Talk:Nativism (politics)/Archive 1

removed part lifted from other text
" Their ?Code of Principles? had a clear objective: ?to release our country from the thralldom of foreign domination? was the way they put it, thinking to embody Americanist principles. In the following four years, twenty-one local chapters were established in the state of New York. Within a decade the fraternity could boast of chapters in sixteen states and a total membership of at least fifty thousand. The least progressive among the Whig party found sympathetic reception among the Nativists. "

I removed the above section because it was copied directly from http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1994/4/94.04.05.x.html

Kingturtle 00:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV
"Palestine, where Israeli Jews are committing genocide against Native Arab Palestinians." Im no fan of Israeli policies towards Palestinians, but this is blatantly POV

Is Nativism a real thing? Can it be proven?
I don't think there is a single nation or tribe that can be said to be truly "native" to a certain geographic area. If you go back in history long enough, there's always one tribe/people who invades the land, exterminated/assimilated/enslaved/expells the previous inhabitants, and claims the land as their own. As far as we know, this kind of inter-ethnic warfare has been going on since before recorded history, back to neolithic times. If you look at any modern-day nation, if you go back in time long enough you'll find that land was once occupied by another nation/people who were killed/driven out by the new invaders.

Immigration reduction

 * American nativist resentment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at 'illegal aliens,' largely from Mexico,South America and Asia resulting in the passage of rather harsh immigration laws in 1996--that did little to restrict overall levels of immigration. Much of this anti-immigration sentiment was associated with opposition to NAFTA which was considered to be a major factor in accelerating immigration from Mexico. After the attacks on New York City and other landmarks in 2001, nativist resentment and islamophobia were amplified and directed towards immigrants in general and individuals perceived to be either Arab and/or Muslim being the target of hate and hate-related crime as well as the passage of even harsher anti-immigrant laws. Laws directed at employers of illegal aliens were rarely enforced under the 2000-2004 Bush administration-which had the effect of creating a large workforce in the United States with limited political rights.

The above paragraph was moved from this article to Immigration reduction. However it really belongs here, not there. The immigration reductionist movement claims to not be nativist, and the way this paragraph is written it is more about nativism. Why doesn't it belong in this article? It seems to address recent nativism in America. -Willmcw 23:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * American nativist resentment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at 'illegal aliens,' largely Asian and Mexican resulting in the passage of rather harsh immigration laws in 1996. After the attacks on New York City and other landmarks in 2001, nativist resentment and islamophobia were amplified and directed towards immigrants in general and individuals percieved to be either Arab and/or Muslim being the target of hate and hate-related crime as well as the passage of even harsher anti-immgrant laws.

The above paragraph, in its unrevised form, remains untouched here at Nativism, where it is indeed relevant. The edited version's interpolations rendered it more relevant at Immigration reduction. Nothing has been edited, removed or suppressed. Quite to the contrary, now there are two similar texts, one relevant to Nativism and one relevant to those recent developments of nativism that are treated at Immigration reduction. One is sorry to hear that "the immigration reductionist movement claims to not be nativist" in the face of perfectly clear connections. Denying the connection is a task to take up at Talk:Immigrant reduction, of course, not here. --Wetman 00:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. If the material is duplicated then I will edit down the copy at Immigration reduction to make it relevent there and move it to the correct chronological position. A sentence or two along these lines may be appropriate in the anti-immigration article as well. As for the claims of immigration reductionists - well, don't get me started..... Cheers, -Willmcw 01:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. Vet my recent addition to link your revised, but moved, text. Nothing's lost! There should be brief statements at Anti-immigration embodying links here and Immigration reduction. I was unaware of that article.--Wetman 01:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I hadn't looked at the Anti-immigration article in a while - I realize now that it contains material that became the core of the Immigration reduction article, and so is no longer needed there. Another editing task for the list. It should definitely include a link back here. Cheers, Willmcw 01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Should Anti-immigration (awkward adjectival heading!) be merged with Immigration reduction? --Wetman 02:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Anti-immigration and potential companion, anti-immigrant, actually would be better to merge to Nativist. The immigration reductionists insist that they are not anti-immigrant, and also aver that they are not anti-immigration. (They do not want to stop immigration, simply reduce it by 95%). Whereas no one would argue that nativists are anti-immigration and even anti-immigrant. The anti-immigrant article was written to include an NPOV consideration of the late 20th-century American immigration reduction movement. With that now in its own article, the Anti-immigration article can more directly cover the nativism, xenophobia, and other issues that are involved. The American focus can also be removed, making it a more internationally general article. I think it will be useful article after a re-write. (Which you're welcome to do.) Cheers, -Willmcw

Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? The two forms of Nativism here deserve their own pages, I think. If no one objects I'll move it in a few days. --babbage 11:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. The connection is very slim. --Wetman 11:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJ: I removed multiple errors from original article (such as references to WASPS, Bavarian Illuminati, Erie Canal, 1st KKK) and adds two of the 3 most important nativist episodes, 1798 and 2nd KKK. Drop "natalism" which is an unrelated issue (the strongest natalist groups are Catholics and Mormons, both anti-nativist). Anti-Chinese sentiment in 1870s was led by the Irish Catholics (Kearney). 7 Nov 05 67.176.74.236 15:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Richard Jensen

Disambiguation page
Since political and psycholoigical nativism are extremely different and unrelated, shouldn't we have a disambiguation page for the term "nativism"? -- dzou


 * Yes. Separate bedrooms too. Divorce seems inevitable... --Wetman 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Proceeding to disambiguate. --Smithfarm 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WASP was invented by Irish Immigrants who resented the Nativist Americans of English Heritage. They couldn't didn't like them because of their resentment to them. But, in reality the Nativists were justified in their anger. As a Catholic with "WASP" heritage, I understand why they felt that way.

NPOV?
"For instance, while Mexican President Vicente Fox faults the US for not opening its borders, Mexico simultaneously cracks down harshly on "undocumented migrants" who breach her southern borders from other Central American countries. Yet no public discussion accuses Mexico of being nativist in immigration policies."

This doesn't sound NPOV to me. How does everyone else feel?


 * There's definitely some value-laden language there. I'd say it's heavily POV. However, the same thing could be said in a less antagonistic manner, and provided a source citation is added it could pass muster. --Smithfarm 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * actually it's a statement about things that did not happen. That does not belong in an encyclopdia-- LOTS of things don't happen! Rjensen 09:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Give examples but dont show your opinion...State them dont judge it!

This doesn't make sense - or maybe I'm missing something
''This form of nationalism often identified with xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment (anti-papism). In the 1840s, small scale riots between Catholics and nativists took place in several American cities. In California, Irish immigrants vented their resentment against the Chinese. Nativist sentiment experienced a revival in the 1880s, led by Protestant Irish immigrants hostile to Catholic immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many nativist acts of congress to limit the flow of immigrants into the U.S.''

