Great Plains suffered great loss at the hands of this settlement. As the West was further settled during this era, Natives progressively lost more and more. 

In 1887, thousands of acres of tribal lands were broken up and redistributed through the Dawes Severalty Act and the 1890 Battle of Wounded Knee is widely thought to be the end of Native American resistance. Native Americans of the Great Plains region participated in a ghost dance movement in a final, desperate attempt to call upon their ancestors for a return to prosperity. The consequences of these losses still reverberate throughout Native American culture to this day.

The American Melting Pot

The idea of American citizenship was also challenged with the enormous influx of immigrants during this period. Millions of immigrants came to the nation via Ellis Island 🚢 throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

This influx forced Americans to consider what it meant to be a citizen of this country. Many Americans responded with Nativist sentiments and called for restrictions on immigration . Meanwhile, immigrants struggled to assimilate in this country while still maintaining their own cultural heritages. 

In relation to the theme of national identity, this influx of immigration can be seen as crucial to the idea of the American melting pot. For immigrants coming from their home countries, the first glimpse of the Statue of Liberty 🗽 as they arrived at Ellis Island meant something immense: America was the home of liberty, opportunity, and endless optimism. 

Speaking of the Statue of Liberty, the statue was actually gifted to America by France during this period. Meant to symbolize our comradery, the statue bears the famous inscription: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Now, that’s national identity! 👌

Urbanization happened rapidly. The cities in which many immigrants settled became centers of culture and commerce. Many Americans would travel to cities to enjoy a Vaudeville show or a new department store. Thanks to innovations in steel, electricity, and developments in urban planning, the American city came to look like the ones we know today. 🏙️

The Question of Responsibility

America also rose to power as one of the world’s leading industrial powers during this period. A laissez-faire approach to economics and new business tactics allowed industry 🏭 to soar. This growth led to the prominence of a very wealthy upper class, led by captains of industry (or, as one may choose to think of them, robber barons ). 💰💰💰

While men like Carnegie and Rockefeller became wealthier than ever, millions of laborers and immigrants lived in abject poverty. Living conditions in urban tenements were often times filthy, overcrowded, and unsafe. Work conditions were not much better. Many people saw this gap as an alarming sign of the times and a call to reform began to grow.

A middle class began to emerge as well. For many native-born Americans, standards of living rose and consumption became the status quo. In this era, Americans began to enjoy department stores, spectator sports, and new sensational forms of journalism. 🗞️

This disparity and the social issues it caused called to light new debates over the responsibility of the American government and its people.

Period 7 (1890-1945)

In Period 7, America continued its rise as one of the greatest world powers. Foreign policy, efforts in World War I and World War II, and continued industrialization all played key roles in the nation’s identity as America came to power on the world stage. Domestically, ideas of American citizenship and what it meant to be a citizen of this country were further developed as Issues of the Gilded Age prompted a slew of progressive reforms. 

Progressive Reform and American Citizenship

The reform efforts inspired by the problems of the Gilded Age, which typically began through individual and local efforts, eventually made headway at the state and local levels as well. 

While the rights of African Americans were still largely stifled in the Jim Crow South , brilliant minds like Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Ida B. Wells continued to fight for equality and debated the best means by which to achieve such equality. 

The Women’s Suffragist movements 👒 also made great headway thanks to organization like NAWSA and the NWP . Eventually, the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920 and secured the right to vote for women. With the ability to participate in government affairs and have their voices heard, women continued to work towards equal standing in American culture. 

Imperial Efforts & American Nationalism

During the last years of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, America’s imperial efforts secured its role as the policeman of democracy. Though the Spanish American War in 1898 was short lived, the Treaty of Paris signed upon America’s victory secured the territories Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. 

Further territorial acquisitions of Hawaii, Alaska, and the Panama Canal further cemented American Empire. The result was a soaring feeling of extreme ethnocentric nationalism, referred to as jingoism .

The philosophy of jingoism has roots in American Exceptionalism and the belief in the superiority of American culture and civilization. The same sentiments that inspired manifest destiny years prior bolstered further imperial efforts in this era. Just as Turner had predicted, with the closing of our own frontier, America looked to expand its influence into new frontiers. 🌎

This idea was epitomized in Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden . In this work, Kipling encourages America’s imperial efforts and its subsequent annexation of the Philippine Islands. According to Kipling, the white man was morally obliged to encourage progress in less “civilized” areas of the world. 

In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The addition asserted America’s right to intervene in the affairs of smaller nations in Central America and the Caribbean. 🗺️

This sort of nationalism, which was now justified both morally and politically, led the country into various diplomatic interventions as well. America played key roles in China’s Boxer Rebellion, the Russo-Japanese War, and in the affairs of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. 

America’s Identity in World War I

Despite this apparent willingness to involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations, the country largely remained isolationist upon the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Reminiscent of Washington’s Farewell Address, President Woodrow Wilson thought it best to keep America out of the messy entanglements that led a sizable portion of the globe into a world war. 

The United States managed to defend this neutrality until our own national security was threatened via the Lusitania incident and the Zimmerman Telegram . With this, America asserted another very important component of our national identity: While the affairs of others may or may not incite a rise to action, our own national security is considered the utmost priority. 

American troops greatly helped to raise the morale of allied troops and victory came a year and a half later. America came out of WWI as one of the strongest nations in the world and we played a key role in the peace negotiations that would follow. 

The Roaring 20s and the Great Depression

The Roaring 20s 💸 were a time of great optimism and prosperity for many Americans. It was also a period of great economic growth and a time of major social change. All of these factors helped to further America’s self-image of a nation built upon liberty, prosperity, and optimism. 

The prosperity of the decade created a sense of rugged individualism amongst Americans and its politicians. Coined by President Herbert Hoover , the term posits the idea that Americans are (and should be) totally self-made and self-reliant, free from the need of any government aid. 

This “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” approach came under scrutiny with the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression 📉 that followed. Many Americans were forced to re-evaluate national ideals and the government struggled to decide its place in aiding its citizens. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal changed the relationship between the government and the economy and, by extension, its relationship to the American people. Social welfare programs of the New Deal created a larger federal government designed to provide financial aid and protection to its citizens.

Hard times typically tend to build character and this era of history was no different. The boom of the 20s and crash of the 30s shaped American identity in a very unique way.

America in World War II

The same concerns over national security that led us into World War I eventually pulled the nation into World War II as well. When Japan bombed Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor naval base on December 7, 1941, America once again saw the great need to defend its safety and honor. 

Hours after the attack, as millions of citizens watched on in horror, President Roosevelt addressed Congress with his well-known Infamy Speech. The speech was officially a request for Congress to declare war but, more broadly, it was a rallying cry of reassurance for the nation. 

Just like Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, Roosevelt’s address to Congress held much more importance than its immediate historical context implied. The speech illustrated unwavering faith in the national government, armed forces, and the will of the American public. It put America on the side of good and assured all the God was on our side.

The United States emerged from World War II as the most powerful nation in the world. It was, and still is to this day, the only nation to use nuclear warfare. America was no longer an isolationist nation, but a global superpower. 🦅

The American public’s role in the war also served our optimism and growth in this period. The entire country mobilized and participated in the war: food was rationed 🥫 , war bonds were issued 💵, victory gardens 🥕🥬 were planted, and all fronts of society (including women, African Americans, and Native Americans) participated in the effort. 

