More “Trans-,” Less “National”
More “Trans-,” Less “National” by Matthew Frye Jacobson discuses transnationalism in its relation to U.S immigration. He refers to Oscar Handlin’s The Uprooted in explaining how transnationalism creates a “national framework” in understanding immigration. He continues to use this “national framework” to argue how it can hinder historians in placing the history of immigration into two subfields. These subfields are geographic movement and citizenship. In order to fix this lack limit of the history in immigration we must not focus as much on the “national” aspect but on the “trans”. Historians get stuck in this “national” term that allows the “trans” aspect to be left out when focusing on the history of U.S immigration. Jacobson concludes that we can fix this by focusing on three broad areas of immigration that will better society’s understanding. These areas are restoring emigration to immigration, replacing the term nation with continent, and to focus on the lives of individuals, ethnic groups, regions and nations as a significant force.
Globalizing Migration Histories?
Globalizing Migration Histories by Bruno Ramirez discusses the terms global, globalization, and globalizing in how they are used in immigration history. He argues that these terms are “uncritically” used in the study of migration. In his argument he defines two of the terms to show how they are used in context for studying migration history. The first term, global, is described as a reference to specific time periods. The next term globalization is defined as the study of movement in migration such as trade and population movement. Ramirez compares and contrasts an Italian case and a Canadian case, which explains the movement of both to the United States. He concludes that globalization is used in the study of Italians migration to America because it being a transatlantic migration. However, Canadians movement is seen as more regional compared to the globalized historiographical standpoint in the Italian case.