In California, Irish immigrants vented their resentment against the Chinese. Are these Itish immigrants nativists? Then it makes sense. If so, then say so. Wallie 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes the Irish in California were intensely opposed to Chinese immigrants. The Irish were themselves immigrants so it's awkward to call them nativists. Rjensen 08:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nativism used to focus more on East Asians, now it focuses on South Asians
Until WWII, the Chinese were targeted. After WWII, Chinese and Japanese became "model minorities". How that happened is another discussion.

In the 80's and 90's, South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) were mocked as "towelheads" (referring no doubt to the Sikhs) and because they seemed to have a lockhold on motels and convenience stores.

Apu of "The Simpsons" is a gentle caricature that represents the kinder side of this phenomenon.

It is easy to forget that version of American nativism because we are now on the current "immigration reform" debate which focuses on Latinos (primarily Mexicans).

If my text doesn't communicate the above points, then let's fix it. However, please don't say that American nativism only focuses on Latinos. They're just the current target of the day.

--Richard 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Assertion that immigrants form violent gangs that seize control of work
The assertion that nativists allege that "newcomers form violent gangs that seize control of work" needs some support. It's not that I don't believe these allegations are made. It's more that this is not, in my experience, one of the common allegations and so may need some support to establish credibility.

Since this article doesn't have any citations, it's not so important that the statement have a citation. It might be useful to provide examples of allegations of violent gangs. I suspect that this allegation is not a common charge in the contemporary United States but might have been an allegation from earlier in our history or other countries (France, Germany?). Help me understand what this sentence is trying to say.

As a more general comment, there is one reference provided in this section (Bennett's "Party of Fear"). Is it the source for the entire section or just part? If only part of the section can be sourced to that book, then it should be made clear what is sourced from it and what is not.

--Richard 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The assertion about violent gangs that seize work sites goes back to Irish gangs (1840s). Chinese gangs (tongs) in 1880s, Italian Mafia (1880-1930s), and more recently to Russian and Hispanic gangs. So it's a recurring theme. Rjensen 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted incomprehensible sentence
I couldn't make sense out of this sentence...

"In the wake of H.R. 4437 and the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests, some Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives excised debatably nativist sentiments in claims that illegal aliens would come to the U.S., take advantage of social welfare programs, and overwhelm state and federal governments."

What is intended by the use of the word "excised" in the above sentence?

I have excised this sentence until someone can explain to me what it means or fix it so that its meaning is clarified.

--Richard 06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence is garbled. Perhaps it should read: "In the wake of H.R. 4437 and the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests, some Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives vented nativist sentiments in claiming that illegal aliens were flooding the U.S., taking advantage of social welfare programs, and overwhelming state and federal governments." Rjensen 09:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I had been meaning to fix that, it was a typo and nothing more. I had meant to type "...[those parties]] exercized debatably nativist sentiments." This has such been fixed. Scrabbleship 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "exercize" is the wrong word here. I think of "expressing, displaying or venting" a sentiment but not "exercizing" one.  Moreover, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word "debatably" in this sentence.  What is it intended to convey here?


 * --Richard 14:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of nativism in the 20th century U.S. needs to be broadened to cover other states
The mention of Colorado makes it sound like the phenomenon is limited to Colorado in 2006. There needs to be mention of similar events in other states such as the attempt in 1994 to limit access to social programs in California (Proposition 187).

--Richard 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * in 2006 Colorado seems to have taken the lead among states. Rjensen 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if that's true, it would provide a "snapshot" of nativism in 2006. To be encyclopedic, we need to cover more than just 2006 in order to describe nativism in the U.S. in the 20th century.  I mention California's Prop 187 because I'm familiar with it but there have been a number of other nativist movements in other states such as attempts to make English the official language and, I believe, attempts to restrict access to social programs.  We don't need to document every single one of them but we need to paint the picture of a more widespread movement.  Otherwise, it looks as if Colorado is the only one that has a nativist movement.
 * --Richard 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Discuss whether to merge anti-immigration with political nativism. I would say yes. They're the same thing. Nativism is the older term and more widely used in political science. On a separate issue I also think Political Nativism should be renamed something more like Nativism (politics) so the actual term political scientists use is more prominent. KleenupKrew 22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with the proposed merge. Also agree with the proposed name change. --Richard 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Agree the article should be called Nativism (politics) Rjensen 12:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since ther has been no discussion on this proposed move in over two weeks, I assume the consensus is "move and merge". I have done the move.  Let's start the merge.
 * --Richard 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have executed the merge and have redirected anti-immigration to this article.


 * Please review the anti-immigration article and this newly expanded Nativism (politics) article to ensure that I have done a complete merge. Also, please help complete the merge by cleaning up this article as it now uses "anti-immigration" in some places and "nativism" in others.


 * --Richard 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nativism inacurate term, split the article
I added the USA-centric tag, follwing the merger with Anti-immigration. That was a bad title, but moving the content here has made things worse. Nativism is a term from American politics, and it arose because the majority in the USA are themselves of immigrant descent. The term distinguishes between native-born descendants and first-generation immigrants. It is inaccurate to apply this model to Europe, where the nation-states are founded on 'indigenous' nations. 'Nativism in Europe' is a short-sighted attempt to describe European politics with US terminology.

The article should be split in two. One part, with the neutral title of 'Opposition to immigration' should cover this phenomenon, which is present in all countries with immigrants. It should refer to nativism as a specific anti-immigration ideology in countries such as the USA (and perhaps Canada and Australia). The details can remain in a spearate Nativism article.--Paul111 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the general thrust of this proposal but I'd like to know how we should title articles about anti-immigrant sentiments in Japan, Germany and France. I think we need one article called "Opposition to immigration" and then subsidiary articles such as "Opposition to immigration in X" where X can be the U.S., the U.K., Australia, France, Germany, etc.  Nativism (politics) could then re-direct to either Opposition to immigration or Opposition to immigration in the United States.  Alternatively, Nativism (politics) could be an article that describes the peculiar characteristics of opposition to immigration in the U.S., Canada and Australia (assuming that such exist).


