View a documentary of a historic or current

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 18th, 2014

Question Description

Resource: 

Schaefer, R. T. (2012). Racial and ethnic groups (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Racial and Ethnic Groups 13e_Ch16.pdf 

Racial and Ethnic Groups 13e_Ch01.pdf 

View a documentary of a historic or current event which ignited a social movement or social change

Seek out an event or documentary based on one of the themes investigated over the past nine weeks of this course.

Examples of events include library displays, museum exhibits, and cultural activities.

2. Writea 1,050- to 1,450-word paper that answers the following questions:

  • ·What information about diversity in the United States has helped you better understand or relate to others in ways that you may not have in the past? Have you learned something new about your own racial, ethnic, or cultural history?
  • ·Trends in immigration will continue to shape the demographics of the United States. What will the U.S. population look like in the year 2050? Why do you think so?

-What challenges does the United States face due to the diversity of its people?

-What are the benefits of such a diverse society?

  • ·How can we foster a climate of acceptance and cultural pluralism in the United States?

-In what ways does the media perpetuate stereotyping and prejudice? Provide examples to support your assertion.

-In what ways does the media help foster appreciation for diversity? Provide examples to support your assertion.

-How might individuals and the United States work together to reduce prejudice and increase appreciation for diversity?

-How might you change your own behaviors to be more inclusive and pluralistic?