Period 8 (1945-1980)

The 1950s played a great role in shaping the personal identity of American citizens. The nation’s success in World War II and rise to great power created an overwhelming sense of optimism. Similar to the 1920s, Americans enjoyed an economic upswing, higher standards of living, and a great sense of optimism. 

After the war, many Americans retreated back into their home lives to enjoy simple pleasures. Widespread automobile ownership 🚗 led to urban sprawl and rapid housing development created American suburbia 🏡 and the lifestyle that accompanied it. The newfound security of the 1950s ushered in the baby boom 🍼 , a period in which birth rates soared. 

Mass developed suburban houses (the first of which being Levittown, NY ) and the families that lived in them became the idyllic picture of American success. They were safe, clean, and wholesome. They were also mostly caucasian. The vision of the white picket fence, manicured lawn, and single car in the driveway became an American symbol.

The nuclear family (two parents and a few kids) became the hearthstone of the American dream. Americans seemed to find great comfort in traditional gender roles that cast men as providers 👔 💵 💼 and women as homemakers 🧺 🧹 🍰. 

Greater household income and more readily available technology allowed Americans to enjoy more everyday comforts. Cars, refrigerators, vacuums and other household items were easier to own than ever before. 

One of the greatest innovations of this period was the television 📺 . Each night, suburban families would gather in front of the TV to enjoy quality time. The television not only united families, but also united Americans as a whole by creating a united popular culture.

Defending Democracy in the Cold War

With a new role on the world stage, America turned its sights on defeating a new enemy: Communism . The days of neutrality and isolation had come to an end and America saw the policy of containment as a moral obligation.

Communism was viewed to be the antithesis of everything the American identity had come to stand for. America was a free world built on individual liberties, social mobility, and capitalism. Communism was, well, none of those things. 

The United States experienced a Second Red Scare and Senator Joe McCarthy led a crusade against what he perceived to be communist infiltration. McCarthyism, as it was called, increased attention on immigration and American citizenship. Suddenly, once again, immigrants were viewed as uniquely un-American. The Cold War Era fostered great xenophobia and many Americans regarded foreigners with suspicion. 

The Cold War lasted for nearly forty years and overshadowed several presidencies. While a detailed timeline would probably be better suited for other historical themes, it is important to note the ways in which American national identity manifested itself throughout the war.

The policy of containment (stopping the spread of communism) was the dominant theme for much of the Cold War. Ever since the Roosevelt Corollary,  America had envisioned itself to be a defender of democracy and, in this time period, we were one of the only nations powerful and wealthy enough to actually enforce this role. 

The Truman Doctrine (1947) and Marshall Plan (1948) provided financial aid to countries judged to be at risk. It was thought that providing these nations with aid would help them to resist the lure of Communism. Similarly, the United States provided physical aid to those under the rule of Communism in the Berlin Airlift. ✈️

This cause also drew America into two official wars: the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Many Americans protested this involvement. They questioned why we should risk our safety and the safety of our troops fighting a war that was not ours to fight. 

Social Issues of the 60s and 70s

The issue of civil rights was revisited as many Americans fought to achieve equality for African Americans. Activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X fought for the rights of African Americans once again. ✊🏿

Ever since the Supreme Court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the South had existed in a state of racial segregation . For the first time since Reconstruction, the federal government actually heard this call to action. Great strides were made through the Supreme Court Ruling of Brown v. Board of Education , the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, distrust in the government , and a general backlash against the conformity of the 1950s led to a great counterculture movement. The American youth exercised its voice through protests, music, and in their chosen lifestyle. Colleges across America became sights of protest and unrest.

This counterculture movement, seemingly against the established national identity, was actually pretty characteristic of exactly what America stands for. 🕊️✌️✊🏿

Period 9 (1980-present)

The globalization of america.

In the modern era, America has become part of a more global identity . Technology has fundamentally changed how we live, work, communicate, and operate. The digital age 📱 💻 has not only affected our lives as individuals, but has informed global economy and policy.

 America is no longer a nation of isolationist policy and currently plays a major role in world affairs. The power we wield has continued to spark talks about whether or not intervention is always appropriate. The status of our nation as a great superpower has been both bolsered and challenged in the modern era.

There is no doubt that America has great solidarity within itself. In the light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the country came together in a way that has rarely been seen throughout our history. In the face of devastation and terror, America unified and found great inner strength.

In other ways, division still exists. Americans continue to dispute what our national identity implies and what this identity means to us as citizens. With current events related to politics, gun control, religious extremism, and civil rights, it sometimes seems that our nation is more partisan than ever. 🤔

Thinking About the American Identity

To this day, America continues to be one of the world’s great powers. Still, we wrestle with the questions that were initiated and shaped throughout our history:

Is America truly great and, if not, why?  

What responsibility does America have to the world? 

Who does this nation belong to and what does it mean to be an American?

As the nation continues to debate current issues like gun control, immigration, and the perpetual division of modern-day politics, it is more important than ever to understand where we once came from. 

These questions may never have definite answers, but that is okay. Growth and progress lies in our ability to think critically about our history and wrestle with the realities of our national identity. 🇺🇸

Stay Connected

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

Research: What Is American Identity and Why Does It Matter?

Why Does the American Identity Matter?

The most important reason for understanding American identity is related to white racial identification. It may not be prevalent in U.S. political attitudes, but it’s still an issue. A survey from 2012 asked white respondents to indicate if whiteness represented the way they thought of themselves most of the time, as opposed to identifying themselves as Americans . One fifth of the survey’s white respondents said that they preferred the term white to American when identifying themselves.

How to Analyze American Identity

• There’s no such thing as a universal identity, especially for an omni-cultural country such as the USA.
• Everyone has their own understanding of what it means to be American today, as citizens come from different religious, ethnic, ideological, and geographical backgrounds.
• Explaining the concept of American identity calls for an inclusive approach based on solidarity.
• Depending on how you discuss the concept, an academic essay may require arguments on modern-day immigration and immigrant policies. How do they fit within the common understanding of American identity?

Who Are We?

Guest Contributor

The most important good news and events of the day.

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!

Alexandria Gets Another New Mural!

Say hello to the turkish coffee lady, related articles.

Lt. Julia Bucholz, from Alexandria, Serves on The USS Howard

Honoring Gold Star Spouses

La’Baik Mediterranean Restaurant Opens in Del Ray Neighborhood

Volunteers Needed for Jones Point Marsh Cleanup April 21

• Get Started

Learning Lab Collections

• Collections
• Assignments

My Learning Lab:

Forgot my password.

Please provide your account's email address and we will e-mail you instructions to reset your password. For assistance changing the password for a child account, please contact us

You are about to leave Smithsonian Learning Lab.

Your browser is not compatible with site. do you still want to continue.

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Get New Issue Alerts
• American Academy of Arts 
and Sciences

What does it mean to be an American?

Sarah Song, a Visiting Scholar at the Academy in 2005–2006, is an assistant professor of law and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism (2007). She is at work on a book about immigration and citizenship in the United States.