 * --Richard 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on Opposition to immigration should say that in countries where the population is largely 'immigrant' by descent, immigration takes the form of 'nativism'. It should say that the term originates in the United States but can be applied to Australia, Canada, and possibly New Zealand.Paul111 12:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I have split this article as suggested by Paul111. Paul111, can you make review the two articles and make such changes as you feel are appropriate (e.g. the one that you suggest above)?  --Richard 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to immigration needs a complete rewrite, which will take some time.Paul111 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with the phrasing "nativism arose where the population is largely immigrant population..."! ;) I think a group of descendants of original colonists (not "immigrants" but pre-nation colonists) in a country can still be called "nativists." Perhaps Puerto-Ricans can be "nativist?" I think the term arose to give connotations of racism. Otherwise "anti-immigrant" would work just as well.  cuvtixo

First-generation immigrants
Both this article and the new opposition to immigration article use the term, "first-generation immigrants". I'm going to have to take issue with this term as hopelessly POV. Is there any other kind of immigrant? This term seems like a leftist, identity politics based term that implies that "we are all immigrants" (and therefore all members of some minority group deserving of special benefits rather than members of the majority), which as we all know is complete nonsense. If you were born in the country you live in, you are by definition not an immigrant. There are no "second-generation" immigrants - the very conecpt is an oxymoron. I'm going to have to object to the use of this term in any article and in any context. Puppy Mill 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I never thought of it that way. I'm a "second generation immigrant" (Chinese).  I understand your point and it is valid but you're assumption that it is based on "leftist, identity politics" is not the only way to interpret the semantics of the term.


 * Another approach is to consider the idea that there are "second generation immigrants" to be an assertion that there are people who are NOT second generation immigrants, notably "white Anglo-Saxon Americans" and African-Americans descended from slaves. In essence, some might draw a line somewhere in the mid-1800's (for argument's sake, let's call it the Civil War) and say that everybody descended from someone who arrived before then is a "native" and everybody descended from someone who arrived after then is a "nth generation immigrant".


 * So "second generation immigrant" is also used to draw an artificial distinction between white Anglo-Saxon Americans and "other immigrants".


 * Of course, this is patent nonsense. We are all descended from immigrants although those of pure Native American descent are arguably "native" because their ancestors arrived over 15,000 years ago.


 * However, this "patent nonsense" is the original, real-world use of the phrase "nth generation immigrant". To the extent that it is used to support "leftist, identity politics", I would think that this is a case of people adopting the existing use of the term and adapting it to support their own political ends.


 * In practice, people don't usually count generations past the 2nd or 3rd generation unless they are counting back to the Mayflower.


 * Object to "second generation immigrant" if you insist. I'm not sure exactly where it's used in the two articles but I'm sure a circumlocution can be found to avoid using the term.


 * --Richard 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Second generation immigrant" has been the standard terminology in demography and history for 100 years. It is not POV and has proven highly useful. On the other hand, the term "Anglo-Saxon Americans" is highly POV and should be avoided--it's a hostile term. Rjensen 01:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One might propose using "English-speaking" in place of "Anglo-Saxon" in my little essay above. Much of the "first/second generation immigrant" phenomenon has to do with a generation which grows up in America acclimated to the culture and the language as opposed to their parents who have a more difficult time doing so.  It is arguable that English and Scottish immigrants did not have as much difficulty and I'm not sure whether the "first/second generation immigrant" phenomenon applies to Irish immigrants.  It probably does not apply to Irish immigrants of the late 20th century.  I can't speak knowledgeably about Irish immigrants of the 19th and early 20th centuries.


 * Admittedly, another part of the "first/second generation immigrant" phenomenon has to do with educational level and social mobility (of the second generation vs. the first). This presumably crosses language and ethnic boundaries.  I don't have the sense that English and Scottish immigrants had the same experience as immigrants from other cultures and countries.  I am willing to be enlightened if I am wrong on this.


 * --Richard 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, before somebody jumps on me for this one, Scots are not Anglo-Saxons, right? They were originally Picts and Gaels but whatever their origin, they're not Anglo-Saxons except by intermarriage.


 * --Richard 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"inside the U.S." vs. "outside the U.S."
Why is the article organized into "inside the U.S." vs. "outside the U.S."?

The "inside/outside the U.S." split suggests that political nativism either originated in the U.S. or has been more notable in the U.S. than it is outside the U.S. Is this what we want to say?

Or is this just an artifact of a U.S.-centric set of editors?

--Richard 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More likely than not, the latter. People inside the US tend to write about the US a lot, and nativism is a pretty big issue in the US at the moment. I think it might even be an issue in the upcoming US presidential election, actually. It's extremely divisive. 65.182.52.95 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nativism as resistance
Nativism, as a term, is also used as indicating the early moment of anti-imperial nationalist resistance, coming before the more overt political liberationism. The motive behind the movement is explained by Elleke Boehmer in her book "Colonial and Postcolonial Literature" as the following: "The idea was that a people's identity, though long superseded, lay embedded in its cultural origins and was recoverable intact, unadulterated by the depredations of colonialism." There are also Edward Said's arguments concerning these nativist discussions. Although the title here is associated mainly with U.S.A. and anti-immigrant policies, could the title be split into two to talk about the anti-colonial aspect of it as well?
 * Why did not the author [to this comment] sign this comment?Dogru144 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is hard to read. It is more a discussion of the political sides on Nativism then defining what nativism is.

It is unclear why the illegal immigration parts are even here since what seems to be the definition of nativism doesn't seem to have to do with being against illegal immigration.

The free dictionary defines nativism as: 1. A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants. 2. The reestablishment or perpetuation of native cultural traits, especially in opposition to acculturation. 3. Philosophy The doctrine that the mind produces ideas that are not derived from external sources.

nativism is a term used to slur those who are against illegal immigration, without having a valid reason for targeting them otherwise.

I do not believe the quotes around illegal alien in the article should be there. As I recall illegal alien is the term used in the actual law pertaining to illegal aliens in the immigration law.

Another words, this article is POV, is poorly written, and useless unless wikipedia's purpose is to spread propaganda rather provide valid information.

Wmb1957 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe source citing
In the "Nativism in Europe" section the book by Leo Lucassen is cited using standard APA style. The reference should be converted to the footnote style we use on other Wikipedia articles, even if just for the sake of consitency.  Signature brendel  06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish Catholics "violently attacked" vs "clashed with"
Neither assertion is supported. I reverted and added a tag. --Richard 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Emotive language like "violently attacked" should not be used unless there is really good evidence to support it. Nowhere else in this article is such language used, though violence against and between immigrant groups have always happened. That sentence smacks of gratuitous anti-Irishness. I don't like getting involved in edit wars, but it's either "clashed" or nothing. I'm changing it back to "clashed". 83.71.47.118 16:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please excuse the derogatory language but this is a "lame" justification. We should use "violently attacked" or some other text documenting violence elsewhere in the article rather than removing it from this section.  I don't want to have any indication of anti-Irishness or anti-"any other group" in this article but we need to call a spade a spade and document that violence has occurred as a result of nativism.  I'm leaving "clashed" in the text for now but please help document violence whenever it has occurred.


 * --Richard 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought (from what I remember about U.S. History) that the Irish Catholics were being attacked because of the fact that they were Irish and Catholic. We used to not like Catholics, or the Irish (because we thought that they were taking all of our jobs) when they started immigrating here.  The violence against the Irish mostly came from the Germans, didn't it?  I would go with clashed with, because the Irish were just striking back against be attacked.  Legoland12342 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article was written by a Socialist

 * Government expense: Government expenses may exceed tax revenue relating to new immigrants.[1]

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.