16 CHAPTER OUTLINE Mexico: Diversity South of the Border Canada: Multiculturalism Up North Brazil: Not a Racial Paradise Israel and the Palestinians Republic of South Africa Listen to Our Voices Africa, It Is Ours! Research Focus Intergroup Contact and South Africa #ONCLUSION s 3UMMARY s +EY 4ERMS s 2EVIEW 1UESTIONS s #RITICAL 4HINKING WHAT WILL YOU LEARN?  How Does Diversity Function South of the Border?  How Does Multiculturalism Function up North?  Why Is Brazil Not a Racial Paradise?  What Are the Tensions between Israel and Palestine?  Why Is Inequality Entrenched in the Republic of South Africa? ISBN 1-256-63918-4 370 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. Beyond the United 3TATES 4HE #OMPARATIVE Perspective ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Subordinating people because of race, nationality, or religion is not a social phenomenon unique to the United States; it occurs throughout the world. In Mexico, women and the descendants of the Mayans are given second-class status. Despite its being viewed as a homogeneous nation by some, Canada faces racial, linguistic, and tribal issues. Brazil is a large South American nation with a long history of racial inequality. In Israel, Jews and Palestinians struggle over territory and the definition of each other’s autonomy. In the Republic of South Africa, the legacy of apartheid dominates the present and the future. Confrontations along racial, ethnic, or religious lines can lead to extermination, expulsion, secession, segregation, fusion, assimilation, or pluralism. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 371 372 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective Listen to the Chapter Audio on mysoclab.com C world systems theory a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor EExplore the Concept Social Explorer Activity: Comparing Ethnicity Changes in the American Population on mysoclab.com onfrontations between racial and ethnic groups have escalated in frequency and intensity in the twentieth century. In surveying these conflicts, we can see two themes emerge: the previously considered world systems theory and ethnonational conflict. World systems theory considers the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor. Historically, the nations we are considering reflect this competition between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Whether the laborers are poor Catholics in Ireland or Black Africans, their contribution to the prosperity of the dominant group created the social inequality that people are trying to address today (Wallerstein 1974, 2004). Ethnonational conflict refers to conflicts among ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic groups within nations. In some areas of the world, ethnonational conflicts are more significant than tension between nations as the source of refugees and even death. As we can see in Figure 16.1, countries in all parts of the world, including the most populous nations, have significant diversity within their borders. These conflicts remind us that the processes operating in the United States to deny racial and ethnic groups rights and opportunities are also at work throughout the world (Connor 1994; Olzak 1998). Explore on mysoclab.com The sociological perspective on relations between dominant and subordinate groups treats race and ethnicity as social categories. As social concepts, they can be understood only in the context of the shared meanings attached to them by societies and their members. Although relationships between dominant and subordinate groups vary greatly, there are similarities across societies. Racial and ethnic hostilities arise out of economic needs and demands. These needs and demands may not always be realistic; that is, a group may Ethnic Diversity Worldwide Source: Smith 2008:22–23. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 FIGURE 16.1 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 373 seek out enemies where none exist or where victory will yield no rewards. Racial and ethnic conflicts are both the results and the precipitators of change in the economic and political sectors (Barclay, Kumar, and Simms 1976; Coser 1956). Relations between dominant and subordinate groups differ from society to society, as this chapter shows. Intergroup relations in Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Israel, and South Africa are striking in their similarities and contrasts. ethnonational conflicts conflicts between ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic groups within nations. These conflicts replace conflicts between nations Mexico: Diversity South of the Border Usually in the discussions of racial and ethnic relations, Mexico is considered only as a source of immigrants to the United States. In questions of economic development, Mexico again typically enters the discussion only as it affects our own economy. However, Mexico, a nation of 111 million people (in the Western hemisphere, only Brazil and the United States are larger) is an exceedingly complex nation (see Table 16.1). It is therefore appropriate that we understand Mexico and its issues of inequality better. This understanding will also shed light on the relationship of its people to the United States. Read the Read on mysoclab.com In the 1520s, Spain overthrew the Aztec Indian tribe that ruled Mexico. Mexico Document Our Mother’s remained a Spanish colony until the 1820s. In 1836, Texas declared its independence Grief on mysoclab from Mexico, and by 1846 Mexico was at war with the United States. As we described in .com Chapter 9, the Mexican–American War forced Mexico to surrender more than half of its territory. In the 1860s, France sought to turn Mexico into an empire under Austrian prince Maximilian but ultimately withdrew after bitter resistance led by a Mexican Indian, Benito Juárez, who later served as the nation’s president. TABLE 16.1 ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Five-Nation Comparison Country Population (in millions) GNI per capita ($) (U.S. = $45,850) Groups Represented Current Nation’s Formation Mexico 110.6 14,270 Mexican Indians, 9% 1823: Republic of Mexico declared independence from Spain Canada 34.1 36,220 French speaking, 13% Aboriginal peoples, 4% “Visible” minorities, 16% 1867: Unified as a colony of England 1948: Independence Brazil 193.3 10,070 1889: Became indepenWhite, 48% Pardo (brown, moreno, mulatto), 39% dent of Portugal Afro-Brazilians, 7.5% Asian and indigenous Indians, 1% Israel 7.6 29,800 Jews, 76% Arabs, 23% 1948: Independence from British mandate under United Nations Palestinian Territories 3.9 4,247 Palestinians, 99% Others, 1% (Excluding Jewish settlements) 1999: Israel cedes authority under Oslo Accords South Africa 49.9 9,780 Black Africans, 76% Whites, 13% Coloureds, 9% Asians, 3% 1948: Independence from Great Britain Note: All data for 2010 or most recently available. Sources: Author estimates, based on Canak and Swanson 1998; Castillo 2011; Central Intelligence Agency 2011; Haub 2010; South African Institute of Race Relations 2010; Statistics Canada 2011. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 374 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective mestizo people in the Americas of mixed European (usually Spanish) and local indigenous ancestry The Mexican Indian People and the Color Gradient Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 In contemporary Mexico, a major need has been to reassess the relations between the indigenous peoples—the Mexican Indians, many descended from the Mayas, and the government of Mexico. In 1900, the majority of the Mexican population still spoke Indian languages and lived in closed, semi-isolated villages or tribal communities according to color gradient ancestral customs. Many of these people were not a part of the growing industrialization the placement of people in Mexico and were not truly represented in the national legislature. Perhaps the major on a continuum from light change for them in the twentieth century was that many intermarried with the descendants to dark skin color rather of the Europeans, forming a mestizo class of people of mixed ancestry. The term mestizo than in distinct racial is used throughout the Americas to refer to people of mixed European (usually Spanish) groupings by skin color and local indigenous ancestry. Mestizos have become increasingly identified with Mexico’s growing middle class. They have developed their own distinct culture and, as the descendants of the European settlers are reduced in number and influence, have become the true bearers of the national Mexican sentiment. Meanwhile, however, these social changes have left the Mexican Indian people even further behind the rest of the population economically. Indian cultures have been stereotyped as backward and resistant to progress and modern ways of living. Indeed, the existence of the many Indian cultures was seen in much of the twentieth century as an impediment to the development of a national culture in Mexico. As noted in Chapter 9, a color gradient is the placement of people on a continuum from light to dark skin color rather than in distinct racial groupings by skin color. This is another example of the social construction of race, in which social class is linked to the social reality (or at least the appearance) of racial purity. At the top of this gradient or hierarchy are the criollos, the 10 percent of the population who are typically White, well-educated members of the business and intellectual elites with familial roots in Spain. In the middle is the large impoverished mestizo majority, most of whom have brown skin and a mixed racial lineage as a result of intermarriage. At the bottom of the color gradient are the destitute Mexican Indians and a small number of Blacks, some of them the descendants of 200,000 African slaves brought to Mexico. The relatively small Black Mexican community received national attention in 2005 and 2006 following a series of racist events that received media attention. Ironically, although this color gradient is an important part of day-to-day life—enough so that some Mexicans use hair dyes, skin lighteners, and blue or green contact lenses to appear more European—nearly all Mexicans are considered part Mexican Indian because of centuries of intermarriage (Villarreal 2010). On January 1, 1994, rebels from an armed insurgent group called the Zapatista National Liberation Army seized four towns in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico. Two thousand lightly armed Mayan Indians and peasants backed the rebels—who had named their organization after Emiliano Zapata, a farmer and leader of the 1910 revolution against a corrupt dictatorship. Zapatista leaders declared that they had turned to armed insurrection to protest economic injustices and discrimination against the region’s Indian population. The Mexican government mobilized the army to crush the revolt but was forced to retreat as news organizations broadcast pictures of the confrontation around the world. A ceasefire was declared after only 12 days of fighting, but 196 people had already died. Negotiations collapsed between the Mexican government and the Zapatista National Liberation Army, and there has been sporadic violence ever since. In response to the crisis, the Mexican legislature enacted the Law on Indian Rights and Culture, which went into effect in 2001. The act allows 62 recognized Indian groups to apply their own customs in resolving conflicts and electing leaders. Unfortunately, state legislatures must give final approval to these arrangements, a requirement that severely limits the rights of large Indian groups whose territories span several states. Tired The poverty of Mexican Indians is well docuof waiting for state approval, many indigenous communities in Chiapas mented and in some instances has led to violent protests for social change. have declared self-rule without obtaining official recognition. Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 375 Although many factors contributed to the Zapatista revolt, the subordinate status of Mexico’s Indian citizens, who account for an estimated 14 percent of the nation’s population, was surely important. More than 90 percent of the indigenous population lives in houses without access to sewers, compared with 21 percent of the population as a whole. And whereas just 10 percent of Mexican adults are illiterate, the proportion for Mexican Indians is 44 percent (Stahler-Sholk 2008). The Status of Women Often in the United States we consider our own problems to be so significant that we fail to recognize that many of these social issues exist elsewhere. Gender stratification is an example of an issue we share with almost all other countries, and Mexico is no exception. In 1975, Mexico City was the site of the first United Nations conference on the status of women. Much of the focus was on the situation of women in developing countries; in that regard, Mexico remains typical. Women in Mexico did not receive the right to vote until 1953. They have made significant progress in that short period in being elected into office, but they have a long way to go. As of 2011, women accounted for 26 percent of Mexico’s national assembly (Inter-Parliamentary Union 2011). Even when Mexican women work outside the home, they are often denied recognition as active and productive household members, and men are typically viewed as heads of the household in every respect. As one consequence, women find it difficult to obtain credit and technical assistance in many parts of Mexico and to inherit land in rural areas. Men are preferred over women in the more skilled jobs, and women lose out entirely as factories, even in developing nations such as Mexico, require more complex skills. In 2009, only 47 percent of women were in the paid labor force, compared with about 76 percent in Canada and 72 percent in the United States (Organisation on Economic Co-operation and Development 2011). In recent decades, Mexican women have begun to address an array of economic, political, and health issues. Often this organizing occurs at the grassroots level and outside traditional government forums. Because women continue to serve as household managers for their families, even when they work outside the home, they have been aware of the consequences of the inadequate public services in low-income urban neighborhoods. As far back as 1973, women in Monterrey, the nation’s sixth-largest city, began protesting the continuing disruptions of the city’s water supply. At first, individual women made complaints to city officials and the water authority, but subsequently, groups of female activists emerged. They sent delegations to confront politicians, organized protest rallies, and blocked traffic as a means of getting media attention. As a result of their efforts, there have been improvements in Monterrey’s water service, although the issue of reliable and safe water remains a concern in Mexico and many developing countries (Bennett 1995; Bennett and Rico 2005). Mexico is beginning to recognize that the issue of social inequality extends beyond poverty. A national survey found that eight out of 10 Mexicans felt it was as important to eliminate discrimination as poverty, yet 40 percent said that they did not want to live next to an Indian community, and one-third considered it “normal” for women not to earn as much as men (G. Thompson 2005). ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Canada: Multiculturalism Up North Multiculturalism is a fairly recent term in the United States; it is used to refer to diversity. In Canada, it has been adopted as a state policy for more than two decades. Still, many people in the United States, when they think of Canada, see it as a homogeneous nation with a smattering of Arctic-type people—merely a cross between the northern mainland United States and Alaska. This is not the social reality. One of the continuing discussions among Canadians is the need for a cohesive national identity or a sense of common peoplehood. The immense size of the country, much of which is sparsely populated, and the diversity of its people have complicated this need. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 376 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective The First Nation Canada, like the United States, has had an adversarial relationship with its native peoples. However, the Canadian experience has not been as violent. During all three stages of Canadian history—French colonialism, British colonialism, and Canadian nationhood—there has been, compared with the United States, little warfare between Canadian Whites and Canadian Native Americans. Yet the legacy today is similar. Prodded by settlers, colonial governments (and later Canadian governments) drove the Native Americans from their lands. Already by the 1830s, Indian reserves were being established that were similar to the reservations in the United States. Tribal members were encouraged to renounce their status and become Canadian citizens. Assimilation was the explicit policy until recently (Champagne 1994; Waldman 1985). The 1.2 million native peoples of Canada are collectively referred to by the government as the First Nation or Aboriginal Peoples and represent about 4 percent of the population. This population is classified into the following groups: Status Indians—The more than 600 tribes or bands officially recognized by the government, numbering about 680,000 in 2006, of whom 40 percent live on Indian reserves (or reservations). Inuit—The 50,480 people living in the northern part of the country, who in the past were called Eskimos. Métis (pronounced “may-TEE”)—Canadians of mixed Aboriginal ancestry, officially numbering 390,000 and many of whom still speak French Métis, a mixed language combining Aboriginal and European words. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Another 35,000 Canadians of mixed native ancestry are counted by the government as First Nation people, but there are perhaps another 600,000 non–status Indians who selfidentify themselves as having some Aboriginal ancestry but who are not so considered by the Canadian government (Huteson 2008; Statistics Canada 2010). The Métis and non–status Indians have historically enjoyed no separate legal recognition, but efforts continue to secure them special rights under the law, such as designated health, education, and welfare programs. The general public does not understand these legal distinctions, so if a Métis or non–status Indian “looks like an Indian,” she or he is subjected to the same treatment, discriminatory or otherwise (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Canadian Polar Commission 2000, 4). The new Canadian federal constitution of 1982 included a charter of rights that “recognized and affirmed . . . the existing aboriginal and treaty rights” of the Canadian Native American, Inuit, and Métis peoples. This recognition received the most visibility through the efforts of the Mohawk, one of the tribes of status Indians. At issue were land rights involving some property areas in Quebec that had spiritual significance for the Mohawk. Their protests and militant confrontations reawakened the Canadian people to the concerns of their diverse native peoples (Warry 2007). Some of the contemporary issues facing the First Nation of Canada are very similar to those faced by Native Americans in the United States. Contemporary Canadians are shocked to learn of past mistreatment leading to belated remedies. Exposure of past sexual and physical abuse of tens of thousands in boarding schools led to compensation to former students and an official apology by the government in 2008. Earlier in 2006, as part of a legal settlement, the government set aside $2 billion for payments to surviving students and to document their experiences. Tribal people feel that environmental justice must be addressed because of the disproportionate pollution they experience. Seeking better opportunities, First Nation people move to urban areas in Canada where social services are slowly meeting the needs. The social and economic fate of contemporary Aboriginal Peoples reflects many challenges. Only 40 percent graduate from high school compared to more than 70 percent for the country as a whole. The native peoples of Canada have unemployment rates twice as high and an average income one-third lower (Farley 2008; Guly and Farley 2008; Statistics Canada 2010; Warry 2007). Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 377 In a positive step, in 1999 Canada created a new territory in response to a native land claim in which the resident Inuit (formerly called Eskimos) dominated. Nunavut (“NOO-nah-voot”), meaning “our land,” recognizes the territorial rights of the Inuit. Admirable as this event is, observers noted it was easier to grant such economic rights and autonomy to 29,000 people in the isolated expanse of northern Canada than to the Aboriginal Peoples of the more populated southern provinces of Canada (Krauss 2006). The Québécois Assimilation and domination have been the plight of most minority groups. The French-speaking people of Similar to the situation of indigenous people in the United States, the province of Quebec—the Québécois, as they are Brazil, and Mexico, Canada has only recently begun to make known—represent a contrasting case. Since the mid- amends for past injustices to its First Nation people. Pictured here 1960s, they have reasserted their identity and captured are primary school students in the Gioa Haven, settlement of the Nunavut Territory, which has been given special autonomy from the the attention of the entire nation. central government of Ottawa. Quebec accounts for about one-fourth of the nation’s population and wealth. Reflecting its early settlement by the French, fully 95 percent of the province’s population claims to speak French compared Québécois with only 13 percent in the nation as a whole (Statistics Canada 2011). the French-speaking The Québécois have sought to put French Canadian culture on an equal footing with people of the province of English Canadian culture in the country as a whole and to dominate in the province. At Quebec in Canada the very least, this effort has been seen as an irritant outside Quebec and has been viewed with great concern by the English-speaking minority in Quebec. In the 1960s, the Québécois expressed the feeling that bilingual status was not enough. Even to have French recognized as one of two official languages in a nation dominated by the English-speaking population gave the Québécois second-class status in their view. With some leaders threatening to break completely with Canada and make Quebec an independent nation, Canada made French the official language of the province and the only acceptable language for commercial signs and public transactions. New residents are now required to send their children to French schools. The English-speaking residents felt as if they had been made aliens, even though many of them had roots extending back to the 1700s (Salée 1994). In 1995, the people of Quebec were given a referendum that they would vote on alone: whether they wanted to separate from Canada and form a new nation. In a very close vote, 50.5 percent of the voters indicated a preference to remain united with Canada. The vote was particularly striking, given the confusion over how separation would be accomplished and its significance economically. Separatists vowed to keep working for secession and called for another referendum in the future, although surveys show the support for independence has dropped. Many French-speaking residents now seem to accept the steps that have been taken, but a minority still seeks full control of financial and political policies (Mason 2007). Canada is characterized by the presence of two linguistic communities: the Anglophone and the Francophone, with the latter occurring largely in the one province of Quebec. Outside Quebec, Canadians are opposed to separatism; within Quebec, they are divided. Language and cultural issues, therefore, both unify and divide a nation of 33 million people. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Immigration and Race Immigration has also been a significant social force contributing to Canadian multiculturalism. Toronto and Vancouver both have a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than either Los Angeles or New York City. Canada, proportionately to its population, receives consistently the most immigrants of any nation. About 20 percent of its population is foreign-born, with an increasing proportion being of Asian background rather than European. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 378 Chapter 16 visible minorities in Canada, persons other than Aboriginal or First Nation people who are non-White in racial background Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective Canada also speaks of its visible minorities—persons other than Aboriginal or First Nation people who are non-White in racial background. This would include much of the immigrant population as well as the Black population. In the 2006 census, the visible minority population accounted for 16 percent, compared to less than 5 percent 25 years earlier. The largest visible minority are the Chinese, followed by South Asians collectively, Black Canadians, and Filipinos (Bélanger and Malenfant 2005; Statistics Canada 2010). People in the United States tend to view Canada’s race relations in favorable terms. In part, this view reflects Canada’s role as the “promised land” for slaves escaping the U.S. South and crossing the free North to Canada, where they were unlikely to be recaptured. The view of Canada as a land of positive intergroup relations is also fostered by Canadians’ comparing themselves with the United States. They have long been willing to compare their best social institutions to the worst examples of racism in the United States and to pride themselves on being more virtuous and high-minded (McClain 1979). The social reality, past and present, is quite different. Africans came in 1689 as involuntary immigrants to be enslaved by French colonists. Slavery officially continued until 1833. It never flourished because the Canadian economy did not need a large labor force, so most slaves worked as domestic servants. Blacks from the United States did flee to Canada before slavery ended, but some fugitive slaves returned after Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The early Black arrivals in Canada were greeted in a variety of ways. Often they were warmly received as fugitives from slavery, but as their numbers grew in some areas, Canadians became concerned that they would overwhelm the White population (Winks 1971). The contemporary Black Canadian population, about 2.5 percent of the nation’s population, consists of indigenous Afro-Canadians with several generations of roots in Canada, West Indian immigrants and their descendants, and a number of post–World War II immigrants from the United States. Slightly more than half of Canada’s Blacks are foreign born. Racial issues are barely below the surface, as evidenced by rioting in 2008 in a Montreal neighborhood that is predominantly Black and Hispanic. Rioting was precipitated by the police shooting of a Honduran teenager. After a weekend of looting, peace was restored amid promises to improve police–community relations (Gosselin 2008; Statistics Canada 2011). In 1541, Frenchman Jacques Cartier established the first European settlement along the St. Lawrence River, but within a year he withdrew because of confrontations with the Iroquois. Almost 500 years later, the descendants of the Europeans and Aboriginal Peoples are still trying to resolve Canada’s identity as it is shaped by issues of ethnicity, race, and language. Brazil: Not a Racial Paradise To someone who is knowledgeable about race and ethnic relations in the United States, Brazil seems familiar in several respects. Like the United States, Brazil was colonized by Europeans who overwhelmed the native people. Like the United States, Brazil imported Black Africans as slaves to meet the demand for laborers. Even today, Brazil is second only to the United States in the number of people of African descent, excluding nations on the African continent. Another similarity is the treatment of indigenous people. Although the focus here is on Black and White people in Brazil, another continuing concern is the treatment of Brazil’s native peoples as this developing nation continues to industrialize. Legacy of Slavery Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The current nature of Brazilian race relations is influenced by the legacy of slavery, as is true of Black–White relations in the United States. It is not necessary to repeat here a discussion of the brutality of the slave trade and slavery itself or of the influence of slavery on the survival of African cultures and family life. Scholars agree that slavery was not the same in Brazil as it was in the United States, but they disagree on how different it was and how significant these differences were (Elkins 1959; Tannenbaum 1946). Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 379 Brazil depended much more than the United States on the slave trade. Estimates place the total number of slaves imported to Brazil at 4 million, eight times the number brought to the United States. At the height of slavery, however, both nations had approximately the same slave population: 4–4.5 million. Brazil’s reliance on African-born slaves meant that typical Brazilian slaves had closer ties to Africa than did their U.S. counterparts. Revolts and escapes were more common among slaves in Brazil. The most dramatic example was the slave quilombo (or hideaway) of Palmores, whose 20,000 inhabitants repeatedly fought off Portuguese assaults until 1698. Interestingly, these quilombos have reappeared in the news as Black Brazilians have sought to recognize their claims related to these settlements. The most significant difference between slavery in the southern United States and in Brazil was the amount of manumission—the freeing of slaves. For every 1,000 slaves, 100 were freed annually in Brazil, compared to four per year in the U.S. South. It would be hasty to assume, however, as some people have, that Brazilian masters were more benevolent. Quite the contrary. Brazil’s slave economy was poorer than that of the U.S. South, and so slave owners in Brazil freed slaves into poverty whenever they became crippled, sick, or old. But this custom does not completely explain the presence of the many freed slaves in Brazil. Again unlike in the United States, the majority of Brazil’s population was composed of Africans and their descendants throughout the nineteenth century. Africans were needed as craft workers, shopkeepers, and boatmen, not just as agricultural workers. Freed slaves filled these needs. quilombo slave hideaways in Brazil mulatto escape hatch notion that Brazilians of mixed ancestry can move into high-status positions ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The “Racial Democracy” Illusion For some time in the twentieth century, Brazil was seen by some as a “racial democracy” and even a “racial paradise.” Indeed, historically the term race is rare in Brazil; the term côr or color is far more common. Historian Carl Degler (1971) identified the mulatto escape hatch as the key to the differences in Brazilian and American race relations. In Brazil, the mulatto or moreno (brown) is recognized as a group separate from either brancos (Whites) or prêtos (Blacks), whereas in the United States, mulattos are classed with Blacks. Yet this escape hatch is an illusion because mulattoes fare only marginally better economically than Black Brazilians or Afro Brazilians or Afro-descendant, the term used there to refer to the dark end of the Brazilian color gradient and increasingly used by college-educated persons and activists in Brazil. In addition, mulattoes do not escape through mobility into the income and status enjoyed by White Brazilians. Labor market analyses demonstrate that Blacks with the highest levels of education and occupation experience the most discrimination in terms of jobs, mobility, and income. In addition, they face a glass ceiling that limits their upward mobility (Daniel 2006; Fiola 2008; Schwartzman 2007). Today, the use of dozens of terms to describe oneself along the color gradient (see Chapter 12) is obvious in Brazil because, unlike in the United States, people of mixed ancestry are viewed as an identifiable social group. The 2010 census in Brazil classified 48 percent White, 43 percent pardo (mestizo, brown, or mulatto), 6 percent Afro-Brazilian, and 1 percent Asian and indigenous Brazilian Indian (Castillo 2011). In Brazil, today as in the past, light skin color enhances status, but the impact is often exaggerated. When Degler advanced the idea of the mulatto escape hatch, he implied that it was a means to success. The most recent income data controlling for gender, education, and age indicate that people of mixed ancestry earn 12 percent more than Blacks. Yet Whites earn another 26 percent more than the pardo. Clearly, the major distinction is between Whites and all “people of color” rather than between people of mixed ancestry and Afro- Increasingly, people of Brazil are coming to terms with the significant social inequality evident along color lines. Brazilians (IBGE 2006; Telles, 1992, 2004). Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 380 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective Brazilian Dilemma Gradually in Brazil there has been the recognition that racial prejudice and discrimination do exist. A 2000 survey in Rio de Janeiro found that 93 percent of those surveyed believe that racism exists in Brazil and 74 percent said there was a lot of bias. Yet 87 percent of the respondents said they themselves were not racist (Bailey 2004, 2009b). During the twentieth century, Brazil changed from a nation that prided itself on its freedom from racial intolerance to a country legally attacking discrimination against people of color. One of the first measures was in 1951 when the Afonso Arinos law was unanimously adopted, prohibiting racial discrimination in public places. Opinion is divided over the effectiveness of the law, which has been of no use in overturning subtle forms of discrimination. Even from the start, certain civilian careers, such as the diplomatic and military officer ranks, were virtually closed to Blacks. Curiously, the push for the law came from the United States, after a Black American dancer, Katherine Dunham, was denied a room at a São Paulo luxury hotel. Today, the income disparity is significant in Brazil. As shown in Figure 16.2, people of color are disproportionately clustered in the lowest income levels of society. Although not as disadvantaged as Blacks in South Africa, which we take up later in this chapter, the degree of inequality between Whites and people of color is much greater in Brazil than in the United States. There is a long history of activism among Afro-Americans overcoming the challenge of a society that thinks distinctions are based on social class. After all, if problems are based on poverty, they are easier to overcome than if problems are based on color. However, activism is also understandable because societal wealth is so unequal—the concentration of income and assets in the hands of a few is much greater than even in the United States. For Afro-Brazilians, even professional status can achieve only so much in one’s social standing. An individual’s blackness does not suddenly become invisible simply because he or she has acquired some social standing. The fame achieved by the Black Brazilian soccer player Pelé is a token exception and does not mean that Blacks have it easy or even have a readily available “escape hatch” through professional sports. A dramatic step was taken to explicitly acknowledge the role of race when affirmative action measures were introduced. Quotas were begun in 2007, by which students could indicate their race with their college-entrance applications. Reflecting the color gradient and the lack of clear-cut racial categories, committees were actually created to examine photographs of prospective students for the purpose of determining race. In its initial implementation, charges of reverse racism and specific cases of inexplicable classifications being made were common. Coming up with solutions in Brazil will be just as intractable as the problems themselves (Ash 2007; Bailey 2009a; Bailey and Péria 2010; Daniel 2006; Dzidzienyo 1987; Fiola 2008). Israel and the Palestinians Diaspora the exile of Jews from Palestine Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Watch the Video Synagogue Doubles As Mosque mysoclab.com In 1991, when the Gulf War ended, hopes were high in many parts of the world that a comprehensive Middle East peace plan could be hammered out. Just a decade later, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and then the toppling of the Egyptian government in 2011, which was the first Arab state to diplomatically recognize Israel, the expectations for a lasting peace were much dimmer. The key elements in any peace plan were to resolve the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors and to resolve the challenge of the Palestinian refugees. Although the issues are debated in the political arena, the origins of the conflict can be found in race, ethnicity, and religion. Watch on mysoclab.com Nearly 2,000 years ago, the Jews were exiled from Palestine in the Diaspora. The exiled Jews settled throughout Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East, where they often encountered hostility and the anti-Semitism described in Chapter 14. With the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, Palestine became the site of many Christian pilgrimages. Beginning in the seventh century, Palestine gradually fell under the Muslim influence of the Arabs. By the beginning of the twentieth century, tourism Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 381 FIGURE 16.2 2000+ Income Distribution by Race Brazil Note: Monthly income for Brazil and the United States in 1996; for South Africa, 1998. Monthly Income 1500 Source: Government agencies as reported in Telles 2004:108. Brown–Black White 1000 500 20 10 0 10 20 30 2000+ Monthly Income South Africa 1500 Black–Coloured White 1000 500 20 10 0 10 20 30 4000+ United States Monthly Income 3000 2000 Black White 1000 20 10 0 10 20 30 ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Percent had become established. In addition, some Jews had migrated from Russia and established settlements that were tolerated by the Ottoman Empire, which then controlled Palestine. Great Britain expanded its colonial control from Egypt into Palestine during World War I, driving out the Turks. Britain ruled the land but endorsed the eventual establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. The spirit of Zionism, the yearning to establish a Jewish state in the biblical homeland, was well under way. From the Arab perspective, Zionism meant the subjugation, if not the elimination, of the Palestinians. Thousands of Jews came to settle from throughout the world; even so, in the 1920s, Palestine was only about 15 percent Jewish. Ethnic tension grew as the Arabs of Palestine