Like a lot of Americans, I’ve been keeping an astonished eye on the car-burning in Paris and France that is approaching the fortnight mark. Saurabh at Rhinocrisy has noted that a certain segment of the blogosphere, headed by Internment-Cheerleader-In-Chief Michelle Malkin, is having a field day. What an opportunity to clumsily conflate France’s antipathy towards certain war policies with imagined Gallic championship of any and every liberal cause as articulated in America. Just because the French have embraced the same notions of universal health care that some American liberals have, obviously they epitomize the multicultural state American liberals champion. Since Democrats like French bread and wine they must love French cultural policies. /sarcasm. But as those of us who actually pay attention to identity politics in France know, the French model is not quite the California-cuisine tossed diversity salad that American cultural purists love to hate on. Saurabh and the Francophilic Phoebe Maltz call a spade a spade:
I hate to be trite, but this picture is simply at odds with reality. France has been anything but multiculturalist, and in fact has been quite uniform in demanding that its Muslim minority conform, damnit, to the standards of French culture.(Link.)Despite its shunning of hyphenated identity and insistence that all of its citizens are equally–and nothing but—French, France has a problem: whenever a minority group in country is involved in a conflict–one its members started, of which its members are victims, or a combination–the possibility of that group up and leaving is immediately brought up.(Link)
(It is, of course, as absurd to lump together all of France as to lump together all of India–the land that gives us LePen also gave us Zola.) Many observers warn that it is a mistake to view these (so far relatively non-injurious) rioters as Islamic or Arab or Brown or Immigrant so much as poor and unemployed. But I have to wonder if, by shunning the hyphen, France has forced the French children of immigrants to make an overly stressful choice. We affiliates of Sepia Industries might be considered connoisseurs of the hyphenated life-style. A hyphen is a useful prop, like a towel, that you can move about and rework as the situation demands. Sometimes you want it out, front and center, and sometimes it can stay in your purse. Immigration is hard, and tools can help. It was Hyphen Magazine’s blog which reminded me of the South Asian connection to the Parisian riots.
Hyphen Magazine styles itself Asian America Unabridged, and to steal a lovely phrase from Cicatrix, its pages are often soaked in Darjeeling and Orange Pekoe as well as Green tea. (Note echoes of Shah Rukh?) One of its bloggers, Neela, has shouted out to Sepia Mutiny before, and a few days ago she noted a recent Bay Area Sikh protest of the French policy of banning turbans in public schools.
Bay Area Sikhs said Thursday there is no evidence to suggest that French core values are threatened by anyone expressing their religious faith. Union City resident Sarabjit Cheema said she took the day off from her job at the California Department of Transportation, and brought her two youngest sons from Cesar Chavez Middle School to join the protest. If American schools were to adopt similar laws, Cheema said she’d pull her children out of school permanently and home-school them. “I took the day off work to support a cause that is very dear to me,” Cheema said. “All kids should enjoy the freedoms that my sons have.” (Link.)
After the rioting, some Indo-French are worried:
Shingara Singh Mann runs an internet cafe in Paris. He has been living in the suburbs with his family since 1978.Even though he holds a French passport, he says that he has had to struggle to get his due in the country.He is worried that the rioting will make his day to day life hard as people will get suspicious of all minority communities in general.(Link.)
Many commentators couldn’t help but compare this month’s Parisian riots with last month’s Birmingham riots. Cultural community defined around geographic ghetto just doesn’t seem to work so well. The majority can’t wall off and forget a minority that’s integrated inside itself, and a minority can’t systematically attack a majority it’s surrounded by and lives with. To be clear, I’m not saying that America is peaches and cream–Neela’s other link was to a recent SF Chronicle profile of the California Sikh community, showing that sometimes the mixture is a bit too tart:
Didar Singh Bains, who came to the United States with $8 in his pocket in 1958 to join his father and grandfather who were working orchards, is now the biggest peach grower in the state and one of the richest people in Northern California. . . .Ram Singh and other members of the Fremont gurdwara tell a tale rich with irony about their experience giving blankets and food to victims of Hurricane Katrina staying in one of Baton Rouge’s largest shelters. “We asked if they knew who we are,” Ram Singh recalled with a sigh. “Almost everyone said, ‘You’re from the Middle East and are here for the oil.‘ (Link.)