 * Language: Isolate themselves in their own communities and refuse to learn the local language.

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.


 * Employment: Acquire jobs which would have otherwise been available to native citizens.

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.


 * Patriotism: Damage a sense of community and nationality.

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.


 * Consumption: Increase the consumption of scarce resources.

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.


 * Welfare: Make heavy use of social welfare systems.

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.


 * Overpopulation: May sometimes overpopulate countries

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.


 * Culture: Can swamp a native population and replace its culture with their own.

...Has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism.68.106.248.211 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your claims are quite unfounded, when they are placed in the context of the article. Those statements are the arguments surrounding the debate, and they are all used commonly in anti-immigration debates today.  While those arguments themselves are quite politically incorrect, people get easily convinced if you use your rhetoric in the right ways.  Do you have any specific reasons as to why the authors of the article are "Socialist " as you put it?  Legoland12342 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Title
Nativism redirects to here. Any reason to maintain the “(politics)” part of the title and not rename “Nativism (politics)” simply “Nativism”? Brimba (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, unnecessary disambiguation should not be encouraged. We should rename the article to simply "Nativism". скоморохъ  15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Definetly, there is a good reason! (I just got redirected here from an article on the Slavophiles after all...)

Nativism as a term is used to refer to movements seeking restoration, maintenance or survival of a culture under pressure of social change (normally through contact with outsiders). Its not just the Slavophile movement, but with regards to the geographic United States, one regularly sees the term used to describe reforms during the Indian War, Tecumseh and Wovoka.

1. I would like to suggest that the title be changed to Nativism (American politics) 2. That the term entry on "nativism" instead of simply redirecting to "nativism politics" act as an index to a variety of articles on nativistic movements.

In support of this move:

- Nativism is also used to refer to "back to the roots" movements among minorities. I can find academic references to this with regards to Indigenous peoples in North America if people want, but it will take some time. The important point here is that the term spans the full range of movements and policies throughout human history that favour the well being of an existing society in situations of contact with other cultures or immigration.

- On the wikipedia it is already being used in this broader, technically correct, application (hence I wound up here after reading an article on the Slavophiles).

- This article starts off stating that "nativism" is American in origin. This is clearly not true. There are hundreds of movements that could be termed "nativistic" throughout global history.

- Rather than attempting to make this article apply internationally it would be easier to change it to an article on American policies and, instead of redirecting, create a stub which links to it existing articles referring to other nativisic movements.

If no one objects I will produce a stub in one weeks time. S!

--Hrimpurstala (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrestrained immigration depresses wages
Employers naturally want jobs done for a lower price, higher minimum wages and tougher enforcement penalties can only force employers to give employees a fair living wage. Naturally some unscrupulous employers will take advantage of the illegal pool of labor and force them to work for less. If that illegal pool of labor is forced out of an area then the employer will be forced to hike wages in order to fill those job slots. Nativists or citizens who are against illegal immigration as may be termed may be more interested in those jobs now that the employer is forced to raise wages. While on the subject of "Nativism" it protects one's ancestral identity and culture. Nativism to some degree is practiced in all countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.50.46 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nativism - General Coverage?
This article does not scientifically discuss nativism but instead uses nativism as a method for discussing and expanding the debate on both legal and illegal immigration from the point of view of the pro-anarchist/anti-rule of law/racist/ pro-illegal immigration agenda on the whole. It needs to be completely revised toward cold neutrality and should have most-all aspects related to the current immigration debate omitted.

There should never be any mention of third persons and their organizations as examples to support what navtivism is or is not and to suggest that nativism is racism is unfounded (they may overlap in an individual or social structures but are otherwise mutually exclussive constructs concerned and focused on different aspects of social systems or individualims, and the author has failed to distinguish this throughout the entire work. Natitivism has been around as long as humankind has lived in tribes and to suggest it is a new phenomena to the US and the current immigration issues is nothing more than pure propaganda.

76.176.144.209 (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What is Nativism?

Is it just about immigrants?

How did people live back then?

move this article to Nativism in the United States?
Over 90% of this article is about nativism specifically as an American phenomenon, only briefly mentioning other instances. Would anybody object to moving this to Nativism in the United States and turning Nativism into a stub of a more general article? --Delirium 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Much better to add to the article to make it more open-ended than to shovel it under the rug as solely a US issue. Nativism is rarely discussed elsewhere, as it's so generally confused with patriotism and nationalism that any assertion becomes contentious. The article offers a "Compare White Australia policy, but the contemporary reception of Turks in Europe, for instance, is not even linked to in this article.  --Wetman 03:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * An in-depth treatment of the U.S. history of nativism doesn't really belong in a general article on nativism, though; that's only appropriate for an article on nativism in the U.S. I could certainly see a paragraph or so on U.S. nativism being part of a wider nativism article, but not as much as is currently here.  The U.S. is only one country of 192, after all.  --Delirium 07:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a separate article on Nativism in the United States would be useful. This is especially true now that we have merged the text of the anti-immigration article into this one.  There is now enough material about non-U.S. nativism to allow this article to stand on its own even after the material about nativism in the U.S. is moved to a separate article.


 * --Richard 14:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We should bisect the article, and move the parts on US nativism into a like-named article and set up "nativism" as a redirect to a disambiguation page with a breif definition of the term. Tealwisp 07:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite to reflect title
This is supposed to be an article on the well-researched topic of Nativism, not a dump for entire sections consisting of copyright violations, POV essays, uncited claims, and general rubbish. We need to start over and add material that is properly cited and focused on the core topic. While the material on the United States still dominates, it is now in better shape. If someone wants to create an article on Nativism in the United States, fell free--but please cite reputable published sources.--Cberlet (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article should be more clear that nativism was a specifically American movement that had no connection with movements outside the US. Although some scholars draw comparisons between nativism and trends in other countries, it would be wrong to call these trends nativist. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "nativism" has to be treated as having a broader meaning. Outside of the U.S. (eg. in the Commonwealth) it is regularly used to refer to any movement that favours native communities over immigrant ones. So, "American Nativism" may indeed be a specifically American movement, but other forms of "nativism" around the world most certainly are not. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC) See: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nativism

Nativism's meaning is heavily disputed. Some people regard any and all attempts of Immigration control and the preservation of cultural identity as "Nativist". Some wish to neutralize the term while others want to turn it into an indictment similar to the word "racism" and load it with negative connotations. Some want to restrict the term to intensely anti-immigrant reactionary campaigns which may involve violence. There is no consensus that I can see regarding where the line is drawn between nativism and mere cultural particularism or assimilationism. Any article on "nativism" should take this into account.

