In “Nation of Migrants, Historians of Migration,” Adam Goodman starts off his essay with a quote by John F. Kennedy from his book “A Nation of Immigrants,” that goes into a simplified definition of the nation of America and its people. America is defined as a melting pot, the people that live within this melting pot have immigrated to America creating it. Goodman brings up Oscar Handlin’s, The Uprooted, and how European immigration and assimilation is what made America. The dominance that European immigrants hold over all American immigration gave them a sense of privilege and authority. But, with recent studies historians and scholars have been proving that Americas nation of immigrants is only a myth. Scholars now focus more on all the different diverse groups of people that moved to the U.S. The lack of attention towards all the different races is why the American image is so skewed. Many scholars today not only study specific topics about different races but everything included in that culture. Allowing for a better understanding of that race/groups impact on the American nation. With this scholars conclude that America is not a nation of immigrants but it is a nation of migrants.
In the second reading by Erica Lee’s essay; “A Part and Apart”, there is a clear disagreement when it comes to the study of American immigration. Many scholars have different views on how to teach immigration in America. Lee talks about two historians; George Sanchez and Rudi Vecoli, and their opposing views on immigration in America. The argument takes on whether or not European history is more relevant toward American immigration history or is Latin, and Asian history more important? There are many different views on what should be the main focus but overall if it’s not a matter of opinion shouldn’t all history be included?