It is often said that being an American means sharing a commitment to a set of values and ideals. 1 Writing about the relationship of ethnicity and American identity, the historian Philip Gleason put it this way:

To be or to become an American, a person did not have to be any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism. Thus the universalist ideological character of American nationality meant that it was open to anyone who willed to become an American. 2

To take the motto of the Great Seal of the United States, E pluribus unum – "From many, one" – in this context suggests not that manyness should be melted down into one, as in Israel Zangwill's image of the melting pot, but that, as the Great Seal's sheaf of arrows suggests, there should be a coexistence of many-in-one under a unified citizenship based on shared ideals.

Of course, the story is not so simple, as Gleason himself went on to note. America's history of racial and ethnic exclusions has undercut the universalist stance; for being an American has also meant sharing a national culture, one largely defined in racial, ethnic, and religious terms. And while solidarity can be understood as "an experience of willed affiliation," some forms of American solidarity have been less inclusive than others, demanding much more than simply the desire to affiliate. 3 In this essay, I explore different ideals of civic solidarity with an eye toward what they imply for newcomers who wish to become American citizens.

Why does civic solidarity matter? First, it is integral to the pursuit of distributive justice. The institutions of the welfare state serve as redistributive mechanisms that can offset the inequalities of life chances that a capitalist economy creates, and they raise the position of the worst-off members of society to a level where they are able to participate as equal citizens. While self-interest alone may motivate people to support social insurance schemes that protect them against unpredictable circumstances, solidarity is understood to be required to support redistribution from the rich to aid the poor, including housing subsidies, income supplements, and long-term unemployment benefits. 4 The underlying idea is that people are more likely to support redistributive schemes when they trust one another, and they are more likely to trust one another when they regard others as like themselves in some meaningful sense.

Second, genuine democracy demands solidarity. If democratic activity involves not just voting, but also deliberation, then people must make an effort to listen to and understand one another. Moreover, they must be willing to moderate their claims in the hope of finding common ground on which to base political decisions. Such democratic activity cannot be realized by individuals pursuing their own interests; it requires some concern for the common good. A sense of solidarity can help foster mutual sympathy and respect, which in turn support citizens' orientation toward the common good.

Third, civic solidarity offers more inclusive alternatives to chauvinist models that often prevail in political life around the world. For example, the alternative to the Nehru-Gandhi secular definition of Indian national identity is the Hindu chauvinism of the Bharatiya Janata Party, not a cosmopolitan model of belonging. "And what in the end can defeat this chauvinism," asks Charles Taylor, "but some reinvention of India as a secular republic with which people can identify?" 5 It is not enough to articulate accounts of solidarity and belonging only at the subnational or transnational levels while ignoring senses of belonging to the political community. One might believe that people have a deep need for belonging in communities, perhaps grounded in even deeper human needs for recognition and freedom, but even those skeptical of such claims might recognize the importance of articulating more inclusive models of political community as an alternative to the racial, ethnic, or religious narratives that have permeated political life. 6  The challenge, then, is to develop a model of civic solidarity that is "thick" enough to motivate support for justice and democracy while also "thin" enough to accommodate racial, ethnic, and religious diversity.

We might look first to Habermas's idea of constitutional patriotism (Verfassungspatriotismus). The idea emerged from a particular national history, to denote attachment to the liberal democratic institutions of the postwar Federal Republic of Germany, but Habermas and others have taken it to be a generalizable vision for liberal democratic societies, as well as for supranational communities such as the European Union. On this view, what binds citizens together is their common allegiance to the ideals embodied in a shared political culture. The only "common denominator for a constitutional patriotism" is that "every citizen be socialized into a common political culture." 7

Habermas points to the United States as a leading example of a multicultural society where constitutional principles have taken root in a political culture without depending on "all citizens' sharing the same language or the same ethnic and cultural origins." 8  The basis of American solidarity is not any particular racial or ethnic identity or religious beliefs, but universal moral ideals embodied in American political culture and set forth in such seminal texts as the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Based on a minimal commonality of shared ideals, constitutional patriotism is attractive for the agnosticism toward particular moral and religious outlooks and ethnocultural identities to which it aspires.

What does constitutional patriotism suggest for the sort of reception immigrants should receive? There has been a general shift in Western Europe and North America in the standards governing access to citizenship from cultural markers to values, and this is a development that constitutional patriots would applaud. In the United States those seeking to become citizens must demonstrate basic knowledge of U.S. government and history. A newly revised U.S. citizenship test was instituted in October 2008 with the hope that it will serve, in the words of the chief of the Office of Citizenship, Alfonso Aguilar, as "an instrument to promote civic learning and patriotism." 9 The revised test attempts to move away from civics trivia to emphasize political ideas and concepts. (There is still a fair amount of trivia: "How many amendments does the Constitution have?" "What is the capital of your state?") The new test asks more open-ended questions about government powers and political concepts: "What does the judicial branch do?" "What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?" "What is freedom of religion?" "What is the 'rule of law'?" 10

Constitutional patriots would endorse this focus on values and principles. In Habermas's view, legal principles are anchored in the "political culture," which he suggests is separable from "ethical-cultural" forms of life. Acknowledging that in many countries the "ethical-cultural" form of life of the majority is "fused" with the "political culture," he argues that the "level of the shared political culture must be uncoupled from the level of subcultures and their prepolitical identities." 11  All that should be expected of immigrants is that they embrace the constitutional principles as interpreted by the political culture, not that they necessarily embrace the majority's ethical-cultural forms.

Yet language is a key aspect of "ethical-cultural" forms of life, shaping people's worldviews and experiences. It is through language that individuals become who they are. Since a political community must conduct its affairs in at least one language, the ethical-cultural and political cannot be completely "uncoupled." As theorists of multiculturalism have stressed, complete separation of state and particularistic identities is impossible; government decisions about the language of public institutions, public holidays, and state symbols unavoidably involve recognizing and supporting particular ethnic and religious groups over others. 12 In the United States, English language ability has been a statutory qualification for naturalization since 1906, originally as a requirement of oral ability and later as a requirement of English literacy. Indeed, support for the principles of the Constitution has been interpreted as requiring English literacy. 13 The language requirement might be justified as a practical matter (we need some language to be the common language of schools, government, and the workplace, so why not the language of the majority?), but for a great many citizens, the language requirement is also viewed as a key marker of national identity. The continuing centrality of language in naturalization policy prevents us from saying that what it means to be an American is purely a matter of shared values.

