Біз кімбіз? Америка ұлттық ерекшелігіне қатысты мәселелер.

2004 book by Samuel P. Huntington

Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (2004) is a treatise by political scientist and historian Samuel P. Huntington (1927–2008). The book attempts to understand the nature of American identity and the challenges it will face in the future.

After laying out the concerns for the weakening and subsequent dissolution of America, which could plausibly occur due to cultural bifurcation and/or a government formed of denationalized elites that increasingly ignore the will of the public, Huntington attempts to formulate a solution to these problems. He argues that adherence to the American Creed is by itself not enough to sustain an American identity. An example of a state that attempted to use ideology alone was the Soviet Union, which attempted to impose communism on different cultures and nationalities, and eventually collapsed. A similar fate could lie in store for the United States unless Americans "participate in American life, learn America's language [English], history, and customs, absorb America's Anglo Protestant culture, and identify primarily with America rather than with their country of birth". In particular, Huntington suggests that Americans turn to Protestantism, and recognize that what distinguishes America from other countries is that it is an extremely religious Western country, founded on the principles of the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation.

On the year of the book's release, Alan Wolfe of Foreign Affairs wrote, "to claim that there exists a common 'Anglo Protestant culture ' ignores the fact that Protestants have disagreed vehemently with each other over what that culture is." He furthermore argued that "Huntington fails to appreciate the degree to which immigrants shaped American culture even as they assimilated" and that the liberal elites he criticizes "include disproportionately large numbers of the Anglo Protestants whose culture Huntington wants to celebrate." Michiko Kakutani of the New York Times further criticized it as "recycling arguments made by a wide array of earlier thinkers while glossing masses of research with decidedly subjective analysis" and as "riddled with gross generalizations and equally questionable assertions"

As the 2013 Washington Post article by Dylan Matthews challenged Huntington's points, arguing that Latino immigrants have been adapting to English just as quickly as Asian and European immigrants have as of 2000, that proficiency in English and support for English as the official language of the United States among Latino Americans increased over generational status, and that Hispanic Americans are no less religious or hard working than white Americans are. In 2017, Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada penned an editorial describing Huntington's works as "[anticipating] America's political and intellectual battles and [pointing] to the country we may become." He states that Huntington "captures the dissonance between working classes and elites, between nationalism and cosmopolitanism, that played out in the 2016 campaign." He also comments that Huntington's views expressed in Clash of Civilizations and Who Are We? contrast sharply with those he expressed in his 1981 work American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, wherein Huntington argues that Americans are primarily united by a classically liberal creed rather than "ethnic identity or religious faith." Lozada goes on to challenge criticism of Huntington's ideas as "single minded," stating that "Huntington foresees an America roiled by self doubt, white nationalism and enmity against Islam." However, he concedes that Huntington offers a "narrow view of American uniqueness," ultimately warning against isolationism, "demonizing newcomers and demanding cultural fealty."