The same could be said about "racism". Some want "racism" to signify the mistreatment of people based on racial differences. Some wish that it refer to the opinion that some races are inherently better than others. Some want the term to signify the belief that different races exhibit different tendencies in their attributes. Some even apply it to people who hold that race even exists in a meaningful way. Oxford comes dangerously close to normalizing this rathe extreme view. (JackDBear41) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hrimpurstala - the dictionary reference you cited says "mostly US". Can you show that there were any groups outside the US that identified themselves as "nativists"? There were considerable differences between eg Orangemen cited in the article and nativists. First, the Orange Order originated outside Canada, Canadian Orangemen made no distinction between people based on place of birth, and the organization was definitely not populist and supported rather than challenged political authority. Some academics have tried to show similarities between Orangemen and nativists, but there is no agreement on this opinion. Incidentally, in the Commonwealth, the term "native" is more likely to refer to aboriginals rather than colonists. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hello The Four Deuces,

Unfortunately, I don't have a useful dictionary definition on hand which adequately captures the definition of the word as used internationally - otherwise I would have cited it right off. So, I was forced to cite the wiktionary (which lists the *U.S. interpretation/utilisation* of the word as the first entry and the *cultural survival* use as the second). In this area research by other contributors would be most welcome.

I also don't recall this article or the involvement of Orangemen in it (although I find your points quite interesting on their own).

I agree with your point about the use of the term "native" referring to Aboriginals rather than colonists. The same goes for the political connotations of "nativist movements": As I've seen it used in Canada, the term "nativist" itself is almost soley applied to aboriginal groups. I was actually a little shocked and surprised to see the use south-of-the-line when I found this article. When immigration is debated in Canada (and when U.S. immigration debates are reported in the Canadian press) it is very unusual to see the term "nativism" used.

A quick look at these to searches should act as testament to the contemporary application of the term nativist to aboriginal movements (second definition) in the academic literature: http://www.google.ca/search?q=Tenskwatawa+nativist http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Neolin+nativist

A the same time I believe shows that the "United States" (first definition) version of the term is routinely applied to similar political movements in other countries (if not to the immigration debate itself).

This article is how I got to the Nativism page in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pochvennichestvo If one looks at this search (especially the later pages): http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=slavophile+nativist

So, both definitions need to be recognised and room needs to be made for a variety of more country specific articles as the wikipedia grows. I hope these arguments will suffice for now." --Hrimpurstala (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Orange reference. I think many people try to apply American concepts to other cultures when similarities are superficial and there are other factors at work in those societies. By the way, I do not think the Pochvenniki meet the criteria of nativism in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nativism in Canada
"Nativism" is Canadian as maple syrup. See for example major scholarly studies like Howard Palmer,  Patterns of Prejudice: A History of Nativism in Alberta (1992); M. Robin, Shades of Right: Nativist and Fascist Politics in Canada, 1920-1940 (University of Toronto Press, 1992); J.T. Watt, "Anti‐Catholic Nativism in Canada: The Protestant Protective Association," Canadian Historical Review, 1967; S.W. See, " An Unprecedented Influx": Nativism and Irish Famine Immigration to Canada." American Review of Canadian Studies 2000; See, Riots in New Brunswick: Orange Nativism and Social Violence in the 1840s (1993 - Univ of Toronto Press). Rjensen (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Canadian nativism is a modern concept by historians who found similarities between John Higham's concept of nativism to forces in Canadian history, but is not universally accepted. Lovell Clark for example thought that the term was misapplied.  By contrast American nativism originates with people who called themselves nativists.  I think it is similar to the debate about whether the Northern States and English Canada are essentialy the same or essentially different.  So it would be wrong to describe Canadian organizations as nativist, other than those with clear American links, such as the Canadian KKK.  The article should discuss the academic debate before jumping in and identifying Canadian "nativist" organizations.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this for a nativist argument: "The term nativist is un-Canadian and the idea comes from Higham (an American!); it is alien to Canadian history and applies more to the U.S. and should not be allowed in discussions of Canada." :)  "Nativism" as a political force obviously exists in many countries with a major immigration factor, as the bibliography shows.  Many Canadian scholars use the term--we just listed a series of Canadian books using Nativism in the title and there are many others that use it in the text. Perhaps real nativism consists of hostility to Germans and Ukrainians--like stripping them of their right to vote or putting them into concentration camps. Heaven forbid this would ever be allowed in Canada! (but it happened).  The Australians, by the way, used the term for a party of their own in the 1880s, and it should be mentioned: see Charles S. Blackton, “Australian Nationality and Nativism: The Australian Natives' Association, 1885-1901,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1958), pp. 37-46. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not arguing that nativism did not exist in Canada, but that historians do not agree on its existence while nativism in America is a fact. Higham said:


 * Nativism has been hard for historians to define. The word is distinctively American, a product of a specific chain of events in eastern American cities in the late 1830's and early 1840's. Yet it has a penumbra of meaning so broad and indefinite that sometimes it seems to refer to a perennial human experience. Does nativism consist only of the particular complex of attitudes dominant in the anti-foreign crusade of the mid-nineteenth century? Or does it extend to every occasion when native inhabitants of a country turn their faces or raise their hands against strangers in their midst?

If one defines nativism as xenophobia, then of course it exists everywhere. But why not just call it xenophobia? American nativists called themselves nativists, were nationalistic and populist, organized political parties, distinguished between the native and foreign born and rejected people who showed loyalty to foreign governments, laws and churches. Canadian xenophobes did not call themselves nativists, made no distinction between native and foreign born, were imperialistic and not populist, did not organize political parties, and showed loyalty to the British Crown, laws and churches. Nativists wanted to make it hard for foreigners to become American citizens, Canadian xenophobes did not even believe that there should be Canadian citizenship.