Wow. Yet reading these articles–or hanging out at Sepia Mutiny–it’s obvious that for most of us, the notion of up and leaving is simply absurd, hyphenated or not. I’m as American as the next girl, and I’ll keep both my history and American future long and intact, thank you very much. Unabridged, like a young boy’s uncut hair. I’ve railed against the prevalence of the balancing act metaphor–everything in the immigrant’s life is not a dichotomy. The hyphen doesn’t need to be a fence to stand on precariously. It makes much more sense as a link in a chain, winding into the past, reaching out into the future. We don’t need to cut off our past to embrace our future. We can if we want to. If anyone’s going to cut their hair off, they should do it by choice, not under pressure. Wouldn’t we really rather that they get over a little difference as children, than that they are isolated all their childhoods only to fight over much bigger differences as adults? If you force people to conform, they’re probably going to self-isolate more. A little bit of freedom is like the detergent that mixes up the oil and the water, and intolerance is like the salt that drives them apart.*
I don’t have the answers. I wish France and the French–all of them–good luck and godspeed in figuring out how to get along and get on with the real work of life. I’m not talking about endorsing honor killings here, I’m talking about being allowed to keep what you don’t have to get rid of. Humanity’s differences and nuances are like the shimmer and shine of a ruby–their very ephemeral variance makes clear the hard vivid crystal that’s sparkling. Drink in everyone else, but it’s okay to just be yourself. Maybe I watched too much Sesame Street as a child, but this still seems better than any other model.
*Brimful, I put that in for you. I apologize if I got mixed up! 
wow, that’s terrible.
Your writing, I mean.
What’s the point of insulting Saheli’s writing? If you disagree, just say why.
Americans can hyphenate because of the history of the US as an immigrant nation – most Americans come from somewhere else (Native Americans, excepted, although even in that case some tribes moved into areas that were populated by other tribes, so even that narrative is complicated). Americans hyphenate because that’s how things came to be. Back home in Iowa you have German-Swedish-Norwegian-Americans, etc, etc, etc. And more recently, Vietnamese, Mexican and yes, even Indian-Americans. But France doesn’t have a long history of being an immigrant nation: the French ideal is rooted in culture, blood, and land, if you see what I mean.
What has happened is that the French social model created an awkward compact: you had high unemployment in immigrant communities, and precious little way to get out of those communities. The health care, the 35-hour work week, the good life, in short, created a stasis where few jobs are created, although those that have jobs have a pretty good ride. If you’re in, good. If you’re out, tough luck. I read in the WSJ, don’t know if this is accurate, that the US created 50-odd million jobs since the seventies, while the EU countries created only 4 million in the same time period. I also read that unemployment hasn’t been under 8 percent in decades (yes, I know it’s bad form not to link, but I can’t find the article on quick inspection, and I have to run. It’s a relatively recent one, related to the riots).
Bottom line: France needs pro-growth policies to create more jobs and to include these young people into that job creation process.
Oh, and I don’t care for the glee coming from certain quarters over the French riots, anymore than I cared for the glee with which Katrina was repoted in some reports abroad. Say, certain articles from the Guardian and Le Monde. Is it schadenfraude or plus ca change, do you think 🙂
Many commentators couldnÂ’t help but compare this monthÂ’s Parisian riots with last monthÂ’s Birmingham riots. Cultural community defined around geographic ghetto just doesnÂ’t seem to work so well.
The comparison is absurd (and I’m not implying you’re making it Saheli). Just because ‘ethnics’ are involved, or Muslims are involved, people start trying to come out with trends.
Much of the trite floating around in the American blogphere is so out of sync precisely because they: 1) Don’t like the French 2) See Muslims as a problem 3) Do not realise the extent of racism and unequality in France 4) Hate Muslims 5) See above.
I oppose the riots in Paris but support the struggle.
There are many cultural nuances here (like the make-up of the French Algerians) which has passed by people like Malkin, but that’s not surprising really. And comparing it to Birmingham. Sheesh, that just takes stupidity.
Btw, although I oppose the French ban of the headscarf and the turban, I’m slowly coming around to their way of thinking (which is annoying).
There are dangers with the American and British model of giving people too much space, and having self-appointed religious leaders speak for a community when they don’t need to, and allow people to segregate into religious groups.
France should keep its focus on having a ‘Republic’, but needs to find a better way of including everyone, basically. The UK seems to have given space but failed on the inclusion side.