were threatened by the Zionist fervor. Rioting grew to such a point that in 1939, Britain yielded to Palestinian demands that Jewish immigration be stopped. This occurred at the same time as large numbers of Jews were fleeing Nazism in Europe. After World War II, Jews resumed their demand for a homeland, despite Arab objections. Britain turned to Zionism traditional Jewish religious yearning to return to the biblical homeland, now used to refer to support for the state of Israel Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 382 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective the newly formed United Nations to settle the dispute. In May 1948, the British mandate over Palestine ended, and the state of Israel was founded. The Palestinian people define themselves as the people who lived in this former British mandate, along with their descendants on their fathers’ side. They are viewed as an ethnic group within the larger group of Arabs. They generally speak Arabic, and most of them (97 percent) are Muslim (mostly Sunni). With a rapid rate of natural increase, the Palestinians have grown in number from 1.4 million at the end of World War II to about 7 million worldwide: 700,000 in Israel, 2.6 million in the West Bank, and 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip (Central Intelligence Agency 2011; Third World Institute 2007:419). Arab–Israeli Conflicts No sooner had Israel been created than the Arab nations—particularly Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon—announced their intention to restore control to the Palestinian Arabs, by force if necessary. As hostilities broke out, the Israeli military stepped in to preserve the borders, which no Arab nation agreed to recognize. Some 60 percent of the 1.4 million Arabs fled or were expelled from Israeli territory, becoming refugees in neighboring countries. An uneasy peace followed as Israel attempted to encourage new Jewish immigration. Israel also extended the same services that were available to the Jews, such as education and health care, to the non-Jewish Israelis. The new Jewish population continued to grow under the country’s Law of Return, which gave every Jew in the world the right to settle permanently as a citizen. The question of Jerusalem remained unsettled, and the city was divided into two separate sections—Israeli Jewish and Jordanian Arab—a division both sides refused to regard as permanent. In 1967, Egypt, followed by Syria, responded to Israel’s military actions to take surrounding territory in what came to be called the Six-Day War. In the course of defeating the Arab states’ military, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Figure 16.3). The defeat was all the more bitter for the Arabs as Israeli-held territory expanded. Although our primary attention here is on the Palestinians and the Jews, another significant ethnic issue is present in Israel. Among Israel’s Jews, about 67 percent are Israeli-born, 23 percent are European or American, 6 percent are African, and 6 percent are Asian. The Law of Return has brought to Israel Jews of varying cultural backgrounds. European Jews have been the dominant force, but a significant migration of the more religiously observant Jews from North Africa and other parts of the Middle East has created what sociologist Ernest Krausz (1973) called “the two nations.” Not only are the various Jewish groups culturally diverse but also there are significant socioeconomic differences: the Europeans generally are more prosperous, better represented in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), and better educated. The secular Jews feel pressure from the more traditional and ultraorthodox Jews, who push for a nation more reflective of Jewish customs and law (Central Intelligence Agency 2011; Sela-Sheffy 2004; Third World Institute 2007:291). The Intifada Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Intifada the Palestinian uprising against Israeli authorities in the occupied territories The occupied territories were regarded initially by Israel as a security zone between it and its belligerent neighbors. By the 1980s, however, it was clear that the territories were also serving as the location of new settlements for Jews migrating to Israel, especially from Russia. Palestinians, though enjoying some political and monetary support of Arab nations, saw little likelihood of a successful military effort to eliminate Israel. Therefore, in December 1987, they began the first Intifada, the uprising against Israel by the Palestinians in the occupied territories through attacks against soldiers, the boycott of Israeli goods, general strikes, resistance, and noncooperation with Israeli authorities. The target of this first Intifada, lasting five years, was the Israelis. The Intifada was a popular grassroots movement whose growth in support was as much a surprise to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Arab nations as it was to Israel and its supporters. The broad range of participants in the Intifada—students, workers, union members, professionals, and business leaders—showed the unambiguous Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 383 FIGURE 16.3 LEBANON SYRIA Israeli and Palestinian Lands GOLAN HEIGHTS Golan Heights–Israel seized the Golan from Syria during the 1967 war and has occupied it ever since. Sea of Galilee Haifa Jordan River Nazareth Mediterranean Sea Tel-Aviv WEST BANK Gaza Strip–The Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt until Israel occupied it during the 1967. Ramla Ramallah Jerusalem Jericho Bethlehem Hebron West Bank and East Jerusalem–Israel took the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war. GAZA STRIP Dead Sea ISRAEL EGYPT JORDAN Palestinian opposition to occupation. The Intifada began out of the frustration of the Palestinians within Israel, but the confrontations were later encouraged by the PLO, an umbrella organization for several Palestinian factions of varying militancy. With television news footage of Israel soldiers appearing to attack defenseless youths, the Intifada transformed world opinion, especially in the United States. Palestinians came to be viewed as people struggling for self-determination rather than as terrorists out to destroy Israel. Instead of Israel being viewed as the “David” and its Arab neighbors “Goliath,” Israel came to take on the bully role and the Palestinians the sympathetic underdog role (Hubbard 1993; Third World Institute 2007). ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The Search for Solutions amid Violence The 1993 Oslo Accords between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and subsequent agreements ended the state of war and appeared to set in motion the creation of the first-ever self-governing Palestinian territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Hardliners on both sides, however, grew resistant to the move toward separate recognized Palestinian and Israeli states. Rabin was assassinated at a peace rally by an Israeli who felt the government had given up too much. Succeeding governments in Israel took stronger stands against relinquishing control of the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the anti-Israel Hamas party was elected to power following the death of Arafat in 2004. Despite the assurances at Oslo, Israel did not end its occupation of the Palestinian territories by 1999, justifying its actions as necessary to stop anti-Israel violence originating in Palestinian settlements. Complicating the picture was the continued growth of 121 officially Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 384 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective recognized Israeli settlements in the West Bank, bringing the total population to 300,000 by 2009. Palestinians, assisted by Arabs in other countries, mounted a second Intifada from 2000 through 2004, which was precipitated by the Israeli killing of several Palestinians at a Jerusalem mosque. This time, militant Palestinians went outside the occupied territories and bombed civilian sites in Israel through a series of suicide bombings. Each violent episode brought calls for retaliation by the other side and desperate calls for a ceasefire from outside the region. Israel, despite worldwide denunciation, created a 600-mile “security barrier” of 30-foot-high concrete walls, ditches, and barbed wire to try to protect its Jewish settlers, which served to limit the mobility of peaceful Palestinians trying to access crops, schools, hospitals, and jobs (MacFauquhar 2011; Prusher 2009). The immediate problem is to end the violence, but any lasting peace must face a series of difficult issues, including the following:    Beginning in 2005, Israel started constructing a 30-foot-high 6oo-mile barrier for security purposes, but the wall also served to keep Palestinians from schools and jobs.    The status of Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, which is also viewed by Muslims as the third-most-holy city in the world. The future of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank of the Palestinian Authority territories. The future of Palestinians and other Arabs with Israeli citizenship. The creation of a truly independent Palestinian national state with strong leadership. Israel–Palestinian Authority relations, with the latter’s government under control of Hamas, which is sworn to Israel’s destruction. The future of Palestinian refugees elsewhere. Added worries are the uneasy peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors and the sometimes interrelated events in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran. The last 60 years have witnessed significant changes: Israel has gone from a land under siege to a nation whose borders are recognized by almost everyone. Israel has come to terms with the various factions of religious and secular Jews trying to coexist. The Palestinian people have gone from disfranchisement to having territory. The current solution is fragile and very temporary, as is any form of secession with a foundation for accommodation amid continuing violence. Republic of South Africa In every nation in the world, some racial, ethnic, or religious groups enjoy advantages denied to other groups. Nations differ in the extent of this denial and in whether it is supported by law or by custom. In no other industrial society has the denial been so entrenched in recent law as in the Republic of South Africa. The Republic of South Africa is different from the rest of Africa because the original African peoples of the area are no longer present. Today, the country is multiracial, as shown in Table 16.2. The largest group is the Black Africans who migrated from the north in the eighteenth century as well as more recent migrations from neighboring African countries over the last 20 years. The Coloured (or Cape Coloureds), the product of mixed race, and Asians (or Indians) make up the remaining non-Whites. The small White community consists of the English and the Afrikaners, the latter descended from Dutch and other European settlers. As in all other multicultural nations we have considered, colonialism and immigration have left their mark. The permanent settlement of South Africa by Europeans began in 1652, when the Dutch East India Company established a colony in Cape Town as a port of call for shipping vessels bound for India. The area was sparsely populated, and the original inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope, the Hottentots and Bushmen, were pushed inland like the indigenous Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The Legacy of Colonialism Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 385 TABLE 16.2 Racial Groups in the Republic of South Africa Whites (%) All Non-Whites (%) Black Africans (%) Coloureds (%) Asian Indians (%) 1904 22 78 67 9 2 1936 21 79 69 8 2 1951 21 79 68 9 3 2010 9 91 79 9 3 2021 (projected) 8 90 80 9 2 Note: “All Non-Whites” totals subject to rounding error. Sources: Author’s estimates, based on Statistics South Africa and Bureau of Market Research in MacFarlane 2006a:8–9; South African Institute of Race Relations 2007:6, 12; MacFarlane 2008:2; Berghe 1978:102. peoples of the New World. To fill the need for laborers, the Dutch imported slaves from areas of Africa farther north. Slavery was confined mostly to areas near towns and involved more limited numbers than in the United States. The Boers, semi-nomads descended from the Dutch, did not remain on the coast but trekked inland to establish vast sheep and cattle ranches. The trekkers, as they were known, regularly fought off the Black inhabitants of the interior regions. Sexual relations between Dutch men and slave and Hottentot women were quite common, giving rise to a mulatto group referred to today as Cape Coloureds. The British entered the scene by acquiring part of South Africa in 1814, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The British introduced workers from India as indentured servants on sugar plantations. They had also freed the slaves by 1834, with little compensation to the Dutch slave owners, and had given Blacks almost all political and civil rights. The Boers were not happy with these developments and spent most of the nineteenth century in a violent struggle with the growing number of English colonists. In 1902, the British finally overwhelmed the Boers, leaving bitter memories on both sides. Once in control, however, they recognized that the superior numbers of the non-Whites were a potential threat to their power, as they had been to the power of the Afrikaners. The growing non-White population consisted of the Coloureds, or mixed population, and the Black tribal groups, collectively called Bantus. The British gave both groups the vote but restricted the franchise to people who met certain property qualifications. Pass laws were introduced, placing curfews on the Bantus and limiting their geographic movement. These laws, enforced through “reference books” until 1986, were intended to prevent urban areas from becoming overcrowded with job-seeking Black Africans, a familiar occurrence in colonial Africa (Marx 1998; van den Berghe 1965). pass laws laws that controlled internal movement by nonWhites in South Africa apartheid the policy of the South African government intended to maintain separation of Blacks, Coloureds, and Asians from the dominant Whites ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Apartheid In 1948, South Africa was granted its independence from the United Kingdom, and the National Party, dominated by the Afrikaners, assumed control of the government. Under the leadership of this party, the rule of White supremacy, already well under way in the colonial period as custom, became more and more formalized into law. To deal with the multiracial population, the Whites devised a policy called apartheid to ensure their dominance. Apartheid (in Afrikaans, the language of the Afrikaners, it means “separation” or “apartness”) came to mean a policy of separate development, euphemistically called multinational development by the government. At the time, these changes were regarded as cosmetic outside South Africa and by most Black South Africans. South Africa employed an explicit system of de jure segregation under apartheid that included spatial separation on trains, as shown in these separate entry points in Johannesburg. Whites waited at the front of trains, while Black South Africans waited at the rear. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 386 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective The White ruling class was not homogeneous. The English and Afrikaners belonged to different political parties, lived apart, spoke different languages, and worshipped separately, but they shared the belief that some form of apartheid was necessary. Apartheid can perhaps be best understood as a twentieth-century effort to reestablish the master–slave relationship. Blacks could not vote. They could not move throughout the country freely. They were unable to hold jobs unless the government approved. To work at approved jobs, they were forced to live in temporary quarters at great distances from their real homes. Their access to education, health care, and social services was severely limited (Wilson 1973). Events took a significant turn in 1990, when South African Prime Minister F. W. De Klerk legalized 60 banned Black organizations and freed Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress (ANC), after 27 years of imprisonment. Mandela’s triumphant remarks after his release appear in Listen to Our Voices. Listen to Our Voices Africa, It Is Ours! Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Amandla! Amandla! i-Afrika, able to forgive. The sight of mayibuye! [Power! Power! freedom looming on the horiAfrica, it is ours!] zon should encourage us to My friends, comrades and redouble our efforts. It is only fellow South Africans, I greet through disciplined mass action you all in the name of peace, that our victory can be assured. democracy and freedom for all. We call on our white compaI stand here before you not as triots to join us in the shaping a prophet but as a humble serof a new South Africa. The freevant of you, the people. dom movement is the political Nelson Mandela Your tireless and heroic sachome for you, too. We call on rifices have made it possible for the international community to me to be here today. I therefore place the continue the campaign to isolate the apartremaining years of my life in your hands. heid regime. On this day of my release, I extend my To lift sanctions now would be to run the sincere and warmest gratitude to the milrisk of aborting the process toward the comlions of my compatriots and those in every plete eradication of apartheid. Our march corner of the globe who have campaigned to freedom is irreversible. We must not allow tirelessly for my release. fear to stand in our way. Negotiations on the dismantling of apartUniversal suffrage of a common voters’ heid will have to address the overwhelming role in a united democratic and nonracial demand of our people for a democratic nonSouth Africa is the only way to peace and racial and unitary South Africa. There must racial harmony. be an end to white monopoly on political In conclusion, I wish to go to my own power. words during my trial in 1964. They are And [there must be] a fundamental as true today as they were then. I wrote: restructuring of our political and economic I have fought against white domination, systems to ensure that the inequalities of and I have fought against black dominaapartheid are addressed and our society tion. I have cherished the idea of a demothoroughly democratized. . . . cratic and free society in which all persons Our struggle has reached a decisive live together in harmony and with equal moment. We call on our people to seize this opportunities. moment so that the process toward democIt is an ideal which I hope to live for and racy is rapid and uninterrupted. We have to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for waited too long for our freedom. We can no which I am prepared to die. longer wait. Now is the time to intensify the Source: Mandela 1990. Copyright © 1990 by struggle on all fronts. the New York Times Company. Reprinted by To relax our efforts now would be a mispermission of the New York Times. take which generations to come will not be Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 387 The next year, De Klerk and Black leaders signed a National Peace Accord, pledging themselves to the establishment of a multiparty democracy and an end to violence. After a series of political defeats, De Klerk called for a referendum in 1992 to allow Whites to vote on ending apartheid. If he failed to receive popular support, he vowed to resign. A record high turnout gave a solid 68.6 percent vote that favored the continued dismantling of legal apartheid and the creation of a new constitution through negotiation. The process toward power sharing ended symbolically when De Klerk and Mandela were jointly awarded the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize (Marx 1998; Ottaway and Taylor 1992; Winant 2001). The Era of Reconciliation and Moving On In April 1994, South Africa held its first universal election. Apartheid had ended. Nelson Mandela’s ANC received 62 percent of the vote, giving him a five-year term as president. Mandela enjoyed the advantage of wide personal support throughout the nation. He retired in 1999 when his second term ended. His successors have faced a daunting agenda because of the legacy of apartheid. A significant step to help South Africa move past apartheid was the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). People were allowed to come forward and confess to horrors they had committed under apartheid from 1961 through 1993. If they were judged by the TRC to be truly remorseful, and most were, they were not subject to prosecution. If they failed to confess to all crimes they had committed, they were prosecuted. The stories gripped the country as people learned that actions taken in the name of the Afrikaner government were often worse than anyone had anticipated (Gobodo-Madikizela 2003). The immediate relief that came with the end of apartheid has given way to greater concerns about the future of all South Africans. In Research Focus, we consider how intergroup contact may affect the views expressed by contemporary South Africans. With the emergence of the new multiracial government in South Africa, we see a country with enormous promise but many challenges that are similar to those of our own multiracial society. Some of the controversial issues facing the ANC-led government are very familiar to citizens in the United States. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Desperate poverty: Despite the growth of a small but conspicuous middle class among Black South Africans, poverty rates stand at 40 percent, compared to 4–5 percent of White South Africans. Affirmative action: Race-based employment goals and other preference programs have been proposed, yet critics insist that such efforts constitute reverse apartheid. Medical care: The nation is trying to confront the duality of private care for the affluent (usually Whites) and government-subsidized care (usually for people of color). AIDS has reached devastating levels, with 11 percent of the population having HIV or AIDS as of 2010. Crime: Although the government-initiated violence under apartheid has ended, the generations of conflict and years of intertribal attacks have created a climate for crime, illegal gun ownership, and disrespect for law enforcement. School integration: Multiracial schools are replacing the apartheid system, but for some, the change is occurring too fast or not fast enough. Although 15 percent of Whites hold a college degree, only 1.8 percent of Black South Africans are so advantaged. These issues must be addressed with minimal increases in government spending as the government seeks to reverse deficit spending without an increase in taxes that would frighten away needed foreign investment. As difficult as all these challenges are, perhaps the most difficult is land reform (Dugger 2010; Geddes 2010; South African Institute of Race Relations 2010). The government has pledged to address the issue of land ownership. Between 1960 and 1990, the government forced Black South Africans from their land and often allowed Whites to settle on it. Beginning in 1994, the government took steps to transfer 30 percent of agricultural land to Black South Africans. Where feasible, the government plans to restore the original inhabitants to their land; where this is not feasible, the government is to make “just and equitable compensation.” The magnitude of this land reform issue Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 388 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective contact hypothesis an interactionist perspective stating that intergroup contact between people of equal status in noncompetitive circumstances will reduce prejudice Research Focus )NTERGROUP #ONTACT AND 3OUTH !FRICA There is little question that the Republic of South Africa’s recent history has been defined by racism. With less than two decades since the end of apartheid, every aspect of South African society from transportation to hospitals to sports reflects this legacy. So how do White and Black South Africans get along on a daily basis? They are certainly more likely to meet on an equal-status basis whether it is in schools or the workplace than they were under apartheid. This would seem to be an ideal opportunity to test the validity of contact hypothesis. First introduced in Chapter 2, the contact hypothesis draws upon the interactionist perspective stating that intergroup contact between people of equal status in noncompetitive circumstances will reduce prejudice. Can this hold true in a country with such a long history of intergroup discrimination and conflict supported by the central government? Since the end of apartheid, surveys show that Black Africans are increasingly identifying themselves by the national social identity of “South African” while retaining their own tribal identity. Afrikaans- and English-speaking Whites seem to more increasingly identify with their ethnic group and are less likely to see themselves less as South Africans. This would not seem to suggest that intergroup contact in the new South Africa can lead to lessening of prejudice. Yet, national surveys conducted in the twenty-first century find contact and especially more regular, intimate contact leads to more positive feelings among racial groups in South Africa. Successive studies show increased interaction especially by Whites, as measured by self-reports of having nonWhite friends or dining with those friends. Contact across racial lines seems to have less positive impact on the attitudes held by Black South Africans. Tests of the contact hypothesis among South African college students showed relatively little contact across racial lines but when it does occur, more positive feelings follow, especially among Whites. Why do White South Africans seem to be affected more positively by contact? Even if the contemporary contact is harmonious, it occurs within the social context of unequal power position in which “Whiteness” is privileged over “Blackness.” Researchers note that given the racist backdrop of today’s South Africa, Whites may be quicker to evaluate intergroup contact as equal whereas the long-oppressed Black South Africans may find equal status more difficult to accept. This is understandable since so often even today Black–White relationships are still occurring, with Whites in a distinctly more powerful position, while the reverse is much less likely. Furthermore, given the magnitude of structural change that South Africa must undergo, it may be especially difficult for Black South Africans to be quick to move beyond the Apartheid past. Intergroup contact is not a panacea anywhere, including South Africa, but, rather, one element moving from an exclusionary society to a more pluralistic one. Sources: Bornman 2010, Gibson and Classen 2010; Pettigrew 2010; Tredoux and Finchilescu 2010; Vincent 2008. cannot be minimized. Originally, the goal was to achieve the land transfer by 2004, but this has now been deferred to 2025. Certain critics say at the current rate it will take until 2060 to reach the 2004 objective (South Africa Institute of Race Relations 2010). As shown in the figure below, each society, in its own way, illustrates the processes in the Spectrum of Intergroup Relations first introduced in Chapter 1. The examples range from the Holocaust, which precipitated the emergence of Israel, to the efforts to create a multiracial government in South Africa. A study of these five societies, coupled with knowledge of subordinate groups in the United States, provide the background from which to draw some conclusions about patterns of race and ethnic relations in the world today. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Conclusion Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 389 SPECTRUM OF INTERGROUP RELATIONS SEGREGATION EXPULSION ASSIMILATION INCREASINGLY UNACCEPTABLE MORE TOLERABLE EXTERMINATION SECESSION FUSION PLURALISM or genocide or partitioning or amalgamation or melting pot or multiculturalism Holocaust in Europe precipitated Israeli state formation Initial exile of Jews from Palestine Zionism Goal of some Québécois Quilombos in Brazil Prado in Brazil Apartheid Mexican Indians and Spaniards Indian reserves in Canada ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Palestinian Territory By looking beyond our borders, we gather new insights into the social processes that frame and define intergroup relationships. The colonial experience has played a role in all cases under consideration in this chapter but particularly in South Africa. In Mexico and South Africa, which have long histories of multiethnic societies, intergroup sexual relations have been widespread but with different results. Mestizos in Mexico occupy a middle racial group and experience less tension, whereas in South Africa, the Cape Coloureds had freedoms under apartheid almost as limited as those of the Black Africans. South Africa enforced de jure segregation, whereas Israeli communities seem to have de facto segregation. Israel’s and South Africa’s intergroup conflicts have involved the world community. Indigenous people figure in the social landscape of Canada, Brazil, and Mexico. Policies giving preference to previously devalued racial groups are in place in both Brazil and South Africa. Complete assimilation is absent in all five societies considered in this chapter and is unlikely to occur in the near future; the legal and informal barriers to assimilation and pluralism vary for subordinate people choosing either option. Looking at the status of women in Mexico reminds us of the worldwide nature of gender stratification and Immigrants to Canada Métis of Canada Coloureds of South Africa Status Indians in Canada Multiracial government of South Africa Jewish groups within Israel also offers insight into the patterns present in developing nations. If we add the United States to these societies, the similarities become even more striking. The problems of racial and ethnic adjustment in the United States have dominated our attention, but they parallel past and present experiences in other societies with racial, ethnic, or religious heterogeneity. The U.S. government has been involved in providing educational, financial, and legal support for programs intended to help particular racial or ethnic groups, and it continues to avoid interfering with religious freedom. Bilingual, bicultural programs in schools, autonomy for Native Americans on reservations, and increased participation in decision making by residents of ghettoes and barrios are all viewed as acceptable goals, although they are not pursued to the extent that many subordinate-group people would like. The analysis of this chapter has reminded us of the global nature of dominant–subordinate relations along dimensions of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. In the next chapter, we provide an overview of racial and ethnic relations as well as explore social inequality along the dimensions of age, disability status, and sexual orientation. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 390 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 7HAT $O 9OU 4HINK Study and Review on mysoclab.com Summary 1. Mexico’s mosaic of mestizos and native indigenous people creates a diversified society, with segments of the population that definitely feel disadvantaged and ignored. 2. Canada, with one of the largest proportions of indigenous peoples, continues to develop strategies to promote economic development while preserving cultural traditions. A similar pattern has emerged among the growing immigrant community. 3. The sizable French-speaking population within Canada has asked and receives consideration for its special cultural heritage, which is not fully endorsed by others in the nation. 4. Brazil is not a racial paradise, as has sometimes been suggested, but continues to deal with significant disparity among people of color. 5. Israel has both a significant Arab population and a diverse Jewish community among whom there are sharp political and religious differences. 6. Palestinians in the occupied territories are in a desperate economic situation that has been aggravated by violent divisions within their ranks and by reprisals from Israel in response to attacks from those within the territories. 7. The apartheid era in South Africa underscores how race can be a tool for total subjugation of millions of people. 8. The South Africa of the post-apartheid era is marked by reconciliation of the different racial groups, which are facing significant issues involving land, education, health, and public safety. Key Terms apartheid / 385 the policy of the South African government intended to maintain separation of Blacks, Coloureds, and Asians from the dominant Whites color gradient / 374 the placement of people on a continuum from light to dark skin color rather than in distinct racial groupings by skin color Diaspora / 380 the exile of Jews from Palestine Intifada / 382 the Palestinian uprising against Israeli authorities in the occupied territories mestizo / 374 people in the Americas of mixed European (usually Spanish) and local indigenous ancestry mulatto escape hatch / 379 notion that Brazilians of mixed ancestry can move into high-status positions pass laws / 385 laws that controlled internal movement by non-Whites in South Africa Québécois / 377 the French-speaking people of the province of Quebec in Canada quilombo / 379 slave hideaways in Brazil visible minorities / 378 in Canada, persons other than Aboriginal or First Nation people who are non-White in racial background world systems theory / 372 a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor Zionism / 381 traditional Jewish religious yearning to return to the biblical homeland, now used to refer to support for the state of Israel Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 contact hypothesis / 388 an interactionist perspective stating that intergroup contact between people of equal status in noncompetitive circumstances will reduce prejudice ethnonational conflict / 373 conflicts between ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic groups within nations. These conflicts replace conflicts between nations Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 391 Review Questions 1. Identify who the native peoples are and what their role has been in each of the societies discussed in this chapter. 2. On what levels can one speak of an identity issue facing Canada as a nation? 4. How have civil uprisings affected intergroup tensions in Mexico and Israel? 5. To what extent are the problems facing Brazil and South Africa today part of the legacy of racial divisions? 3. What role has secession played in Canada and Israel? Critical Thinking 1. Social construction of race emphasizes how we create arbitrary definitions of skin color that then have social consequences. Drawing on the societies discussed, select one nation and identify how social definitions work in other ways to define group boundaries. 3. The conflicts outlined in this chapter are examples of ethnonational conflicts, but how have the actions or inactions of the United States contributed to these problems? 2. Apply the functionalist and conflict approaches of sociology first introduced in Chapter 1 to each of the societies under study in this chapter. MySocLab® Watch. Explore. Read. MySocLab is designed just for you. Each chapter features a pre-test and post-test to help you learn and review key concepts and terms. Experience Racial and Ethnic Relations in action with dynamic visual activities, videos, and readings to enhance your learning experience. Here are a few activities you will find for this chapter: Watch on mysoclab.com Core Concepts video clips feature sociologists in action, exploring important concepts in the study of Ethnicity. Watch:  Synagogue Doubles As Mosque Social Explorer is an interactive application that allows you to explore Census data through interactivemaps. Explore the Social Explorer Report:  Social Explorer Activity: Comparing Ethnicity Changes in the American Population Explore on mysoclab.com MySocLibrary includes primary source readings from various noted sociologists from around the world. Read:  Our Mother’s Grief ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Read on mysoclab.com Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc.