The Australian Natives' Association obviously was inspired by American nativism, and notice that it differs from the Orange Order, particulary in their name and by excluding non-natives from membership.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the term "nativist" is used by the opponents of nativism. The "Native American" party existed briefly in one city in the 1840s and the name fell into disuse except among opponents, says Anbinder Nativism and Slavery (1992). (The main group was called "Know Nothing"). Nobody calls themselves Xenophobes either! The nativism in Canada was mostly linked to nativity in the British Empire (not nativity in Canada) so that they could also fight the French Quebeckers. See Miller Equal Rights (1979). The Aussies did not copy the Americans--indeed the Australian Natives Association just closed down a year ago  The basic point is that a nativist is one who fears that the culture and values of his current native land is at risk from outsiders with different values.Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was reading a 2003 article about NB nativism by Scott W See. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=knlzOZXQY1UC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=scott+w+see+nativism&source=bl&ots=ly1-JO8t4n&sig=RiPHqO04vHNow0dR0RZPm7ZoVlk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA59,M1). In the article (pp 60-61), he states that historians are in disagreement over whether the concept of nativism is applicable to Canada, and mentions Lovell Clark as a dissenter. Why should we acknowledge one side of the dispute as correct and ignore the other? Is the dissenting view merely historical denialism, or is it a legitimate viewpoint? If it is the former, of course there would be no reason to mention dissent, but if the latter it should be mentioned. How does one decide this anyway? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * to present a minority view opposed to the numerous scholars already cited I think you need more than one dissenter--esp from some scholars that have done recent work on the topic. The See article cites only one dissenter --Clark--in an old obscure essay. Nowadays the Canadian scholarly journals and publishers routinely use "nativism" so it's not very controversial. Clark by the way preferred "prejudice" or "Anglo-Saxon racialist" which I think few or no scholars adopted. (Clark, Manitoba School Question p 5

Perhaps the article could better explain this because the term is not commonly used except in relation to the US, and most books on Canadian history and politics avoid the term altogether. (Most people do not read historical journals.) But if the Orange Order, which dominated English Canada until the 1960s, is nativist, does that not mean that the major ideology in English Canada was nativism? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Orange Order was a player but it did not dominate at any time. PM Macdonald for example explictly repudiated the nativism of Orange and newspapers like the Toronto Mail and agitators like D'Alton McCarthy; they were forced out of the Conservative party and never gained political power. (see Miller, Equal Rights) It may be true that kids who get sugar-coated history never hear about the Manitoba School Question or the Ontario School Question or the treatment of the Japanese and Chinese and Ukrainians, but they can get the story here at Wikipedia.Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A Part of the Discrimation Series?
Why is there a "discrimination" template placed in the article? It's a valid point of view and placing such a template is equal to expressing a biased political viewpoint which should not be tolerated in an encyclopedia. In my opinion, it isn't acceptable and it should be deleted. Kursis (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should check what "discrimination" means? Lars T. (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Settlers aren't immigrants
Under the Anti-immigration arguments title, it is written :

Historically this has actually happened, but with immigrants whose societies were more technologically advanced than native populations [...] English, French, German, and Irish immigration to North America[...]

As there is a reference to the European colonization of North America, the word immigrants should be replaced by the word settlers, as these first settlers weren't immigrants. --Willhelm (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

merge Nationalist nativism
It was proposed that Nationalist nativism be merged into this article. Seems like a good idea, [assuming that this is the main article about nativism]. Zodon (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Article unballanced or scope unclear
In the general definition, opposition to immigration is only one possible aspect included in nativism. The article should expand coverage of other aspects, and reduce coverage of immigration (e.g. split to another topic.) Or, if this relates to a particular usage, that should be made clearer (specifically point that this is a specialized definition, where that definition comes from, and indicate where general coverage of nativism is.)

Since this article appears to be the main coverage of nativism, I revised the lead give more general coverage. Zodon (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

devoid of NPOV
This article is clearly written with a POV and needs to be completely re-written. It is entries like this that give wikipedia a bad name. Anyone pointing to this entry as a source of factual non-biased information would be laughed at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.129.22 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-immigration arguments
The section on Anti-immigration arguments is unreferenced and looks like original research. Nativists can use different arguments, and their targets may not only be against migrants (for example, as already referenced, nativist movements in the US have targetted Catholics regardless of when they arrived). I will remove that section, pending any references, and place it below. --Duncan (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

''Anti-immigration sentiment is typically justified with one or more of the following arguments and claims about immigrants:


 * Government expense: Government expenses may exceed tax revenue relating to new immigrants.
 * Language: Isolate themselves in their own communities and refuse to learn the local language.
 * Employment: Acquire jobs which would have otherwise been available to native citizens, and suppressing wages.
 * Patriotism: Damage a sense of community and nationality.
 * Consumption: Increase the consumption of scarce resources.
 * Welfare: Make heavy use of social welfare systems.
 * Overpopulation: May sometimes overpopulate countries.
 * Culture: Can swamp a native population and replace its culture with their own.
 * Increase in housing costs: migrant families can reduce vacancies and cause rent increases.

The claim that immigrants can "swamp" a local population is noted to be related to birth rate, relative to nationals. Historically this has occurred, but with immigrants whose societies were more technologically advanced than the native populations. Examples include the immigration of Europeans to North America, the Han Chinese migration in western China, and the Bantu migrations in Africa. The opposite has also occurred, where small groups managed to dominate and culturally change much larger groups. Such cases include the Romans, Asian Bulgarians and Slavic populations dominating the natives of Thrace, the Mongols in China and India, and the Germanic peoples during the migration period such as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, etc. over native Romanized populations, as well as the Turks in Anatolia. Usually, conquering Germanic barbarian forces were in the beginning foederati assisting the Romans.

Contemporary opponents of immigration blame it for such problems as unemployment, crime (especially through gangs), harm to the environment, and overwhelming social services such as hospitals, police.''
 * I added the requested references. Many of the RS in the bibliography discuss these points.Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The section is OR and irrelevant to the article.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It belongs really, if anywhere, in the opposition to immigration page, as clearly indicated by the section title. And, like much of the article, is very US-centric. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just Americans! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion on anti-immigrant sentiment in contemporary Europe
Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nativism in Australia and the term 'illegal immigrant'.
The term 'illegal immigrant' in the Nativism in Australia section has qualified with the term 'aslyum seeker'. This is consistent with the Australian Press Council's current Advisory Guidelines on this complex issue:

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/asylum-seekers/?LocatorGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1

In the Australian context, it could be argued that the term 'illegal immigrant' is inappropriate and could be completely removed. However, the use is this term appears to be consistent with the rest of this article. Would the removal for the term 'illegal immgrant' in this section lead to confusion in the context of the rest article?

Aquila Oculus (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wartime internment
During many major conflicts governments all over the world have interned or rounded up people considered to be "enemy aliens". This does not happen simply because of xenophobia but may be the result of a justified fear. If internment in Australia during world wars I and II is to be included then it should be included for England, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Kenya and more. If the issue needs to be discussed then perhaps it needs its own section without trying to list all the countries which have a history of the practice. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please lets not reduce this to an edit war. One of my uncles was interned in England during WWII because he was German, and despite being Jewish the English authorities thought he would fight for Hitler. He was deported to Canada but the ship he was on was sunk by a U-boat and he was then deported to Australia. This process was justified for tactical reasons (in my uncle's case misguided) and classifying it as nativism is over-simplifying the matter. Suggesting that it only happened in Australia is also not accurate. If it is to be discussed in the Nativism article it should be in a separate section of its own where all the countries where it occurred could be listed, and the discussion about whether it was based on prejudice or a reasonable tactical policy could also be discussed. I also just realised that I missed out the United States in the list of countries where it occurred in my first comment above.    Djapa Owen (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would make it much nicer to engage with you if you would refrain from accusing me of editwarring when I have clearly not done so. Perhaps you need to refresh your familarity with the definition of edit warring, which is stated here "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.". It is also hard to feel good about your request that I engage with you on the talk page when you simply reverted my edit rather than engaging yourself.