Another misconception about constitutional patriotism is that it is necessarily more inclusive of newcomers than cultural nationalist models of solidarity. Its inclusiveness depends on which principles are held up as the polity's shared principles, and its normative substance depends on and must be evaluated in light of a background theory of justice, freedom, or democracy; it does not by itself provide such a theory. Consider ideological requirements for naturalization in U.S. history. The first naturalization law of 1790 required nothing more than an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. The second naturalization act added two ideological elements: the renunciation of titles or orders of nobility and the requirement that one be found to have "behaved as a man . . . attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States." 14  This attachment requirement was revised in 1940 from a behavioral qualification to a personal attribute, but this did not help clarify what attachment to constitutional principles requires. 15 Not surprisingly, the "attachment to constitutional principles" requirement has been interpreted as requiring a belief in representative government, federalism, separation of powers, and constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. It has also been interpreted as disqualifying anarchists, polygamists, and conscientious objectors for citizenship. In 1950, support for communism was added to the list of grounds for disqualification from naturalization – as well as grounds for exclusion and deportation. 16 The 1990 Immigration Act retained the McCarthy-era ideological qualifications for naturalization; current law disqualifies those who advocate or affiliate with an organization that advocates communism or opposition to all organized government. 17 Patriotism, like nationalism, is capable of excess and pathology, as evidenced by loyalty oaths and campaigns against "un-American" activities.

In contrast to constitutional patriots, liberal nationalists acknowledge that states cannot be culturally neutral even if they tried. States cannot avoid coercing citizens into preserving a national culture of some kind because state institutions and laws define a political culture, which in turn shapes the range of customs and practices of daily life that constitute a national culture. David Miller, a leading theorist of liberal nationalism, defines national identity according to the following elements: a shared belief among a group of individuals that they belong together, historical continuity stretching across generations, connection to a particular territory, and a shared set of characteristics constituting a national culture. 18  It is not enough to share a common identity rooted in a shared history or a shared territory; a shared national culture is a necessary feature of national identity. I share a national culture with someone, even if we never meet, if each of us has been initiated into the traditions and customs of a national culture.

What sort of content makes up a national culture? Miller says more about what a national culture does not entail. It need not be based on biological descent. Even if nationalist doctrines have historically been based on notions of biological descent and race, Miller emphasizes that sharing a national culture is, in principle, compatible with people belonging to a diversity of racial and ethnic groups. In addition, every member need not have been born in the homeland. Thus, "immigration need not pose problems, provided only that the immigrants come to share a common national identity, to which they may contribute their own distinctive ingredients." 19

Liberal nationalists focus on the idea of culture, as opposed to ethnicity or descent, in order to reconcile nationalism with liberalism. Thicker than constitutional patriotism, liberal nationalism, Miller maintains, is thinner than ethnic models of belonging. Both nationality and ethnicity have cultural components, but what is said to distinguish "civic" nations from "ethnic" nations is that the latter are exclusionary and closed on grounds of biological descent; the former are, in principle, open to anyone willing to adopt the national culture. 20

Yet the civic-ethnic distinction is not so clear-cut in practice. Every nation has an "ethnic core." As Anthony Smith observes

[M]odern "civic" nations have not in practice really transcended ethnicity or ethnic sentiments. This is a Western mirage, reality-as-wish; closer examination always reveals the ethnic core of civic nations, in practice, even in immigrant societies with their early pioneering and dominant (English and Spanish) culture in America, Australia, or Argentina, a culture that provided the myths and language of the would-be nation. 21

This blurring of the civic-ethnic distinction is reflected throughout U.S. history with the national culture often defined in ethnic, racial, and religious terms. 22

Why, then, if all national cultures have ethnic cores, should those outside this core embrace the national culture? Miller acknowledges that national cultures have typically been formed around the ethnic group that is dominant in a particular territory and therefore bear "the hallmarks of that group: language, religion, cultural identity." Muslim identity in contemporary Britain becomes politicized when British national identity is conceived as containing "an Anglo-Saxon bias which discriminates against Muslims (and other ethnic minorities)." But he maintains that his idea of nationality can be made "democratic in so far as it insists that everyone should take part in this debate [about what constitutes the national identity] on an equal footing, and sees the formal arenas of politics as the main (though not the only) place where the debate occurs." 23

The major difficulty here is that national cultures are not typically the product of collective deliberation in which all have the opportunity to participate. The challenge is to ensure that historically marginalized groups, as well as new groups of immigrants, have genuine opportunities to contribute "on an equal footing" to shaping the national culture. Without such opportunities, liberal nationalism collapses into conservative nationalism of the kind defended by Samuel Huntington. He calls for immigrants to assimilate into America's "Anglo- Protestant culture." Like Miller, Huntington views ideology as "a weak glue to hold together people otherwise lacking in racial, ethnic, or cultural sources of community," and he rejects race and ethnicity as constituent elements of national identity. 24 Instead, he calls on Americans of all races and ethnicities to "reinvigorate their core culture." Yet his "cultural" vision of America is pervaded by ethnic and religious elements: it is not only of a country "committed to the principles of the Creed," but also of "a deeply religious and primarily Christian country, encompassing several religious minorities, adhering to Anglo- Protestant values, speaking English, maintaining its European cultural heritage." 25 That the cultural core of the United States is the culture of its historically dominant groups is a point that Huntington unabashedly accepts.

Cultural nationalist visions of solidarity would lend support to immigration and immigrant policies that give weight to linguistic and ethnic preferences and impose special requirements on individuals from groups deemed to be outside the nation's "core culture." One example is the practice in postwar Germany of giving priority in immigration and naturalization policy to ethnic Germans; they were the only foreign nationals who were accepted as permanent residents set on the path toward citizenship. They were treated not as immigrants but "resettlers" (Aussiedler) who acted on their constitutional right to return to their country of origin. In contrast, non-ethnically German guestworkers (Gastarbeiter) were designated as "aliens" (Auslander) under the 1965 German Alien Law and excluded from German citizenship. 26 Another example is the Japanese naturalization policy that, until the late 1980s, required naturalized citizens to adopt a Japanese family name. The language requirement in contemporary naturalization policies in the West is the leading remaining example of a cultural nationalist integration policy; it reflects not only a concern with the economic and political integration of immigrants but also a nationalist concern with preserving a distinctive national culture.

Constitutional patriotism and liberal nationalism are accounts of civic solidarity that deal with what one might call first-level diversity. Individuals have different group identities and hold divergent moral and religious outlooks, yet they are expected to share the same idea of what it means to be American: either patriots committed to the same set of ideals or co-nationals sharing the relevant cultural attributes. Charles Taylor suggests an alternative approach, the idea of "deep diversity." Rather than trying to fix some minimal content as the basis of solidarity, Taylor acknowledges not only the fact of a diversity of group identities and outlooks (first-level diversity), but also the fact of a diversity of ways of belonging to the political community (second-level or deep diversity). Taylor introduces the idea of deep diversity in the context of discussing what it means to be Canadian:

Someone of, say, Italian extraction in Toronto or Ukrainian extraction in Edmonton might indeed feel Canadian as a bearer of individual rights in a multicultural mosaic. . . . But this person might nevertheless accept that a Québécois or a Cree or a Déné might belong in a very different way, that these persons were Canadian through being members of their national communities. Reciprocally, the Québécois, Cree, or Déné would accept the perfect legitimacy of the "mosaic" identity.

Civic solidarity or political identity is not "defined according to a concrete content," but, rather, "by the fact that everybody is attached to that identity in his or her own fashion, that everybody wants to continue that history and proposes to make that community progress." 27 What leads people to support second-level diversity is both the desire to be a member of the political community and the recognition of disagreement about what it means to be a member. In our world, membership in a political community provides goods we cannot do without; this, above all, may be the source of our desire for political community.