I don’t disagree. Actually I couldn’t finish it (see previous post). CNN this morning brought the French experience home to Americans by stating the “obvious” connection between young, disenfranchised muslims rioting in Paris and the much heralded breeding- grounds for al qaeda. That is irresponsible journalism to say the least.
Sunny,
I agree with you. The history of Algerian immigrants is quite complicated, and the French system marginalizing them completely. When an actress like Isabella Adjani had to hide her Algerian-Turkish roots, then you know how much French are in denial.
On the top of it, you have Islamists slogan mongering/ think tanks in France, it goes back to pre-Ayatollah Komeini days.
The american experience is unlike the european experience where bloody wars between kingdoms and nations were frequent. Countries with a long history of invasions and wars have more difficulty accepting the stranger as harmless.
Sunny, you’re making a specious connection btw cultural head-gear and religious gatherings with fundamentally racist practices insisted upon by.
Looking at this, I appreciate the much maligned “multiculturalism” myth that exists in a country like Canada. Sure, it allows a blind eye to be turned to even blatant instances of discrimination, but it is indispensible, as myths go, in counteracting the profound alienation we see immigrants going through in France.
MD, Although I disagree with the premise, here I think is the article you were referring to .
More on the ‘state of emergency’ in the ‘pays de liberte’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4422422.stm
This guy makes John Ashcroft look like an angel:
Saheli,
May I.
You are missing very important point while discussing assimilation (or forced assimilation) in France. It is their concept of separation of church and state – the Republic, as Sunny points out.
Quite often, one’s distinctiveness (hyphen) is attributed to one’s church (place of workship). Not always.
The current roiting has more to do with as MD pointed out: a) lack of economic opportunities, b) marginalization (self created or society imposed), and c) socialistic ideas gone bad.
MD,
Immigration in France goes back to 1850s.
True, it is not an immigrant country like USA
So on point, Saheli. Misguided conflation indeed. This is bound to be the byproduct when you’re a slave to an ideology; logic & common sense and (seach for) Truth go by the wayside. But to be totally fair, after the Bush reelection there was alot of ‘why can’t we be more like Enlightened Europe’ talk among Leftists. So that’s why Malkin and company get their chaddis all twisted. So many of these enlightend social democracies in Europe have these weird bifurcated societies. You see it in Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen etc.
Interesting economic analysis MD, I was thinking something along the sames lines yesterday while I was talking to a 25y.o union worker (with virtually no specialized skills) making a very comfortable $50/hour. A new immigrant won’t necessarily be able to get one of those cushy jobs but maybe in 5,10 years s/he be able to open a new business, which would be much harder across the pond. But’s that’s just a tiny part of it. We’re just not beholden to the ‘Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution’ here in the States. We don’t have to pretend to eat the founders myth and like it. Native-born politicians trip overthemselves to assert their American cred by stressing their immigrant forefathers, even though they’re about as Italian as Pizza Hut and as Irish as green beer. No disrespect to the founders, they were badasses even if they were slaveholders. Gross generalization that I can’t support: America’s a better place for non-mainstream communities and Canada maybe even better.
Let’s be serious, does anyone think that if French minorities got organized and went about this peacefully that the French governement would listen to them?
Revolution is how you get things done in France.
“Revolution is how you get things done in France.”
you are damn right. in a week, the french authorities instead of calling them hooligans are requesting fellow french to address and listen to them respectfully.
there was an french woman of algerian decent on bbc, she said, “i just want respect”.
But France doesn’t have a long history of being an immigrant nation: the French ideal is rooted in culture, blood, and land, if you see what I mean.
actually it does. it assimilated millions of poles, spaniards and italians in the 19th and early 20th century. it also assimilated hundreds of thousands of north african jews after 1960. and unlike other european nations until recently, germany) france has an explicit citizenship by birth philosophy, rather than blood. the practice might be different.
People who blame this on Islam are fools. About twenty years ago in the UK there was a series of violent rioting in the ghettoes of major English cities – London, Birmingham, Bristol, and Liverpool all burned. This was carried out by young Jamaican youths who experienced marginalisation, unemployment and vicious police racism. Address these problems and things change. A large number of rioters in France are African Christians. And the comparison with recent disturbances in Birmingham are not comparable to what is happening in France.