 * I'd definately argue that wartime internment of foreigners is an aspect of nativisim. Xenophobia can be the result of a 'justified fear', as you put it. As I commented with my edit, nativism is defined as "support of efforts to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups because the groups are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture", which clearly makes internment on racial grounds a species of nativism. Locking people up on the basis of their race certainly lowers their legal or political status. I agree that mention of wartime internment should be included in the section of any country that has practiced it. But, as I often say, it is not our opinions that matter, it's the academic work. I'd suggest you find a cited source to support your position that wartime internment is not an aspect of nativism. I shall likewise look for one that supports my position. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not accuse anyone of 3RR, but reverting an edit discussed on the talk page without engaging in the discussion on the talk page is being combative from my perspective.


 * I am not trying to suggest that Australia was necessarily innocent of nativism in this case - I am open to argument on that, but to single Australia out and ignore the same policy being applied in so many other countries is illogical. Surely there are enough references already in Ilag, Enemy alien, SS Arandora Star, HMT Dunera and Internment detailing the application of the policy in a number of countries. When this is the same issue in each case does it not make sense to talk about the issue itself rather than mentioning it separately for every country which ever practised the policy? I am pretty sure we would have to add a section for every country of the British Commonwealth, the German and US colonies and many others.    Djapa Owen (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the dominions had control of internment in the war (elsewhere the royal governor made the decision). Australia is rather like Canada & NZ.  Both Australia & NZ deported Germans after the war, but not Canada. [see ]  I think So Africa is a complex special case (becauee of the pro-German Boers). Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Nativism" or "Alleged Nativism"
An anonymous editor has been at war with me and over the wording of the last paragraph in the lede. Anonymous should register an account and discuss the issue here, rather than edit-warring. The paragraph does border on POV editorializing, which is why I deleted it once I finally got around to checking the reference, and found that rather than a scholarly source it offered an example; but now that Rjensen has supplied a source, I think the paragraph is appropriately neutral. Contrary to Anon's assertion, nativist is neither a purely subjective nor a wholly derisive term. There have been periods and places in which nativists have been generally applauded&mdash;in which, I daresay, the term has carried no opprobrium. More to the point, in academic discourse, there are (or ought to be) broadly-accepted criteria for what makes a nativist, and the term is (or ought to be) applied objectively, and without moralism. Wikipedia does not have (I presume) an article on "assholism" (but see this article). J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 22:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the anonymous editor is confused about what nativism is. His repeated misuse of the term "alleged" suggests he thinks it does not exist or perhaps that should be kept in the closet.  But many hundreds of scholars have written about it, and our job is editors of Wikipedia is to report what the reliable sources actually say, regardless of the personal views of anonymous people who think nativism does not or should not exist or perhaps should not be mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that, independent of who is right, edit warring is not permitted. Users who violate the three-revert rule can be blocked immediately, regardless of which side they are on in the debate or whether they are right or wrong on the facts at hand. --Srleffler (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the material itself, I removed "alleges" as contrary to guidelines. See WP:ALLEGED. I removed the statement that "in public political discourse "nativist" is a term of derision usually used by the opposition", because that claim is not supported by the cited source. I replaced it with "The term is typically not accepted by those who hold this political view", which is a more direct statement of what the cited source says.--Srleffler (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of reference to native north americans' nativism from lede
The article's lede section contains the following section on 'nativist' movements by Native North Americans "Among Native North Americans important nativist movements include Neolin (the "Delaware Prophet", 1762), Tenskwatawa (the Shawnee prophet, 1808), and Wovoka (the Ghost Dance movement, 1889). They held anti-white views, teaching that whites were morally inferior to the indigenous peoples and their ways must be rejected. Thus Tenskwatawa taught that the Americans were "children of the Evil Spirit."[3][4]"

I am removing this section from the article for the following reasons

-the section on Native North American's does not appear in the main article. It is not mentioned in the section on Nativism in North America or anywhere in the article, and so it should not be in the lede which is supposed to provide a 'concise overview of the article'. ("The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" according to wikipedia's manual of style on the Lead_section.)

-the article's section on Nativism in North America states that the use of the term Native from which Nativism is drawn does not refer to Native North Americans/Indigenous American Indians: "In this context "Native" does not mean indigenous or American Indian but rather those descended from the inhabitants of the original Thirteen Colonies."

-I believe that the inclusion makes a false equivalence of American European-settler nativism and Indigenous American anti-colonial resistance (the distinction between these has been touched upon in other places of the talk page) and that including this in the lede -when it does not feature in the main article- functions to shift critical attention away from white american Nativism and to justify it by falsely equating it to indigenous peoples resistance to settler colonialism which is different to nativism or xenophobia.

As the article explicitly defines Nativism in America as being a political movement by the descendent of European settlers in america in the 1840s I think that it is counter intuitive to also use it describe an anti-colonial movement by Indigenous American Indians who opposed the colonisation of the white americans who coined the term Nativism, and as this section is only in the lede I suspect it was placed there to push a POV.

As "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view" according to wikipedia's manual of style on the Lead_section, I am deleting this section.

Best Veilofdarkness12 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nativism as a function of economics and job competition
rjensen seems to have reverted my last rewrite on the grounds that "nativism is not driven by job competition" (at least that's what the edit summary says).

However, a Google on "nativism economic" shows that there is plenty of grounds to suggest that economic competition is a major driver behind a resurgence pf nativism. The best single quote that I could find is

"David H. Bennett, author of The Party Fear, suggests that nativist movements resulted at times when there were major social, economic, or political upheavals taking place in the U.S. It was at these times American nativists would blame recent arriving immigrants or ethnic/religious groups different from their own for the troubles that America was experiencing. As a result, it was not uncommon for racist attitudes to develop against these scapegoats."

http://www.itvs.org/outreach/workers/workers-Cycles.pdf

http://www.duke.edu/~agf2/history391/nativism.html

http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/learn/anti-immigrant.htm

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/ss/phd/dissertations/1998/wang_fang

http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=391

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1994/4/94.04.05.x.html

I'm going to reinstate my version. If you wish to edit it, please do so in smaller chunks so that I can understand the specific changes made. Also, please explain the changes here.

--Richard 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet, still at the top of the article: "According to Fetzer (2000), opposition to immigration commonly arises in many countries because of issues of national, cultural, and religious identity." and no mention of economic.71.161.193.242 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

?? Illegal aliens??
Might this be changed to 'undocumented workers', for it was not criminal prior to 1996 and the term is both imprecise and offense. I believe there was even a decision among the Admin not to use this term.