Even though Taylor contrasts Canada with the United States, accepting the myth of America as a nation of immigrants, the United States also has a need for acknowledgment of diverse modes of belonging based on the distinctive histories of different groups. Native Americans, African Americans, Irish Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and Mexican Americans: across these communities of people, we can find not only distinctive group identities, but also distinctive ways of belonging to the political community.

Deep diversity is not a recapitulation of the idea of cultural pluralism first developed in the United States by Horace Kallen, who argued for assimilation "in matters economic and political" and preservation of differences "in cultural consciousness." 28  In Kallen's view, hyphenated Americans lived their spiritual lives in private, on the left side of the hyphen, while being culturally anonymous on the right side of the hyphen. The ethnic-political distinction maps onto a private-public dichotomy; the two spheres are to be kept separate, such that Irish Americans, for example, are culturally Irish and politically American. In contrast, the idea of deep diversity recognizes that Irish Americans are culturally Irish American and politically Irish American. As Michael Walzer put it in his discussion of American identity almost twenty years ago, the culture of hyphenated Americans has been shaped by American culture, and their politics is significantly ethnic in style and substance. 29  The idea of deep or second-level diversity is not just about immigrant ethnics, which is the focus of both Kallen's and Walzer's analyses, but also racial minorities, who, based on their distinctive experiences of exclusion and struggles toward inclusion, have distinctive ways of belonging to America.

While attractive for its inclusiveness, the deep diversity model may be too thin a basis for civic solidarity in a democratic society. Can there be civic solidarity without citizens already sharing a set of values or a culture in the first place? In writing elsewhere about how different groups within democracy might "share identity space," Taylor himself suggests that the "basic principles of republican constitutions – democracy itself and human rights, among them" constitute a "non-negotiable" minimum. Yet, what distinguishes Taylor's deep diversity model of solidarity from Habermas's constitutional patriotism is the recognition that "historic identities cannot be just abstracted from." The minimal commonality of shared principles is "accompanied by a recognition that these principles can be realized in a number of different ways, and can never be applied neutrally without some confronting of the substantive religious ethnic-cultural differences in societies." 30 And in contrast to liberal nationalism, deep diversity does not aim at specifying a common national culture that must be shared by all. What matters is not so much the content of solidarity, but the ethos generated by making the effort at mutual understanding and respect.

Canada's approach to the integration of immigrants may be the closest thing there is to "deep diversity." Canadian naturalization policy is not so different from that of the United States: a short required residency period, relatively low application fees, a test of history and civics knowledge, and a language exam. 31 Where the United States and Canada diverge is in their public commitment to diversity. Through its official multiculturalism policies, Canada expresses a commitment to the value of diversity among immigrant communities through funding for ethnic associations and supporting heritage language schools. 32 Constitutional patriots and liberal nationalists say that immigrant integration should be a two-way process, that immigrants should shape the host society's dominant culture just as they are shaped by it. Multicultural accommodations actually provide the conditions under which immigrant integration might genuinely become a two-way process. Such policies send a strong message that immigrants are a welcome part of the political community and should play an active role in shaping its future evolution.

The question of solidarity may not be the most urgent task Americans face today; war and economic crisis loom larger. But the question of solidarity remains important in the face of ongoing large-scale immigration and its effects on intergroup relations, which in turn affect our ability to deal with issues of economic inequality and democracy. I hope to have shown that patriotism is not easily separated from nationalism, that nationalism needs to be evaluated in light of shared principles, and that respect for deep diversity presupposes a commitment to some shared values, including perhaps diversity itself. Rather than viewing the three models of civic solidarity I have discussed as mutually exclusive – as the proponents of each sometimes seem to suggest – we should think about how they might be made to work together with each model tempering the excesses of the others.

What is now formally required of immigrants seeking to become American citizens most clearly reflects the first two models of solidarity: professed allegiance to the principles of the Constitution (constitutional patriotism) and adoption of a shared culture by demonstrating the ability to read, write, and speak English (liberal nationalism). The revised citizenship test makes gestures toward respect for first-level diversity and inclusion of historically marginalized groups with questions such as, "Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?" "What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?" "What did Susan B. Anthony do?" "What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?" The election of the first African American president of the United States is a significant step forward. A more inclusive American solidarity requires the recognition not only of the fact that Americans are a diverse people, but also that they have distinctive ways of belonging to America.

• 1 For comments on earlier versions of this essay, I am grateful to participants in the Kadish Center Workshop on Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at Berkeley Law School; the Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism; and the UCLA Legal Theory Workshop. I am especially grateful to Christopher Kutz, Sarah Paoletti, Eric Rakowski, Samuel Scheffler, Seana Shiffrin, and Rogers Smith.
• 2 Philip Gleason, "American Identity and Americanization," in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups , ed. Stephan Thernstrom (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1980), 31–32, 56–57.
• 3 David Hollinger, "From Identity to Solidarity," Dædalus 135 (4) (Fall 2006): 24.
• 4 David Miller, "Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Theoretical Reflections," in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies , ed. Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 328, 334.
• 5 Charles Taylor, "Why Democracy Needs Patriotism," in For Love of Country? ed. Joshua Cohen (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), 121.
• 6 On the purpose and varieties of narratives of collective identity and membership that have been and should be articulated not only for subnational and transnational, but also for national communities, see Rogers M. Smith, Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
• 7 Jürgen Habermas, "Citizenship and National Identity," in Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , trans. William Rehg (Cambridge, Mass.: mit Press, 1996), 500.
• 9 Edward Rothstein, "Connections: Refining the Tests That Confer Citizenship," The New York Times , January 23, 2006.
• 10 See http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/100q.pdf (accessed November 28, 2008).
• 11 Habermas, "The European Nation-State," in Between Facts and Norms , trans. Rehg, 118.
• 12 Charles Taylor, "The Politics of Recognition," in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition , ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
• 13 8 U.S.C., section 1423 (1988); In re Katz , 21 F.2d 867 (E.D. Mich. 1927) (attachment to principles of Constitution implies English literacy requirement).
• 14 Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat., 103 and Act of Jan. 29, 1795, ch. 20, section 1, 1 Stat., 414. See James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship , 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 239–243. James Madison opposed the second requirement: "It was hard to make a man swear that he preferred the Constitution of the United States, or to give any general opinion, because he may, in his own private judgment, think Monarchy or Aristocracy better, and yet be honestly determined to support his Government as he finds it"; Annals of Cong. 1, 1022–1023.
• 15 8 U.S.C., section 1427(a)(3). See also Schneiderman v. United States , 320 U.S. 118, 133 n.12 (1943), which notes the change from behaving as a person attached to constitutional principles to being a person attached to constitutional principles.
• 16 Internal Security Act of 1950, ch. 1024, sections 22, 25, 64 Stat. 987, 1006–1010, 1013–1015. The Internal Security Act provisions were included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, sections 212(a)(28), 241(a)(6), 313, 66 Stat. 163, 184–186, 205–206, 240–241.
• 17 Gerald L. Neuman, "Justifying U.S. Naturalization Policies," Virginia Journal of International Law 35 (1994): 255.
• 18 David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 25.
• 19 Ibid., 25–26.
• 20 On the civic-ethnic distinction, see W. Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992); David Hollinger, Post-Ethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1995); Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
• 21 Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 216.
• 22 See Rogers M. Smith, Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).
• 23 Miller, On Nationality , 122–123, 153–154.
• 24 Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 12. In his earlier book, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1981), Huntington defended a "civic" view of American identity based on the "political ideas of the American creed," which include liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, and private property (46). His change in view seems to have been motivated in part by his belief that principles and ideology are too weak to unite a political community, and also by his fears about immigrants maintaining transnational identities and loyalties – in particular, Mexican immigrants whom he sees as creating bilingual, bicultural, and potentially separatist regions; Who Are We? 205.
• 25 Huntington, Who Are We? 31, 20.
• 26 Christian Joppke, "The Evolution of Alien Rights in the United States, Germany, and the European Union," Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices , ed. T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001), 44. In 2000, the German government moved from a strictly jus sanguinis rule toward one that combines jus sanguinis and jus soli , which opens up access to citizenship to non-ethnically German migrants, including Turkish migrant workers and their descendants. A minimum length of residency of eight (down from ten) years is also required, and dual citizenship is not formally recognized. While more inclusive than before, German citizenship laws remain the least inclusive among Western European and North American countries, with inclusiveness measured by the following criteria: whether citizenship is granted by jus soli (whether children of non-citizens who are born in a country's territory can acquire citizenship), the length of residency required for naturalization, and whether naturalized immigrants are permitted to hold dual citizenship. See Marc Morjé Howard, "Comparative Citizenship: An Agenda for Cross-National Research," Perspectives on Politics 4 (2006): 443–455.
• 27 Charles Taylor, "Shared and Divergent Values," in Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism , ed. Guy Laforest (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), 183, 130.
• 28 Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United States (New York: Boni & Liveright, 1924), 114–115.
• 29 Michael Walzer, "What Does It Mean to Be an 'American'?" (1974); reprinted in What It Means to Be an American: Essays on the American Experience (New York: Marsilio, 1990), 46.
• 30 Charles Taylor, "Democratic Exclusion (and Its Remedies?)," in Multiculturalism, Liberalism, and Democracy , ed. Rajeev Bhargava et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 163.
• 31 The differences in naturalization policy are a slightly longer residency requirement in the United States (five years in contrast to Canada's three) and Canada's official acceptance of dual citizenship.
• 32 See Irene Bloemraad, Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