I’m not saying that there is not a problem of Islamic extremism in French ghettoes, but it is not the primary motor of what is happening now.
And in case you had forgotten, its only ten or twelve years since the world watched as inner city America burned as African Americans reacted to the Rodney King verdict – and as events in New Orleans showed, America still has problems in this area.
Yes, there are issues of those communities needing to help themselves to get out of the ghetto. But the American view of what is happening is quite biased and false. Many people in the USA seem to have their own agenda.
razib,
You are right.
France used a lot immigrants for their war efforts. Then the Algerians.
While ago, french friend of mine was discussing colonization and he made an interesting observation: Delhi was never London in Asia, Algeirs was in ways Paris in Africa. This is to emphasize the complicated nature of France’s relation with former colonies (and immigrants from there).
there were riots in the 1850s and 1860s by irish in east coast cities in the USA. if you bring a bunch of poor semi-civilized people into a nation without social capital, it will take a while for them to assimilate and mainstream themselves. in contrast to the irish, my understanding is that jews didn’t riot, aside from a few anarchist radicals. they came with a higher skillset, and so were less and more of a threat (depending on how you looked at it). and religious differences mattered, my reading of american history suggests that the syngergy between roman catholicism and german immigration was a trigger for violence in the midwest, but lutheran (protestant) germans didn’t elicit the same rage because they didn’t have a double-whammy in terms of alienation. certainly it seems plausible that catholic or culturally catholic european immigrants between 1800 and 1930 have an easier time assimilate on an absolute scale.
I was actually in the middle of composing a post when I saw that Razib had beaten me to it; my point exactly; actually except for the USA and maybe Canada itself, I doubt any country has successfully assimilated so many immigrants as France. I think where the difference with the US arises is that France has, as Saheli noted, a “hard” paradigm of cultural assimilation, i.e. even many routine policies that are acceptable in the UK, Canada and USA would be illegal in France. For instance, my understanding is that the because of the constitutional prohibition against mixing up church and state, the French state does not even know (i.e. the census cannot ask) how many people of what religion/race are in the country; nor can such factors be taken into account when planning remedial measures, public school funding etc. Because knowing this sort of thing, or differentiating in any way, would it is perceived compromise the French model, which is rather absolutist and highly specific in terms of the “norm” that it sets up.
Nor is this the first instance of French absolutism that is relevant: recall that French colonies like Algeria and Indochina were technically part of France (i.e. the French state drew no legal distinction between Paris and Algiers)– “department” sounds a whole lot better than “colony”, but of course that ALSO meant that for years the French state was simply unable to deal with the independence movements in places like Algeria (i.e. “independence from what? France already is independent!”), with horrendously violent results.
…On the other hand, one plus of the French model is that race-relations are in many ways better than in the USA. As far back as the 1920s many African-American artists and musicians spoke and wrote a great deal about how much more accepting of racial difference French society was than American society. That is still true in my opinion, with the huge caveat that American society is a lot more tolerant of cultural difference. Put simply (perhaps banally) a lot of Americans might well agree that there are many ways of being American; in my experience (though I have met significantly fewer Frenchmen/-women than Americans) the French are less comfortable with that idea. Anecdotally, one of my father’s cousin’s children were raised in France, and are culturally utterly French (I don’t think they think of themselves as hyphenated really, just a hunch), and I remember one of them did an internship in the USA one summer (NYC no less) and was quite taken aback by what she perceived was a lot of racism here (though having lived in NYC for 10 years I couldn’t quite figure out exactly what she was talking about)…
Razib and Kush I’m back! And I stand corrected (And thanks for the link to the article Nara).
Here’s an interesting post from normblog talking about just that point razib, that the earlier waves of immigrants were assimilated more successfully, here. The gist of the post is that there is a strange dance going on between assimilation and identity-politics, all in the backdrop of lack of jobs.
My mistakes regarding immigration into France aside, I stand by the assertion that there is an intellectual idea of the US as an immigrant nation. So that, even if in practice there is immigration into other countries at large rates, the self-identity of the US is that of a country of immigrants. There is an idea of France devoid of immigration, is there not? Is that similarly true of the United States? I think one of the feelings of unfairness in this situation has been that the ideal is supposed to be ‘born in France’, but the reality is not (and of course, the US has problems as well, in this regard).