"American nativist sentiment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at illegal aliens, largely Mexican resulting in the passage of new penalties against illegal immigration in 1996." Thanks for the consideration.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

American Nationalists v Nativist
Is there much of a political distinction between these two movements or is this a case of 'rebranding' the old, to make it seem new again?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nativism and Economics
Article: Employment: Acquire jobs which would have otherwise been available to native citizens, depressing wages.

I hope Economist actually find that immigrants generally do not costs jobs while they become part of the macro economic reality of a country and for instance they create also demand for products. 83.101.91.31 (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Dirk

Nativism v racism
Just came here by accident. The whole UK section seems to conflate racism/xenophobia with nativism. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that nativism in general public discourse, is not generally a UK term, though its use may be more widespread in academic writings. Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WASP
Why is the term "white Anglo-Saxon Protestant" linked to white supremacy? The first is a term of ethnicity, while the second is an ideology of ignorance. To link ethnicity directly to ideology is just another form of hurtful prejudging and generalisation.


 * The sentence discusses the movement against Catholics, particularly those from Southern Europe, with the predominantly Protestant, Anglo-Saxon people who had previsouly settled in the U.S. White supremacy is a different matter. -Willmcw 18:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

the problem is that most anti-catholicism was historically led not by nativists but by immigrants, esp Protestant Irish (who headed the APA) and German Lutherans. The term "WASP" was invented by Irish Catholics in 1900 but did not come into common usage until the 1960s. It opens up the debate beween the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon heritage. (RJ)

The term "white supremacy" is an incorrect, judgmental, and hostile term, on the bald face of it. Would you say the same about "jewish supremacy" as describing zionism? Or Zionists? How about "black nationalism"? A more accurate, and objective term, would be "WASP Nationalism", or some such "neutral" term. "ideology of ignorance" is hardly non-judgmental but more belligerent and partisan.

In addition, looking at the Irish motivation for using "WASP" and its accuracy as to the obviously intended implication without mentioning the historical "30 years war" is highly biased, again. It was a religiously related war for religious domination of Europe in terms of "Catholic" countries and areas best described occupied by a predominant ethnic group rather than "country" on both sides, and regions in open revolt against the Pope and the Roman Catholic establishment in Rome. Many "true believers" on both sides died and the division is very, very old. This is what makes reconciliation so difficult between the Catholics and Protestants of northwest Europe. But if an objective presentation of the meaning and use of the term "WASP", is what is intended, this misses the mark by a wide margin. "WASP" is rarely applied solely to ethnic Anglo-Saxons. The presentation is undoubtedly partisan, disparaging ethnically and misleading to the reader. If polemics are present, especially pretending to "objectively" present attributes of the opposing view, the claim is dishonest and misleading.

Clearly label writing from either side as being just that. Opposing views is a very important section. That is the place for statements by people who disagree. They should not present only "their" side as fact when it is disputed by advocates of an opposing view. We need to present as neutral an explanation of what is going on as we can. Vehement advocates of one side should not masquerade as being something they clearly are not. Seerwithoutposition (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Seerwithoutposition (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nativism (politics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.movimentoafro.amazonida.com/branqueamento.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510202109/http://www.scribd.com/doc/7018121/Memoria-Da-Imigracao-Japonesa-No-Brasil to https://www.scribd.com/doc/7018121/Memoria-Da-Imigracao-Japonesa-No-Brasil
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306093754/http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/lodge_immigration.pdf to http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/lodge_immigration.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151630/http://www.politicoslatinos.com/2008candidates-videos.html to http://www.politicoslatinos.com/2008candidates-videos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

suggest deleteing this page? it only serves as euphisim for white nationalist/ white supremacist organizations. the first line of the article is that people who are nativists don't identify as such. Feel it is just used to protect hate speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.30.199 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nativism (politics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614054729/http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Immigration.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Immigration.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Article Evaluation 1: Nativism (politics)

Before reading this article I did not realize that a common Republican policy had its own name and place away from typical political parties such as the Democrats and Republicans. The first paragraph is a great opener, telling us exactly what Nativism is.

After explaining the definition of nativism the article goes on to exemplify the political stance by country, which I think was done very well. Separating each country into its own section prevents confusion for the reader who might miss the topic change from, for example, the U.S. to Canada.

Next, the article explains Nativism throughout history. Organizing time periods chronologically was the best approach, just like how countries were alphabetically ordered.

As far as I can tell, because there are far too many to check each and every one, all external and internal links appear to be working just fine, and a sufficient amount of information is linked and cited.

The article itself is incredibly informative and non-biased.

Looking at the talk page I can tell that this article has undergone a great deal of work, and most, if not all, contributions are well thought out and helpful. Ktack (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Western immigrants
Interesting how Western immigrants in Hong Kong complain about the localism of the Hongkongers, saying they are racist anti-Western and pro-China, but at the same time they say in the Western media that Hongkongers are anti-China and do not mention anything about the supposed anti-westernism sentiment of the native Hongkongers. Since I have Hongkonger ancestry, I think I have the authority to say that this article needs a revision.Barbar02 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nativism as a phenomenon of those from European stock
The article text says...

"The term "nativism" is normally applied only to nativists of European stock. Similar ideologies espoused by non-Europeans are given other labels and are rarely connected to nativism in public discourse."

Then, what would you call the Japanese attitude towards foreigners, especially those of Chinese and Korean descent, making them effectively second-class citizens? Is this not "nativism"? Does anybody know what sociologists and historians call it wrt to Japan?]

Never mind... I just answered my own question (thank goodness for Google!).

If you Google "Japan and nativism", you will get a boatload of references.

Here's one

"This long-awaited work explores the place of kokugaku (rendered here as "nativism") during Japan's Tokugawa period. Kokugaku, the sense of a distinct and sacred Japanese identity, appeared in the eighteenth century in reaction to the pervasive influence of Chinese culture on Japan. Against this influence, nativists sought a Japanese sense of difference grounded in folk tradition, agricultural values, and ancient Japanese religion. H. D. Harootunian treats nativism as a discourse and shows how it functioned ideologically in Tokugawa Japan. "

Seems like we need to rework this article and get rid of the focus on "European stock". I don't doubt that the phenomenon is more European/American than in other cultures but I would assert that it occurs anywhere that a dominant culture is threatened by an immigrant culture. Makes me wonder if Islam had this problem during its heyday.

--Richard 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does the article distinguish between attitudes toward legal vs. illegal immigration? Certainly the current debate requires that critical distinction.

Lately in Canada, the Yellow Vest movement is sure starting to use the phrase "Old Stock Canadians" a whole lot. I've seen it first-hand and it's all over their social media. 2001:56A:7665:1800:6DF6:299E:52A2:5B1A (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)