What Does it Mean to be an American? Reexamining the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship

Search form

Education Abroad Home

• About This Site
• Global Citizenship
• Academic Development
• Assessment & Evaluation
• Other Resources

You are here

U.s. american identity abroad.

1. To differentiate between stereotypes and generalizations and how stereotypes impact intercultural learning.

2. To reflect on how U.S. Americans are perceived internationally, both positively and negatively.

3. To explore ways to dispel misperceptions and combat negative stereotypes of U.S. Americans.

As students travel and study abroad, they encounter a range of positive and negative stereotypes of U.S. Americans.  This tool begins the process of understanding stereotypes and generalizations and how preconceived notions of a culture group can impact intercultural encounters. Through class discussions and an optional assignment, students explore ways to dispel misperceptions and combat negative stereotypes of U.S. Americans.

• Initial Brainstorming . Begin by asking students to individually generate two lists. The first should list characteristics frequently associated with those in the international destination. The second should list characteristics frequently associated with U.S. Americans. (Clarify the convention of using “U.S. American” versus “American”.) Once students have a few items for each list, ask them to share their lists with the class. Write up a master list on the blackboard so that all can observe emerging commonalities. Invite students to share their reactions to the two lists, whether they agree or disagree with them and the extent to which the characteristics are applicable to themselves and their family and friends. 
• Differentiate Stereotypes & Generalizations. Reviewing the two lists, differentiate between stereotypes and generalizations. Facilitate a discussion of how and why stereotypes emerge, emphasizing that if students consider only stereotypes when learning about a culture, they limit their understanding of the host culture. Clarify that generalizing can also be based on incomplete or false information, but that it involves constantly testing and revising ideas while searching for general patterns in the culture. One never assumes that every person will act in the same way.
• Understanding & Dispelling Misperceptions. Expand the discussion to how stereotypes can impact students’ intercultural encounters while abroad. Discuss how their “identity as an American” may influence how they will be treated in the host country, both positively and negatively. Then, brainstorm ways to dispel misperceptions or combat negative stereotypes held abroad of U.S. Americans (e.g., distinguishing between constructive and obstructive criticism, demonstrating consideration for local customs/dress, learning/speaking the language, etc). 

Optional Assignment . Part One: Have students submit a 1-2 page reflective essay answering the question: How might you go about discovering how people in the host culture would like to be treated? Part Two: Upon return, have students submit a 2-3 page reflective essay on how their attitudes toward the U.S. and the host country changed as a result of the international experience. Or for greater difficulty consider, “The Decline in America’s Reputation: Is it our Values or our Policies?”

The optional assignment could count for 10% of the overall course grade – 5% for each reflective essay.  Students should be assessed on the completeness and thoroughness of their writing.

One class session for Open House (optional, post-study abroad)

Adapted by S. Knell & A. Ogden, 2009 from Paige, R. et all (2006) Maximizing Study Abroad (2nd Ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Site copyright 2012, University of Kentucky , Education Abroad. Toolkit Authors: Duarte Morais, Ph.D., Anthony C. Ogden, Ph.D., & Christine Buzinde, Ph.D. More information about the toolkit authors.

Danland theme modification by Vaughan A. Fielder .

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Race and Ethnicity — American Identity

Essays on American Identity

Hook examples for identity essays, anecdotal hook.

Standing at the crossroads of cultures and heritage, I realized that my identity is a mosaic, a tapestry woven from the threads of my diverse experiences. Join me in exploring the intricate journey of self-discovery.

Question Hook

What defines us as individuals? Is it our cultural background, our values, or our personal beliefs? The exploration of identity leads us down a path of introspection and understanding.

Quotation Hook

"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment." These words from Ralph Waldo Emerson resonate as a testament to the importance of authentic identity.

Cultural Identity Hook

Our cultural roots run deep, shaping our language, traditions, and worldview. Dive into the rich tapestry of cultural identity and how it influences our sense of self.

Identity and Belonging Hook

Human beings have an innate desire to belong. Explore the intricate relationship between identity and the sense of belonging, and how it impacts our social and emotional well-being.

Identity in a Digital Age Hook

In an era of social media and digital personas, our sense of identity takes on new dimensions. Analyze how technology and online interactions shape our self-perception.

Identity and Self-Acceptance Hook

Coming to terms with our true selves can be a challenging journey. Explore the importance of self-acceptance and how it leads to a more authentic and fulfilling life.