I am reminded of a good friend who was of Italian birth, who grew up in Belgium and then immigrated to the US. He always said that despite growing up in Belgium, he was always Italian. He said that it took less time to ‘become an American.’ Is this emblematic, or not? Dunno. Don’t live in Belgium or France myself.
I still think if you have a nice car, a nice job, and a nice girlfriend, you are unlikely to be out rioting, whatever your ethnic make-up.
France and Britain are now having to deal with repurcussions (overflow of immigrants from troubled past dominions, their assimilation into society) – stemming from their past foreign policies of conquer and divide and rule. Here, in the case of France, especially Algeria. In an “ideal” world, countries/policy makers would realise this not try to set out and conquer other nations. But then, History only repeats itself….
MD,
“I still think if you have a nice car, a nice job, and a nice girlfriend, you are unlikely to be out rioting, whatever your ethnic make-up.”
You nailed the problem. It is the lack of jobs – those ghettos in Paris have 3 times more unemployment than rest of France.
UM and razib both make excellent points.
UM: Yes, it is not allowed to collect data, request survey based on religion, ethnicity, etc. About colonization, even as we write, the French ministry of education is doing some high-tech revisionism highlighting the positive aspects of French colonialism. The French, it seems really believed in bringing their superior road-building civilization to natives.
razib: About racism, it is really complicated. France had a Jewish Prime Minister even before WW2, but at the same time the Vichy regime shipped sh!tloads of Jews across the Rhine so much so that the uber-efficient Nazis could’nt ‘process’ (sic) enough of them. There has been one Protestant PM oflate, the rest of them are all Catholic.
and btw, zero black/arab mayors, MPs, Senators. Zero from the top business schools like INSEAD, HEC, etc.
There is an idea of France devoid of immigration, is there not?
well, i am skeptical. france isn’t quite like the UK, but it went through a demographic transition rather early, the poles, spaniards and italians did cause social waves. mostly because they actually were devout catholics in a france which had a substantial secularist legacy by that period (mid-19th century). i think the greater cultural-racial distance is an issue. it’s complicated.
but the key point is this: don’t accept an enormous number of immigrants who don’t bring a lot of social capital into the country and are very different culturally and expect things to just “work”. smearing the arabo-french across the class spectrum will a while.
There has been one Protestant PM oflate, the rest of them are all Catholic.
jospin was from a protestant family, so you mean him? (he was by belief an atheist if i recall right)
No, razib, I don’t think I’m being clear. And maybe that is because I am just wrong. Or maybe we are talking apples vs oranges. What happened vs an idealized idea of self. Would an average French person call France a nation of immigrants? Does anyone know? If they would, then I am wrong.
Would an average French person call France a nation of immigrants?
i think you might get a plural majority that said yes. on paper at least 🙂
I meant an idealized sense of self.
cute razib 🙂 Everything works on paper, doesn’t it?
yes it is Jospin. All the elites proclaim to be atheist. yet, there is a strong cultural aspect as to being from a good catholic family (region, village, etc.) which is deeply entrenched in their minds.
The French version of John Ashcroft, Sarko is probably the only minister who did not go to the elite Ecole Nationale d’ Administration. Otherwise, the French political class is very homogenous – pale ‘n male.
oops sorry. post #32 was written by me.
PS– I might add that surveys tend to show that Arabs (I don’t know about black people) who are not ghettoized historically tend to complain of less racism or feel less victimized than their counterparts in other European countries or even the UK (would be interesting to do a US-French comparison). But the problem is that not enough are non-ghettoized in the country…
And then there’s a gender-split: the male-female divide (again with reference to “les Arabes”) is stark indeed (perhaps at least some of the Arab women see the assimilation that their brothers find threatening as liberating, at least qua women if not qua Arabs?), and outside the ghettos there are tons of intermarriages between Caucasian Frenchmen and Arab women…
PPS– Kush: I disagree with the Isabelle Adjani example. I don’t think she had hidden her roots at all (note that her other parent was German, i.e. barring immigration her parents didn’t have any French connection at all); in fact Adjani was so accepted as French that the government even selected her as its Marianne (symbolizing the Republic) around 1989 or so (it’s hard to imagine many other Western democracies using a minority as the very face of the state, to be represented by busts in all public buildings)…
…alas this is where the problem began; as right around that time Adjani started speaking out about events in Algeria, and speaking out about them as an Algerian of some sort, and also about the plight of Algerian immigrants in France. Apparently she then went on record saying that she didn’t feel comfortable with the idea of being Marianne as she wasn’t sure how French she felt. Rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, I think a lot of French people felt betrayed (I remember as a 13-15 year old being bewildered, almost as if Andre Agassi were to announce one day that he weren’t sure he was Armenian or American; I mean I had NEVER thought of her as anything except irreducibly, utterly French)…
btw, let’s not forget that it seems likely that the majority of arabo-french are assimilating. illegitimacy rates of arabo-french females are around 20%.