American Identity in Sandra Cisneros Mericans

American identity in mericans, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

I Love America Research Paper

The way an american identity is created, characteristics that shaped an american identity, an overview of the evolution of the american identity, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Questioning The Identity: The Meaning of Being an American

What does it mean to be an american citizen, the rising of american identity, what america means to me, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The American Identity and The Role of The Foreigner in American Nation and Other Nations

An analysis of native american identity as a result of colonialism in sherman alexie's novel the absolutely true diary of a part-time indian, a discussion on latin americans developing their american identity, the view of frederick douglass on american identity, what it means to live in america, what it means to be an american today, the impact of class in social identity, representation of the american family in the works of roth and miller, my cultural identity: who i am, understanding the concept of the american dream, freedom as the root of what it means to be an american, what america means to you: education, rights, and equality, tocqueville on the toxicity of american ideals, american dream as an integral part of american ideals, the evolution of native american identity in joy harjo's poetry, establishment of american ideals during american revolution, the great gatsby: what it means to be an american in a negative connotation, italian-american identity in stallone's rocky, exploring america’s identity subjugation in "americanah", representation of toxic american masculinity in slaughterhouse-five by kurt vonnegut.

National identity can be defined as an overarching system of collective characteristics and values in a nation, American identity has been based historically upon: “race, ethnicity, religion, culture and ideology”.

Relevant topics

• Social Justice
• Cultural Appropriation
• Discourse Community
• Sociological Imagination
• Social Media
• Effects of Social Media
• Media Analysis
• Sex, Gender and Sexuality

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

American Identity: Home

• Multimedia Components
• NoodleTools

American Identity - Bishop

Your essential question to answer for this assignment is:  What is your American identity? 

To answer this question, your assignment is as follows:

Choose 5 images that represent American identity for you personally

o    Images are gathered and formatted into an Adobe Spark presentation that includes your definition of American identity and your rationale for the images selected.  You must give an explanation for each image.  (How does this image represent my American identity?)

o    Submit your Adobe Spark Video as instructed in class.

o    Once you have submitted, you will observe 3 other students’ gallery and leave a discussion comment, agreeing or disagreeing with this student’s perception of the American identity.

Adobe Spark

• Directions for making a NEW Adobe Spark Account If you have previously used Adobe Spark, you must make a new account using these directions. This is what you should use moving forward.
• Next: Multimedia Components >>
• Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 9:14 AM
• URL: https://bluevalleyk12.libguides.com/americanidentity

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Book Review: Rachel Khong’s new novel ‘Real Americans’ explores race, class and cultural identity

This cover image released by Knopf shows “Real Americans” by Rachel Khong. (Knopf via AP)

• Copy Link copied

In 2017 Rachel Khong wrote a slender, darkly comic novel, “Goodbye, Vitamin,” that picked up a number of accolades and was optioned for a film. Now she has followed up her debut effort with a sweeping, multigenerational saga that is twice as long and very serious.

“Real Americans” — the title alone suggests its weighty subject — wrestles with issues of class, race and the genetic component of disease. Though largely a work of social realism, it has a touch of science fiction, with characters experiencing “blips” in existence, when time itself seems to get stuck.

The novel is narrated by three members of the same family: May, the Chinese-born matriarch; her American daughter, Lily; and Lily’s biracial son, Nick. It opens in 1999, when 22-year-old Lily is working as an unpaid intern at a media company, a few months away from her NYU graduation.

At a holiday party, she meets her boss’s nephew, Matthew, five years older and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune. Tall and “golden haired,” he is likable and self-assured. Lily, on the other hand, is insecure, unambitious and prone to ruminating about what a disappointment she is to her hard-charging mother, a brilliant scientist who specializes in—spoiler alert—genetic engineering.

Nonetheless, they fall in love, get married and, after much difficulty, have a baby. That child, a boy named Nick with blond hair and blue eyes, narrates the second section, which begins in 2021, when he is a teenager. He was raised on a remote island off Washington state by his single mother, feeling like a misfit and wishing more than anything to be normal.

Wondering why he does not, as his best friend says, “look Chinese,” the two of them search an online genetic database and find Matthew, his long-lost white father. Nick’s subsequent decision to go to Yale (Khong’s alma mater) sets up a series of dramatic encounters on the east coast with the dad he never knew.

The most vivid character in the book is Nick’s grandmother May, who grew up in China during the Cultural Revolution and fled to America after making a pact, of sorts, with the devil. She narrates the third section of the book in 2030, when she is dying. Only then are the riddles of Lily and Nick’s discombobulated lives finally explained.

Khong, who was formerly the executive editor of the now defunct food magazine Lucky Peach, has offered up a veritable smorgasbord of ideas — about IVF, genetic engineering, different cultural styles of parenting, and what it means to be a “real American.”

AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews

Man or bear? Hypothetical question sparks conversation about women's safety

Women explain why they would feel safer encountering a bear in the forest than a man they didn't know. the hypothetical has sparked a broader discussion about why women fear men..

If you were alone in the woods, would you rather encounter a bear or a man? Answers to that hypothetical question have sparked a debate about why the vast majority say they would feel more comfortable choosing a bear.

The topic has been hotly discussed for weeks as men and women chimed in with their thoughts all over social media.

Screenshot HQ , a TikTok account, started the conversation, asking a group of women whether they would rather run into a man they didn't know or a bear in the forest. Out of the seven women interviewed for the piece, only one picked a man.

"Bear. Man is scary," one of the women responds.

A number of women echoed the responses given in the original video, writing in the comments that they, too, would pick a bear over a man. The hypothetical has people split, with some expressing their sadness over the state of the world and others cracking jokes. Some men were flabbergasted.

Here's what we know.

A bear is the safer choice, no doubt about it, many say

There were a lot of responses, more than 65,000, under the original post. Many wrote that they understood why the women would choose a bear.

"No one’s gonna ask me if I led the bear on or give me a pamphlet on bear attack prevention tips," @celestiallystunning wrote.

@Brennduhh wrote: "When I die leave my body in the woods, the wolves will be gentler than any man."

"I know a bear's intentions," another woman wrote. "I don't know a man's intentions. no matter how nice they are."

Other TikTok users took it one step further, posing the hypothetical question to loved ones. Meredith Steele, who goes by @babiesofsteele , asked her husband last week whether he would rather have their daughter encounter a bear or a man in the woods. Her husband said he "didn't like either option" but said he was leaning toward the bear.

"Maybe it's a friendly bear," he says.

Diana, another TikTok user , asked her sister-in-law what she would choose and was left speechless.

"I asked her the question, you know, just for giggles. She was like, 'You know, I would rather it be a bear because if the bear attacks me, and I make it out of the woods, everybody’s gonna believe me and have sympathy for me," she said. "But if a man attacks me and I make it out, I’m gonna spend my whole life trying to get people to believe me and have sympathy for me.'"

Bear vs. man debate stirs the pot, woman and some men at odds

The hypothetical has caused some tension, with some women arguing that men will never truly understand what it's like to be a woman or the inherent dangers at play.

Social media users answered this question for themselves, producing memes, spoken word poetry and skits in the days and weeks since.

So, what would you choose?

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

It Was a Trap

A time-honored tactic by right-wing agitators brought on the “crisis” on american campuses. everyone fell for it—again..

In 2001, a Vietnam-era student radical named David Horowitz decided to once again start causing trouble on campus. A few years earlier, several scholars and activists had begun to argue that the U.S. should pay reparations to descendants of slaves. Horowitz, whose politics had taken a sharp right turn since the 1960s, thought that this was a very bad idea. So he contacted several college newspapers, seeking to place a full-page ad , during Black History Month, titled, “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea—and Racist Too.”

The ad, which had been adapted from a Salon column he had published the previous year, seemed designed to stir passions on the campuses where it ran. In it, Horowitz deemed reparations “an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can’t seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others”; argued that “the reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left”; and asked the question: “What about the debt blacks owe to America?”

Horowitz’s inflammatory arguments were not very well received. Many of the newspapers to which Horowitz submitted the ad rejected it entirely. At Brown University, angry students stole thousands of newspapers in which the ad had been printed. At the University of California, Berkeley, students marched on the offices of the student newspaper, prompting its editor in chief to publicly apologize for running the ad in the first place. The mainstream media soon picked up on the furor, and the ensuing press attention ended up making all of the students involved look like twits, while giving Horowitz exponentially more attention than the ads alone would have in the first place.

Perceptive observers surmised that this had been his goal all along . In addition to his position on reparations, Horowitz also harbored a grudge against American academia, which he had reportedly called “a dictatorship of the left.” (He has since written several books expounding on that tendentious thesis.) The polemical advertisement was clearly designed not to engage in good faith with the notion of reparations, but to elicit isolated intemperate reactions among campus activists. Then, Horowitz could use those reactions to advance the notion that all of academia was biased and intolerant, while he, the author of books such as Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes and The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future , came across as the righteous party. Hell of a trick!

I thought about the Horowitz reparations hubbub this week, as I watched cops march on college campuses all across the country, charged with clearing encampments of students and others who were protesting the grim excesses of Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip. Lots of people have written lots of things about the Gaza campus protests, the various official responses to them, the validity of the arguments being advanced, and the relative merits of the tactics being used to advance and/or squelch those arguments. But no matter your opinion on any of these topics, no matter what you might think about the protests and how they’ve played out, I suspect that everyone can probably agree on at least one thing: No one in the history of the universe is more easily rolled by bad-faith right-wing agitators than college students, professors, and administrators.

Whenever conservative demagogues are looking for patsies and suckers to help them make the left look like fools while advancing some stupid reactionary talking point, they know exactly where to turn: the sun-dappled quads of American academia. Students, professors, and administrators consistently fall into traps set by right-wing political actors, traps that are generally designed to use isolated incidents of alleged identitarian excess on campus in order to disparage liberalism more generally, thus sending swing voters into the all-American arms of whichever sturdy Republican candidates are up for election that year. Colleges and universities are the American right’s absolute favorite punching bag, because their denizens never see the uppercut coming, and they never, ever learn to sidestep the blow. They’re like the Washington Generals: They lose, lose, lose, lose, lose.

Spinning alleged campus excesses into a broader political narrative of liberal chaos and disorder has been a favorite conservative tactic since at least the late 1960s, when Main Street disapproval of the youth-driven protests over the Vietnam War helped to narrowly deliver the 1968 presidential election to an anthropomorphic sheet of sandpaper named Richard Nixon. Modern-day right-wing media have basically built their brand on the backs of left-wing students and professors, whose minor protests and marginal curricula have been consistently inflated into Major Issues by commentators eager to disparage academia and liberalism more generally. The contemporary Republican notion that America is on the brink of collapse is in large part a culture-war trope propagated by activists such as Christopher Rufo, who have spun their own willful misinterpretations of obscure academic disciplines such as critical race theory into boogeymen with which to terrify viewers and voters into thinking that their heritage is under direct attack.

It’s not hard to understand why the reactionary right bears such a grudge against academia. For one thing, the collegiate spirit of free inquiry and rational debate flies directly in the face of Trumpian because-we-said-so authoritarianism, not to mention the begged questions and other logical fallacies that animate modern Republican discourse. The identity-based disciplines found at many schools threaten a reactionary worldview rooted in the purported superiority of some monochromatic past; many on the religious right, meanwhile, seem to see heresy in the ways that liberal arts educations try to teach students to think for themselves. And I have long suspected that some of today’s most stridently disingenuous Republican pundits and politicians are motivated in part by bad memories of their own college years, in which they felt isolated within their own conservative worldviews and subsequently transmuted those feelings into seething lifelong resentments.

Or, hey, maybe they’re just political opportunists who know that collegiate actors will consistently make the sorts of moves that allow the right to portray them as fools. There was probably a bit of all of this working on New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik when, a few months ago, she hauled various university presidents into Congress, insisted that certain student protesters’ use of the word “intifada” and phrase “from the river to the sea” directly equated to calls for genocide, and then watched them fumble their responses in truly embarrassing fashion.

The subsequent resignations of the presidents of Penn and Harvard, respectively, were unforced errors on the parts of highly educated people who, first, should have more directly challenged Stefanik’s partisan premises, and, second, should have probably realized that the en vogue campus notion that speech sometimes equates to violence would eventually be co-opted by right-wingers eager to exploit campus unrest for their own political gain. (I’m often reminded of how, back when the rise of the social web was leading a lot of otherwise-smart people to profess that the internet would soon bring about a state of digital utopia, the writer Evgeny Morozov kept making a very trenchant point that almost nobody wanted to hear: Bad people know how to use the internet, too .) The scalps of Liz Magill and Claudine Gay were nice trophies for the ambitious Stefanik, who is rumored to be in contention for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot. But the hearings and subsequent leadership turnover also helped to promote the narrative of widespread chaos on campus—a narrative that’s a boon to Republicans in an election year.

So it wasn’t much of a surprise when Congress held a second round of hearings about alleged campus antisemitism. And it wasn’t much of a surprise when, eager to avoid the fate of her former peers, Columbia University president Nemat Shafik seemed directly receptive to her inquisitors’ premises and took a harder-line stance against alleged campus antisemitism than did her predecessors. And it also wasn’t surprising, when, in direct response to Shafik’s testimony , Columbia students set up a protest encampment on the lawn outside Butler Library, which was followed by multiple police actions, complementary protests at other schools nationwide, and the flood of media attention that has turned this manufactured campus crisis into front-page national news for weeks on end.

For the purposes of this column, let’s set aside questions of the merits of the protests and the various police and administration responses to them. It’s incredibly obvious—to me, at least—that pretty much all of the relevant parties here got rolled by the American right. On the hunt for footage and storylines that they can then inflate into broader narratives of chaos, intolerance, and disorder in a critical election year, the right spun campus protests over Gaza into congressional hearings on campus antisemitism, and trusted that everyone involved would respond so ineptly that they’d be able to exploit the whole thing for months.

And, mark my words, that is exactly what right-wing politicians and media outlets will do. Even though the campus protests may die down once the semester ends, the footage and discussion of them will live on throughout the spring and summer. The right will draw false equivalencies between the brief occupation of Hamilton Hall and the events of Jan. 6; they’ll disparage President Joe Biden and liberal politicians for “allowing” the protests to happen; they’ll fold it into deathless narratives of decaying liberal cities and elitist intolerance; and they’ll make everyone involved look like idiots while portraying themselves as the righteous parties—the heroes of this whole stupid situation. David Horowitz is probably very proud.