“Would an average French person call France a nation of immigrants?’
Yes, all the French I know talk about their history that includes immigration from Algeria and IndoChine.
A few months ago, there were around 10 French for 6-8 months on the floor I work. But then these guys are PhDs from University of Paris 7 – I am not sure about the average.
btw, i recently read that the islamists in algeria are divided between francophone and arabophone factions. just to show you that the influence is reciprocal.
also, not to get byzantine, but many of the million “french algerians,” that is, french speakers who identified as europeans and emigrated after 1960 were not themselves “root french.” many of the sephardic jews were speaking arabic a few generations previous, while the christian french speakers were often actually of spanish or italian ancestry.
Umair,
You are right.
I was using the example of Adjani to show the complicated nature of French identity – there is this woman who was extolled as symbol (as you rightfully point out) of France but has to painfully hide her parentage. Early in career she did hid and only talked about when she had gained a lot of traction.
Man, France is complicated. That is why I was using the example of Algiers being an extension of Paris in the eyes of France.
Re: comment 38: in fact I believe some prominent French intellectuals, like Jacques Derrida and Helene Cixous, belong to this category (i.e. the sephardic jews Razib mentions).
Laetitia Casta was a much better choice. Sorry, you can go back to discussing the more important issues.
sirc: nothing against Casta, she’s gorgeous, but man Adjani was something else!!!
…and what the hell do you mean? There ARE no more important issues (doesn’t Marianne have a breast exposed?)… 🙂
Oh, you guys! A thread at SM goes long enough and eventually someone brings in a hot chick or two.
PS: Was it Adjani who was in that movie about Rodin?
did they pose nude? casta and adjani?
I don’t think Adjani did, as she never ended up becoming Marianne; but check out Queen Margot (1994) and other films…
MD: yup that was Adjani, she played Camille Claudel in the film of the same name (Depardieu played Rodin). I thought the film was ok, but did really like both of the performances…
The original “Marianne“.
In all honesty, I find this “nation of immigrants / not a nation of immigrants” division to be supremely unproductive. Every country is a country of immigrants: the US as much as France as much as India. (Recall the famous “sugar in the milk” anecdote, kiddos.) Even the Native Americans immigrated across a landbridge a few short blips ago in geological time. “But that’s geological; we’re talking about culture,” one might say. Well, sure. You’re talking about some mythical time when a culture was “pure,” before people learned to walk and decided to check out what was over the next hill, and found another group, and decided to settle down at their campfire for a while. If that time of static and truly bounded cultures ever existed, it was so long ago that we might as well be discussing Homo Erectus, not Sapiens.
In other words, the only truth revealed by labeling some countries “countries of immigrants” while exempting others is, IMO, the ideology of “culture” as a discrete object, available for examination and “knowing” a la dead white Orientalists. In other words, our belief that certain countries ARE “immigrant countries” while others aren’t is simply a reflection of more pervasive ideological constructs. It’s therefore not a helpful tool for any analysis of contemporary sociopolitical events that wants to change the system rather than bolster it.
Yeah, anyway — deep breath! — sorry for the ramble, but I’m just sayin’… we’re all travelers, at heart. 😉
the origina looks horsey. i saw adjani in margot, she looked good for a woman her age. those titties were awfull alabaster! just how i like ’em.
Okay, last comment, time to stop wasting time, but:
Camille Claudel rocked. And, I hate women that are prettier than me. Just kidding (sort of. I do have a mild dislike…..)
Simranexcuse me, but what are you talking about? The US is a very young country. Talking about land masses and migration of native americans thousands of years ago in this context is silly. Is it the national myth of the United States not that this is a country of immigrants, that we all came from somewhere else? The national myth of France is fraternitie, egalitae, and I can never remember the third one. The US wouldn’t have a Marianne, because it wouldn’t fit our national myth to have just one face represent us.