1 CHAPTER OUTLINE Ranking Groups Types of Groups Listen to Our Voices Problem of the Color Line Does Race Matter? Biracial and Multiracial Identity: Who Am I? Research Focus Multiracial Identity Sociology and the Study of Race and Ethnicity The Creation of Subordinate-Group Status The Consequences of Subordinate-Group Status Resistance and Change #ONCLUSION s 3UMMARY s +EY 4ERMS 2EVIEW 1UESTIONS s #RITICAL 4HINKING WHAT WILL YOU LEARN?  How Does Society Rank Different Groups?  What Are the Four Types of Groups?  Does Race Still Matter?  How is Biracial and Multiracial Identity Defined?  How Is Sociology Applied to the Study of Race and Ethnicity?  What Leads to the Creation of Subordinate-Group Status?  What Are the Consequences of Subordinate-Group Status?  How Does Change Occur in Race Relations? ISBN 1-256-48952-2 2 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Minority groups are subordinated in terms of power and privilege to the majority, or dominant group. A minority is defined not by being outnumbered but by five characteristics: unequal treatment, distinguishing physical or cultural traits, involuntary membership, awareness of subordination, and ingroup marriage. Subordinate groups are classified in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. The social importance of race is derived from a process of racial formation; any biological significance is relatively unimportant to society. The theoretical perspectives of functionalism, conflict theory, and labeling offer insights into the sociology of intergroup relations. Immigration, annexation, and colonialism are processes that may create subordinate groups. Other processes such as extermination and expulsion may remove the presence of a subordinate group. Significant for racial and ethnic oppression in the United States today is the distinction between assimilation and pluralism. Assimilation demands subordinate-group conformity to the dominant group, and pluralism implies mutual respect among diverse groups. Minority women are more likely to be poor, which creates what sociologists have termed the matrix of domination. Although dominant groups seek to define the social landscape, groups who experience unequal treatment have in the past resisted power and sought significant social change and continue to do so today. 3 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 4 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Listen to the Chapter Audio on mysoclab.com R ace and ethnicity in the twenty-first century. The United States has a Black president but when his parents were married in 1961 in Hawaii, the marriage of a White person and Black African would have been illegal in 22 of the other states. Shoppers in supermarkets readily find seasonings of chili peppers, cumin, ginger, and roasted coriander, reflecting the influx of immigrants and their food tastes being accepted by more and more Americans. Yet recent research shows that if a person with a strong accent says, “Ants do sleep,” we are less likely to believe it than if said by someone with no accent. Race and ethnicity is exceedingly complex in the United States. A Methodist church in Brooklyn founded by European immigrants more than a century ago is now operated by Latino parishioners whose numbers have dwindled to 30. To keep the church going they lease space to a growing Chinese Methodist church, which numbers over a thousand. Meanwhile, in nearby Queens, a Methodist church split between Latin Americans and Caribbean immigrants has just made room for a separate Pakistani Methodist congregation. Also consider the racial and ethnic stereotypes that are shamelessly exhibited on Halloween, when many young adults view the festivities as a “safe” way to defy social norms. College students report seeing fellow White students dressed in baggy jeans wearing gold chains and drinking malt liquor to represent “gangstas.” Some add blackface makeup to complete the appearance. Such escapades are not limited to misguided youth. National retailers stock a “Kung Fool” ensemble complete with Japanese kimono and a buck-toothed slant-eyed mask. Also available is “Vato Loco,” a stereotyped caricature of a bandana-clad, tattooed Latino gang thug. Racial and ethnic tensions are not limited to the real world; they are also alive and well in the virtual world. Hate groups, anti-Jewish organizations, and even the Ku Klux Klan thrive on Web sites. Such fringe groups, enjoying their First Amendment rights in the United States, spread their messages in many languages globally via the Internet, whereas the creation of such hate sites is banned in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere. Facebook has emerged as a significant way in which people interact, but it also is a means to learn about others by their online profile. Already by 2007, colleges and universities cited Facebook as the major source of prospective students (or their parents) requesting roommate changes even before arriving on campus, because of the intended roommate’s race, religion, or sexual orientation (Collura 2007; Dolnick 2010; Lev-Ari and Keysar 2010; Mueller, Dirks, and Picca 2007; Working 2007). The United States is a very diverse nation and is becoming even more so, as shown in Table 1.1. In 2010, approximately 17 percent of the population was members of racial minorities, and another 16 percent or so were Hispanic. These percentages represent over three out of 10 people in the United States, without counting White ethnic groups or foreignborn Whites. As shown in Figure 1.1, between 2010 and 2050 the Black, Barack Obama’s historic campaign and his Hispanic, Asian, and Native American portion of the population in the elevation to becoming the 44th president of United States is expected to increase from 36 percent to 54 percent. the United States in January 2009 marks a Although the composition of the population is changing, problems of significant moment in U.S. history. The fact that prejudice, discrimination, and mistrust remain. he is the first African American (and also the first Ranking Groups In every society not all groups are treated or viewed equally. Identifying a subordinate group or a minority in a society seems to be a simple task. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 person who is not White) to serve as president demonstrates how much progress has been achieved in race relations in this country. It also serves to underscore both how long it has taken and how much more needs to be accomplished for the United States to truly be “a more perfect union” as stated in the Constitution. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 5 TABLE 1.1 Racial and Ethnic Groups in the United States Classification RACIAL GROUPS Whites (non-Hispanic) Blacks/African Americans Native Americans, Alaskan Natives Asian Americans Chinese Asian Indians Filipinos Vietnamese Koreans Japanese Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, and other Asian Americans ETHNIC GROUPS White ancestry (single or mixed, non-Hispanic) Germans Irish English Italians Poles French Scottish and Scotch-Irish Jews Hispanics (or Latinos) Mexican Americans Puerto Ricans Cubans Salvadorans Dominicans Guatemalans Other Hispanics TOTAL (ALL GROUPS) Number in Thousands Percentage of Total Population 194,553 34,658 2,476 14,229 3,106 2,602 2,476 1,482 1,336 767 2,460 63.0 11.2 0.8 4.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.8 50,708 36,915 27,658 18,085 10,091 9,412 9,417 6,452 50,478 31,798 4,624 1,785 1,648 1,415 1,044 8,164 308,746 16.5 12.0 9.0 5.9 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.1 16.3 10.3 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 2.6 ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Note: All data for 2009 except three racial groups listed at top, Hispanic total and subgroups, and total population figure, which are for 2010. Percentages do not total 100 percent, and subheads do not add up to totals in major categories because of overlap between groups (e.g., Polish American Jews or people of mixed ancestry such as Irish and Italian). Source: 2009 data from American Community Survey 2010:Tables B02006, B03001, C04006; 2010 data from Davidson and Pyle 2011:117; Ennis et al. 2011; Humes et al. 2011. In the United States, the groups readily identified as minorities—Blacks and Native Americans, for example—are outnumbered by non-Blacks and non-Native Americans. However, minority status is not necessarily the result of being outnumbered. A social minority need not be a mathematical one. A minority group is a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than do the members of a dominant or majority group. In sociology, minority means the same as subordinate, and dominant is used interchangeably with majority. Confronted with evidence that a particular minority in the United States is subordinate to the majority, some people respond, “Why not? After all, this is a democracy, so minority group a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than do the members of a dominant or majority group Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 6 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity the majority rules.” However, the subordination of a minority involves more than its inability to rule over society. A member of a African Asian Americans and Pacific subordinate or minority group experiences 12.8% Islanders a narrowing of life’s opportunities—for 5.0% Hispanic Hispanic White success, education, wealth, the pursuit of 31.3% 16.3% non-Hispanic happiness—that goes beyond any personal 46% White shortcoming he or she may have. A minornon-Hispanic ity group does not share in proportion to African 63.9% Americans its numbers what a given society, such as 12.8% American the United States, defines as valuable. Indian Being superior in numbers does not 1.0% guarantee a group control over its desAsian and other tiny and ensure majority status. In 1920, 9.9% the majority of people in Mississippi FIGURE 1.1 and South Carolina were African AmeriPopulation of the United States by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2050 cans. Yet African Americans did not have (Projected) as much control over their lives as did According to projections by the Census Bureau, the proportion of residents of Whites, let alone control of the states of the United States who are White and non-Hispanic will decrease significantly Mississippi and South Carolina. Throughby the year 2015. By contrast, there will be a striking rise in the proportion out the United States today are counties of both Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. or neighborhoods in which the majority Source: Bureau of the Census 2010b. of people are African American, Native American, or Hispanic, but where White Americans are the dominant force. Nationally, 50.7 percent of the population is female, but males still dominate positions of authority and wealth well beyond their numbers. A minority or subordinate group has five characteristics: unequal treatment, distinguishing physical or cultural traits, involuntary membership, awareness of subordination, and ingroup marriage (Wagley and Harris 1958): 2010 2050 (projected) 1. Members of a minority experience unequal treatment and have less power over their lives than members of a dominant group have over theirs. Prejudice, discrimination, segregation, and even extermination create this social inequality. 2. Members of a minority group share physical or cultural characteristics such as skin color or language that distinguish them from the dominant group. Each society has its own arbitrary standard for determining which characteristics are most important in defining dominant and minority groups. 3. Membership in a dominant or minority group is not voluntary: people are born into the group. A person does not choose to be African American or White. 4. Minority-group members have a strong sense of group solidarity. William Graham Sumner, writing in 1906, noted that people make distinctions between members of their own group (the ingroup) and everyone else (the outgroup). When a group is the object of long-term prejudice and discrimination, the feeling of “us versus them” often becomes intense. 5. Members of a minority generally marry others from the same group. A member of a dominant group often is unwilling to join a supposedly inferior minority by marrying one of its members. In addition, the minority group’s sense of solidarity encourages marriage within the group and discourages marriage to outsiders. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Although “minority” status is not about numbers, there is no denying that the White American majority is diminishing in size relative to the growing diversity of racial and ethnic groups, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 7 Perc Percentage or more 5 50.0 to 49.9 3 36.3 to 36.2 2 25.0 to 24.9 1 10.0 then 10.0 L Less FIGURE 1.2 Minority Population by County In four states (California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas) and the District of Columbia, as well as in about one-tenth of all counties, minorities constitute the numerical majority. Types of Groups There are four types of minority or subordinate groups. All four, except where noted, have the five properties previously outlined. The four criteria for classifying minority groups are race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Racial Groups The term racial group is reserved for minorities and the corresponding majorities that are socially set apart because of obvious physical differences. Notice the two crucial words in the definition: obvious and physical. What is obvious? Hair color? Shape of an earlobe? Presence of body hair? To whom are these differences obvious, and why? Each society defines what it finds obvious. In the United States, skin color is one obvious difference. On a cold winter day when one has clothing covering all but one’s head, however, skin color may be less obvious than hair color. Yet people in the United States have learned informally that skin color is important and hair color is unimportant. We need to say more than that. In the United States, people have traditionally classified themselves as either Black or White. There is no in-between state except for people readily identified as Native Americans or Asian Americans. Later in this chapter, we explore this issue more deeply and see how such assumptions have very complex implications. Other societies use skin color as a standard but may have a more elaborate system of classification. In Brazil, where hostility between races is less than in the United States, numerous categories identify people on the basis of skin color. In the United States, a person is Black or White. In Brazil, a variety of terms such as cafuso, mazombo, preto, and escuro are used to describe various combinations of skin color, facial features, and hair texture. racial group a group that is socially set apart because of obvious physical differences Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 8 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity ethnic group a group set apart from others because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns The designation of a racial group emphasizes physical differences as opposed to cultural distinctions. In the United States, minority races include Blacks, Native Americans (or American Indians), Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, Arab Americans, Filipinos, Hawaiians, and other Asian peoples. The issue of race and racial differences has been an important one, not only in the United States but also throughout the entire sphere of European influence. Later in this chapter, we examine race and its significance more closely. We should not forget that Whites are a race too. As we consider in Chapter 5, who is White has been subject to change over time as certain European groups historically were felt not to deserve being considered White, but over time, partly to compete against a growing Black population, the “Whiting” of some European Americans has occurred. Some racial groups may also have unique cultural traditions, as we can readily see in the many Chinatowns throughout the United States. For racial groups, however, the physical distinctiveness and not the cultural differences generally prove to be the barrier to acceptance by the host society. For example, Chinese Americans who are faithful Protestants and know the names of all the members of the Baseball Hall of Fame may be bearers of American culture. Yet these Chinese Americans are still part of a minority because they are seen as physically different. Ethnic Groups Ethnic minority groups are differentiated from the dominant group on the basis of cultural differences such as language, attitudes toward marriage and parenting, and food habits. Ethnic groups are groups set apart from others because of their national origin or distinctive cultural patterns. Ethnic groups in the United States include a grouping that we call Hispanics or Latinos and include Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Latin Americans in the United States. Hispanics can be either Black or White, as in the case of a dark-skinned Puerto Rican who may be taken as Black in central Texas but may be viewed as Puerto Rican in New York City. The ethnic group category also includes White ethnics such as Irish Americans, Polish Americans, and Norwegian Americans. The cultural traits that make groups distinctive usually originate from their homelands or, for Jews, from a long history of being segregated and prohibited from becoming a part of the host society. Once in the United States, an immigrant group may maintain distinctive cultural practices through associations, clubs, and worship. Ethnic enclaves such as a Little Haiti or a Greektown in urban areas also perpetuate cultural distinctiveness. Ethnicity continues to be important, as recent events in Bosnia and other parts of Eastern Europe have demonstrated. More than a century ago, African American sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois, addressing in 1900 an audience at a world antislavery convention in London, called attention to the overwhelming importance of the color line throughout the world. In “Listen to Our Voices,” we read the remarks of Du Bois, the first Black person to receive a doctorate from Harvard, who later helped to organize the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Du Bois’s observations give us a historic perspective on the struggle for equality. We can look ahead, knowing how far we have come and speculating on how much further we have to go. Religious Groups Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Association with a religion other than the dominant faith is the third basis for minoritygroup status. In the United States, Protestants, as a group, outnumber members of all other religions. Roman Catholics form the largest minority religion. Chapter 5 focuses on the increasing Judeo–Christian–Islamic diversity of the United States. For people who are not a part of the Christian tradition, such as followers of Islam, allegiance to the faith often is misunderstood and stigmatizes people. This stigmatization became especially Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 9 Listen to Our Voices Problem of the Color Line ISBN 1-256-48952-2 In the metropolis of the modof culture bends itself towards ern world, in this the closing giving Negroes and other dark year of the nineteenth cenmen the largest and broadest tury, there has been assembled opportunity for education and a congress of men and women self-development, then this of African blood, to delibercontact and influence is bound ate solemnly upon the presto have a beneficial effect upon ent situation and outlook of the world and hasten human the darker races of mankind. progress. But if, by reason of W. E. B. Du Bois The problem of the twentieth carelessness, prejudice, greed, century is the problem of the and injustice, the black world is color line, the question as to how far difto be exploited and ravished and degraded, ferences of race—which show themselves the results must be deplorable, if not fatal— chiefly in the color of the skin and the texnot simply to them, but to the high ideals of ture of the hair—will hereafter be made justice, freedom and culture which a thouthe basis of denying to over half the world sand years of Christian civilization have held the right of sharing to their utmost ability before Europe. . . . the opportunities and privileges of modern Let the world take no backward step in civilization. . . . that slow but sure progress which has sucTo be sure, the darker races are today cessively refused to let the spirit of class, of the least advanced in culture according to caste, of privilege, or of birth, debar from European standards. This has not, however, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness a always been the case in the past, and cerstriving human soul. tainly the world’s history, both ancient and Let not color or race be a feature of modern, has given many instances of no distinction between White and Black men, despicable ability and capacity among the regardless of worth or ability. . . . blackest races of men. Thus we appeal with boldness and conIn any case, the modern world must fidence to the Great Powers of the civiremember that in this age when the ends lized world, trusting in the wide spirit of of the world are being brought so near humanity, and the deep sense of justice of together, the millions of black men in Africa, our age, for a generous recognition of the America, and Islands of the Sea, not to speak righteousness of our cause. of the brown and yellow myriads elsewhere, Source: From W. E. B. Du Bois 1900 [1969a], are bound to have a great influence upon the ABC of Color, pp. 20–21, 23. Copyright 1969 world in the future, by reason of sheer numby International Publishers. bers and physical contact. If now the world widespread and legitimated by government action in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Religious minorities include groups such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Amish, Muslims, and Buddhists. Cults or sects associated with practices such as animal sacrifice, doomsday prophecy, demon worship, or the use of snakes in a ritualistic fashion would also constitute minorities. Jews are excluded from this category and placed among ethnic groups. Culture is a more important defining trait for Jewish people worldwide than is religious dogma. Jewish Americans share a cultural tradition that goes beyond theology. In this sense, it is appropriate to view them as an ethnic group rather than as members of a religious faith. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 10 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Gender Groups Gender is another attribute that creates dominant and subordinate groups. Males are the social majority; females, although numerous, are relegated to the position of the social minority. Women are considered a minority even though they do not exhibit all the characteristics outlined earlier (e.g., there is little ingroup marriage). Women encounter prejudice and discrimination and are physically distinguishable. Group membership is involuntary, and many women have developed a sense of sisterhood. Women who are members of racial and ethnic minorities face a special challenge to achieving equality. They suffer from greater inequality because they belong to two separate minority groups: a racial or ethnic group plus a subordinate gender group. Other Subordinate Groups This book focuses on groups that meet a set of criteria for subordinate status. People encounter prejudice or are excluded from full participation in society for many reasons. Racial, ethnic, religious, and gender barriers are the main ones, but there are others. Age, disability status, physical appearance, and sexual orientation are among some other factors that are used to subordinate groups of people. Does Race Matter? We see people around us—some of whom may look quite different from us. Do these differences matter? The simple answer is no, but because so many people have for so long acted as if difference in physical characteristics as well as geographic origin and shared culture do matter, distinct groups have been created in people’s minds. Race has many meanings for many people. Often these meanings are inaccurate and based on theories discarded by scientists generations ago. As we will see, race is a socially constructed concept (Young 2003). Biological Meaning biological race the mistaken notion of a genetically isolated human group The way the term race has been used by some people to apply to human beings lacks any scientific meaning. We cannot identify distinctive physical characteristics for groups of human beings the same way that scientists distinguish one animal species from another. The idea of biological race is based on the mistaken notion of a genetically isolated human group. Source: Secret Asian Man © Tak Toyoshima. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Given the diversity in the nation, it is not always self-evident how people view themselves in terms of ethnic and racial background, as cartoonist Tak Toyoshima humorously points out. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 11 ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Absence of Pure Races Even among past proponents who believed that sharp, scientific divisions exist among humans, there were endless debates over what the races of the world were. Given people’s frequent migration, exploration, and invasions, pure genetic types have not existed for some time, if they ever did. There are no mutually exclusive races. Skin color among African Americans varies tremendously, as it does among White Americans. There is even an overlapping of dark-skinned Whites and light-skinned African Americans. If we grouped people by genetic resistance to malaria and by fingerprint patterns, then Norwegians and many African groups would be of the same race. If we grouped people by some digestive capacities, some Africans, Asians, and southern Europeans would be of one group and West Africans and northern Europeans of another (Leehotz 1995; Shanklin 1994). Biologically there are no pure, distinct races. Research as a part of the Human Genome Project mapping human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has only served to confirm genetic diversity, with differences within traditionally regarded racial groups (e.g., Black Africans) much greater than that between groups (e.g., between Black Africans and Europeans). Contemporary studies of DNA on a global basis have determined that about 90 percent of human genetic variation is within “local populations,” such as within the French or within the Afghan people. The remaining 10 percent of total human variation is what we think of today as constituting races and accounts for skin color, hair form, nose shape, and so forth (Feldman 2010). Research has also been conducted to determine whether personality characteristics such as temperament and nervous habits are inherited among minority groups. It is no surprise that the question of whether races have different innate levels of intelligence has led to the most explosive controversies (Bamshad and Olson 2003; El-Haj 2007). Intelligence Tests Typically, intelligence is measured as an intelligence quotient (IQ), which is the ratio of a person’s mental age to his or her chronological age, multiplied by 100, with 100 representing average intelligence and higher scores representing greater intelligence. It should be noted that there is little consensus over just what intelligence is, other than as defined by such IQ tests. Intelligence tests are adjusted for a person’s age so that 10-year-olds take a very different test from someone 20 years old. Although research shows that certain learning strategies can improve a person’s IQ, generally IQ remains stable as one ages. A great deal of debate continues over the accuracy of these tests. Are they biased toward people who come to the tests with knowledge similar to that of the test writers? Skeptics argue that such test questions do not truly measure intellectual potential. The issue of cultural bias in tests remains an unresolved concern. The most recent research shows that differences in intelligence scores between Blacks and Whites are almost eliminated when adjustments are made for social and economic characteristics (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, and Duncan 1996; Herrnstein and Murray 1994:30; Kagan 1971; Young 2003). In 1994, an 845-page book unleashed a new national debate on the issue of IQ. This research effort of psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and social scientist Charles Murray, published in The Bell Curve (1994), concluded that 60 percent of IQ is inheritable and that racial groups offer a convenient means to generalize about any differences in intelligence. Unlike most other proponents of the race–IQ link, the authors offered policy suggestions that included ending welfare to discourage births among low-IQ poor women and changing immigration laws so that the IQ pool in the United States is not diminished. Herrnstein and Murray even made generalizations about IQ levels among Asians and Hispanics in the United States, groups subject to even more intermarriage. It is not possible to generalize about absolute differences between groups, such as Latinos versus Whites, when almost half of Latinos in the United States marry non-Hispanics. More than a decade later, the mere mention of the “bell curve” still signals to many people a belief in a racial hierarchy, with Whites toward the top and Blacks near the bottom. The research present then and repeated today points to the difficulty in definitions: What is intelligence, and what constitutes a racial group, given generations (if not centuries) of intermarriage? How can we speak of definitive inherited racial differences if there has been intermarriage between people of every color? Furthermore, as people on both intelligence quotient (IQ) the ratio of a person’s mental age (as computed by an IQ test) to his or her chronological age, multiplied by 100 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 12 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity sides of the debate have noted, regardless of the findings, we would still want to strive to maximize the talents of each individual. All research shows that the differences within a group are much greater than any alleged differences between group averages. Why does such IQ research reemerge if the data are subject to different interpretations? The argument that “we” are superior to “them” is very appealing to the dominant group. It justifies receiving opportunities that are denied to others. We can anticipate that the debate over IQ and the allegations of significant group differences will continue. Policymakers need to acknowledge the difficulty in treating race as a biologically significant characteristic. Social Construction of Race racism a doctrine that one race is superior Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 racial formation a sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed If race does not distinguish humans from one another biologically, then why does it seem to be so important? It is important because of the social meaning people have attached to it. The 1950 (UNESCO) Statement on Race maintains, “for all practical social purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth” (Montagu 1972:118). Adolf Hitler expressed concern over the “Jewish race” and translated this concern into Nazi death camps. Winston Churchill spoke proudly of the “British race” and used that pride to spur a nation to fight. Evidently, race was a useful political tool for two very different leaders in the 1930s and 1940s. Race is a social construction, and this process benefits the oppressor, who defines who is privileged and who is not. The acceptance of race in a society as a legitimate category allows racial hierarchies to emerge to the benefit of the dominant “races.” For example, inner-city drive-by shootings have come to be seen as a race-specific problem worthy of local officials cleaning up troubled neighborhoods. Yet, schoolyard shootouts are viewed as a societal concern and placed on the national agenda. People could speculate that if human groups have obvious physical differences, then they could have corresponding mental or personality differences. No one disagrees that people differ in temperament, potential to learn, and sense of humor. In its social sense, race implies that groups that differ physically also bear distinctive emotional and mental abilities or disabilities. These beliefs are based on the notion that humankind can be divided into distinct groups. We have already seen the difficulties associated with pigeonholing people into racial categories. Despite these difficulties, belief in the inheritance of behavior patterns and in an association between physical and cultural traits is widespread. It is called racism when this belief is coupled with the feeling that certain groups or races are inherently superior to others. Racism is a doctrine of racial supremacy that states one race is superior to another (Bash 2001; Bonilla-Silva 1996). We questioned the biological significance of race in the previous section. In modern complex industrial societies, we find little adaptive utility in the presence or absence of prominent chins, epicanthic folds of the eyelids, or the comparative amount of melanin in the skin. What is important is not that people are genetically different but that they approach one another with dissimilar perspectives. It is in the social setting that race is decisive. Race is significant because people have given it significance. Race definitions are crystallized through what Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994) called racial formation, a sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed. Those in power define groups of people in a certain way that depends on a racist social structure. The Native Americans and the creation of the reservation system for Native Americans in the late 1800s is an example of this racial formation. The federal American Indian policy combined previously distinctive tribes into a single group. No one escapes the extent and frequency to which we are subjected to racial formation. With rising immigration from Latin America in the latter part of the twentieth century, the fluid nature of racial formation is evident. As if it happened in one day, people in the United States have spoken about the Latin Americanization of the United States or that the biracial order of Black and White was now replaced with a triracial order. It is this social context of the changing nature of diversity that we examine to understand how scholars Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 13 have sought to generalize about intergroup relations in the United States and elsewhere (Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich 2011; Frank et al. 2010). In the southern United States, the social construction of race was known as the “onedrop rule.” This tradition stipulated that if a person had even a single drop of “Black blood,” that person was defined and viewed as Black. Today, children of biracial or multiracial marriages try to build their own identities in a country that seems intent on placing them in some single, traditional category—a topic we look at next. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Biracial and Multiracial Identity: Who Am I? People are now more willing to accept and advance identities that do not fit neatly into mutually exclusive categories. Hence, increasing numbers of people are identifying themselves as biracial or multiracial or, at the very least, explicitly viewing themselves as reflecting a diverse racial and ethnic identity. Barack Obama is the most visible person with a biracial background. President Obama has explicitly stated he sees himself as a Black man, although his mother was White. This led him to comment in his post-election press conference to a question about his promise to his children that they could have a dog in the White House. Obama said the dog would most likely be a “mutt,” just like himself (Fram 2008). Explore on mysoclab.com The diversity of the United States today has made it more difficult for many people to place themselves on the racial and ethnic landscape. It reminds us that racial formation continues to take place. Obviously, the racial and ethnic landscape, as we have seen, is constructed not naturally but socially and, therefore, is subject to change and different interpretations. Although our focus is on the United States, almost every nation faces the same problems. The United States tracks people by race and ethnicity for myriad reasons, ranging from attempting to improve the status of oppressed groups to diversifying classrooms. But how can we measure the growing number of people whose ancestry is mixed by anyone’s definition? In “Research Focus” we consider how the U.S. Bureau of the Census dealt with this issue. Besides the increasing respect for biracial identity and multiracial identity, group names undergo change as well. Within little more than a generation during the twentieth century, labels that were applied to subordinate groups changed from Negroes to Blacks to African Americans, from American Indians to Native Americans or Native Peoples. However, more Native Americans prefer the use of their tribal name, such as Seminole, instead of a collective label. The old 1950s statistical term of “people with a Spanish surname” has long been discarded, yet there is disagreement over a new term: Latino or Hispanic. Like Native Americans, Hispanic Americans avoid such global terms and prefer their native names, such as Puerto Ricans or Cubans. People of Mexican ancestry indicate preferences for a variety of names, such as Mexican American, Chicano, or simply Mexican. In the United States and other multiracial, multiethnic societies, panethnicity, the development of solidarity between ethnic subgroups, has emerged. The coalition of tribal groups as Native Americans or American Indians to confront outside forces, notably the federal government, is one example of panethnicity. Hispanics or Latinos and Asian Americans are other examples of panethnicity. Although it is rarely recognized by dominant society, the very term Black or African American represents the descendants of many different ethnic or tribal groups, such as Akamba, Fulani, Hausa, Malinke, and Yoruba (Lopez and Espiritu 1990). Is panethnicity a convenient label for “outsiders” or a term that reflects a mutual identity? Certainly, many people outside the group are unable or unwilling to recognize ethnic differences and prefer umbrella terms such as Asian Americans. For some small groups, combining with others is emerging as a useful way to make them heard, but there is always a fear that their own distinctive culture will become submerged. Although many Hispanics share the Spanish language and many are united by Roman Catholicism, only one in Explore the Concept Social Explore Activity: Increases in the Multiracial Population on mysoclab. com panethnicity the development of solidarity between ethnic subgroups, as reflected in the terms Hispanic or Asian American Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 14 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Research Focus Multiracial Identity Watch the Video Multiracial Identity: Clip 1 mysoclab.com Approaching Census 2000, a movement was spawned by people who were frustrated by government questionnaires that forced them to indicate only one race. Take the case of Stacey Davis in New Orleans. The young woman’s mother is Thai and her father is Creole, a blend of Black, French, and German. People seeing Stacey confuse her for a Latina, Filipina, or Hawaiian. Officially, she has been “White” all her life because she looked White. The census in 2000 for the first time gave people the option to check off one or more racial groups. “Biracial” or “multiracial” was not an option because pretests showed very few people would use it. This meant that the government recognized in Census 2000 different social constructions of racial identity—that is, a person could be Asian American and White. Most people did select one racial category in Census 2000 and again in 2010. Overall, approximately 9 million people, or 2.9 percent of the total population, selected two or more racial groups in 2010. This was a smaller proportion than many observers had anticipated. In fact, not even the majority of mixedrace couples identified their children with more than one racial classification. As shown in Figure 1.3, White and African Americans were the most common multiple identity, with 1.8 million people or so selecting that response. As a group, American Indians were most likely to select a second category and Whites least likely. Race is socially defined. Complicating the situation is that people are asked separately whether they are Hispanic or non-Hispanic. So a Hispanic person can be any race. In the 2010 census, 94 percent indicated they were one race, but 6 percent indicated two or more races; this proportion was twice as high than among non-Hispanics. Therefore, Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanics to indicate a multiracial ancestry. The Census Bureau’s decision does not necessarily resolve the frustration of hundreds of thousands of people such as Stacey Davis, who daily face people trying to place them in some racial or ethnic category that is convenient for them. However, it does underscore the complexity of social construction and trying to apply arbitrary definitions to the diversity of the human population. Symbolic of this social construction of race can be seen in President Barack Obama, born of a White woman and a Black immigrant from Kenya. Although he has always identified himself as a Black man, it is worthy to note he was born in Hawaii, a state in which 23.6 percent of people see themselves as more than one race, compared to the national average of 2.9 percent. Watch on mysoclab.com Sources: DaCosta 2007; Grieco and Cassidy 2001; Humes 2011 et al.:2–11; Jones and Smith 2001; Saulny 2011; Welch 2011; Williams 2005. “White and Black or African American” FIGURE 1.3 Multiple-Race Choices in Census 2010 “White and Asian” 18.0% “White and American Indian and Alaska Native” “Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native” All other combinations of two races Three or more races 15.9% 3.0% 34.4% 8.3% Source: Humes et al. 2011:10. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 This figure shows the percentage distribution of the 9 million people who chose two or more races (out of the total population of 309 million). 20.4% Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 15 four native-born people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban descent prefers a panethnic label to nationality or ethnic identity. Yet the growth of a variety of panethnic associations among many groups, including Hispanics, continued into the twenty-first century (de la Garza, DeSipio, Garcia, Garcia, and Falcon 1992; Espiritu 1992; Steinberg 2007). Another challenge to identity is marginality; the status of being between two cultures, as in the case of a person whose mother is a Jew and father a Christian. Du Bois (1903) spoke eloquently of the “double consciousness” that Black Americans feel—caught between being a citizen of the United States but viewed as something quite apart from the dominant social forces of society. Incomplete assimilation by immigrants also results in marginality. Although a Filipino woman migrating to the United States may take on the characteristics of her new host society, she may not be fully accepted and may, therefore, feel neither Filipino nor American. Marginalized individuals often encounter social situations in which their identities are sources of tension, especially when the expression of multiple identities are not accepted, finds him- or herself being perceived differently in different environments, with varying expectations (Park 1928; Stonequist 1937; Townsend, Markos, and Bergsieker 2009). As we seek to understand diversity in the United States, we must be mindful that ethnic and racial labels are just that: labels that have been socially constructed. Yet these social constructs can have a powerful impact, whether self-applied or applied by others. marginality the status of being between two cultures at the same time, such as the status of Jewish immigrants in the United States sociology the systematic study of social behavior and human groups stratification a structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal rewards and power in a society class as defined by Max Weber, people who share similar levels of wealth Sociology and the Study of Race and Ethnicity Before proceeding further with our study of racial and ethnic groups, let us consider several sociological perspectives that provide insight into dominant–subordinate relationships. Sociology is the systematic study of social behavior and human groups, so it is aptly suited to enlarge our understanding of intergroup relations. There is a long, valuable history of the study of race relations in sociology. Admittedly, it has not always been progressive; indeed, at times it has reflected the prejudices of society. In some instances, scholars who are members of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, as well as women, have not been permitted to make the kind of contributions they are capable of making to the field. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Stratification by Class and Gender All societies are characterized by members having unequal amounts of wealth, prestige, or power. Sociologists observe that entire groups may be assigned less or more of what a society values. The hierarchy that emerges is called stratification. Stratification is the structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal rewards and power in a society. Much discussion of stratification identifies the class, or social ranking, of people who share similar wealth, according to sociologist Max Weber’s classic definition. Mobility from one class to another is not easy. Movement into classes of greater wealth may be particularly difficult for subordinate-group members faced with lifelong prejudice and discrimination (Banton 2008; Gerth and Mills 1958). Recall that the first property of subordinate-group standing is unequal treatment by the dominant group in the form of prejudice, discrimination, and segregation. Stratification is intertwined with the subordination of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups. Race has implications for the way people are treated; so does class. One also has to add the effects of race and class together. For example, being poor and Black is not the same as being either one by itself. A wealthy Mexican American is not the same as an affluent Anglo American or as Mexican Americans as a group. Public discussion of issues such as housing or public assistance often is disguised as a discussion of class issues, when in fact the issues are based primarily on race. Similarly, some topics such as the poorest of the poor or the working poor are addressed in terms of race when the class component should be explicit. Nonetheless, the link between race and class in society is abundantly clear (Winant 2004). Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 16 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity functionalist perspective a sociological approach emphasizing how parts of a society are structured to maintain its stability dysfunction an element of society that may disrupt a social system or decrease its stability Another stratification factor that we need to consider is gender. How different is the situation for women as contrasted with men? Returning again to the first property of minority groups—unequal treatment and less control—treatment of women is not equal to that received by men. Whether the issue is jobs or poverty, education or crime, the experience of women typically is more difficult. In addition, the situation faced by women in areas such as healthcare and welfare raises different concerns than it does for men. Just as we need to consider the role of social class to understand race and ethnicity better, we also need to consider the role of gender. Theoretical Perspectives Sociologists view society in different ways. Some see the world basically as a stable and ongoing entity. The endurance of a Chinatown, the general sameness of male–female roles over time, and other aspects of intergroup relations impress them. Some sociologists see society as composed of many groups in conflict, competing for scarce resources. Within this conflict, some people or even entire groups may be labeled or stigmatized in a way that blocks their access to what a society values. We examine three theoretical perspectives that are widely used by sociologists today: the functionalist, conflict, and labeling perspectives. Functionalist Perspective In the view of a functionalist, a society is like a living organism in which each part contributes to the survival of the whole. The functionalist perspective emphasizes how the parts of society are structured to maintain its stability. According to this approach, if an aspect of social life does not contribute to a society’s stability or survival, then it will not be passed on from one generation to the next. It seems reasonable to assume that bigotry between races offers no such positive function, and so we ask, why does it persist? Although agreeing that racial hostility is hardly to be admired, the functionalist would point out that it serves some positive functions from the perspective of the racists. We can identify five functions that racial beliefs have for the dominant group: 1. Racist ideologies provide a moral justification for maintaining a society that routinely deprives a group of its rights and privileges. 2. Racist beliefs discourage subordinate people from attempting to question their lowly status and performing “the dirty work”; to do so is to question the very foundation of the society. 3. Racial ideologies not only justify existing practices but also serve as a rallying point for social movements, as seen in the rise of the Nazi party or present-day Aryan movements. 4. Racist myths encourage support for the existing order. Some argue that if there were any major societal change, the subordinate group would suffer even greater poverty, and the dominant group would suffer lower living standards. 5. Racist beliefs relieve the dominant group of the responsibility to address the economic and educational problems faced by subordinate groups. As a result, racial ideology grows when a value system (e.g., that underlying a colonial empire or slavery) is being threatened (Levin and Nolan 2011:115–145; Nash 1962). There are also definite dysfunctions caused by prejudice and discrimination. Dysfunctions are elements of society that may disrupt a social system or decrease its stability. There are six ways in which racism is dysfunctional to a society, including to its dominant group: 2. Discrimination aggravates social problems such as poverty, delinquency, and crime and places the financial burden of alleviating these problems on the dominant group. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 1. A society that practices discrimination fails to use the resources of all individuals. Discrimination limits the search for talent and leadership to the dominant group. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 17 3. Society must invest a good deal of time and money to defend the barriers that prevent the full participation of all members. 4. Racial prejudice and discrimination undercut goodwill and friendly diplomatic relations between nations. They also negatively affect efforts to increase global trade. 5. Social change is inhibited because change may assist a subordinate group. 6. Discrimination promotes disrespect for law enforcement and for the peaceful settlement of disputes. That racism has costs for the dominant group as well as for the subordinate group reminds us that intergroup conflict is exceedingly complex (Bowser and Hunt 1996; Feagin, Vera, and Batur 2000; Rose 1951). conflict perspective a sociological approach that assumes that the social structure is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups blaming the victim portraying the problems of racial and ethnic minorities as their fault rather than recognizing society’s responsibilities ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Conflict Perspective In contrast to the functionalists’ emphasis on stability, conflict sociologists see the social world as being in continual struggle. The conflict perspective assumes that the social structure is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups. The result of this conflict is significant economic disparity and structural inequality in education, the labor market, housing, and healthcare delivery. Specifically, society is a struggle between the privileged (the dominant group) and the exploited (the subordinate group). Such conflicts need not be physically violent and may take the form of immigration restrictions, real estate practices, or disputes over cuts in the federal budget. The conflict model often is selected today when one is examining race and ethnicity because it readily accounts for the presence of tension between competing groups. According to the conflict perspective, competition takes place between groups with unequal amounts of economic and political power. The minorities are exploited or, at best, ignored by the dominant group. The conflict perspective is viewed as more radical and activist than functionalism because conflict theorists emphasize social change and the redistribution of resources. Functionalists are not necessarily in favor of inequality; rather, their approach helps us understand why such systems persist. Those who follow the conflict approach to race and ethnicity have remarked repeatedly that the subordinate group is criticized for its low status. That the dominant group is responsible for subordination is often ignored. William Ryan (1976) calls this an instance of blaming the victim: portraying the problems of racial and ethnic minorities as their fault rather than recognizing society’s responsibility. From the conflict perspective, the emphasis should not be primarily on the attributes of the individual (i.e., “blaming the victim”) but on structural factors such as the labor market, affordable housing, and availability of programs to assist people with addiction or mental health issues. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 18 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity labeling theory a sociological approach introduced by Howard Becker that attempts to explain why certain people are viewed as deviants and others engaging in the same behavior are not stereotypes unreliable, exaggerated generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account self-fulfilling prophecy the tendency to respond to and act on the basis of stereotypes, a predisposition that can lead one to validate false definitions Conflict theorists consider the costs that come with residential segregation. Besides the more obvious cost of reducing housing options, racial and social class isolation reduces for people (including Whites) all available options in schools, retail shopping, and medical care. People can travel to access services and businesses, and it is more likely that racial and ethnic minorities will have to make that sometimes costly and time-consuming trip (Carr and Kutty 2008). Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Labeling Approach Related to the conflict perspective and its concern over blaming the victim is labeling theory, a concept introduced by sociologist Howard Becker to explain why certain people are viewed as deviant and others engaging in the same behavior are not. Students of crime and deviance have relied heavily on labeling theory. According to labeling theory, a youth who misbehaves may be considered and treated as a delinquent if he or she comes from the “wrong kind of family.” Another youth from a middle-class family who commits the same sort of misbehavior might be given another chance before being punished. The labeling perspective directs our attention to the role that negative stereotypes play in race and ethnicity. The image that prejudiced people maintain of a group toward which they hold ill feelings is called a stereotype. Stereotypes are unreliable generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account. The warrior image of Native American (American Indian) people is perpetuated by the frequent use of tribal names or even names such as “Indians” and “Redskins” for sports teams. In Chapter 2, we review some of the research on the stereotyping of minorities. This labeling is not limited to racial and ethnic groups, however. For instance, age can be used to exclude a person from an activity in which he or she is qualified to engage. Groups are subjected to stereotypes and discrimination in such a way that their treatment resembles that of social minorities. Social prejudice exists toward ex-convicts, gamblers, alcoholics, lesbians, gays, prostitutes, people with AIDS, and people with disabilities, to name a few. The labeling approach points out that stereotypes, when applied by people in power, can have very negative consequences for people or groups identified falsely. A crucial aspect of the relationship between dominant and subordinate groups is the prerogative of the dominant group to define society’s values. U.S. sociologist William I. Thomas (1923), an early critic of racial and gender discrimination, saw that the “definition of the situation” could mold the personality of the individual. In other words, Thomas observed that people respond not only to the objective features of a situation (or person) but also to the meaning these features have for them. So, for example, a lone walker seeing a young Black man walking toward him may perceive the situation differently than if the oncoming person is an older woman. In this manner, we can create false images or stereotypes that become real in their social consequences. In certain situations, we may respond to negative stereotypes and act on them, with the result that false definitions become accurate. This is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. A person or group described as having particular characteristics begins to display the very traits attributed to him or her. Thus, a child who is praised for being a natural comic may focus on learning to become funny to gain approval and attention. Self-fulfilling prophecies can be devastating for minority groups (Figure 1.4). Such groups often find that they are allowed to hold only low-paying jobs with little prestige or opportunity for advancement. The rationale of the dominant society is that these minority people lack the ability to perform in more important and lucrative positions. Training to become scientists, executives, or physicians is denied to many subordinate-group individuals (SGIs), who are then locked into society’s inferior jobs. As a result, the false definition becomes real. The subordinate group has become inferior because it was defined at the start as inferior and was, therefore, prevented from achieving the levels attained by the majority. Because of this vicious circle, a talented subordinate-group person may come to see the worlds of entertainment and professional sports as his or her only hope for achieving wealth and fame. Thus, it is no accident that successive waves of Irish, Jewish, Italian, African American, and Hispanic performers and athletes have made their mark on culture in Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 19 FIGURE 1.4 White taxpayers do not want to waste money SGI is inferior by cultural measures of success SGI has self-doubt and self-hate SGI attends poorly financed school (Judged by others) (Judged by himself or herself) Self-Fulfilling Prophecy SGI drops out or SGI pushed out or SGI has less job opportunity SGI performs poorly on exams SGI 1. Has poor health 2. Shops at less -attractive stores with higher prices 3. Has poor housing 4. Is more likely to be a crime victim SGI earns less money SGI = subordinate-group individual The self-validating effects of dominant-group definitions are shown here. The subordinate-group individual attends a poorly financed school and is left unequipped to perform jobs that offer high status and pay. He or she then gets a low-paying job and must settle for a standard of living far short of society’s standards. Because the person shares these societal standards, he or she may begin to feel self-doubt and self-hatred. the United States. Unfortunately, these very successes may convince the dominant group that its original stereotypes were valid—that these are the only areas of society in which subordinate-group members can excel. Furthermore, athletics and the arts are highly competitive areas. For every LeBron James and Jennifer Lopez who makes it, many, many more SGIs will end up disappointed. The Creation of Subordinate-Group Status Three situations are likely to lead to the formation of a relationship between a subordinate group and the dominant group. A subordinate group emerges through migration, annexation, and colonialism. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Migration People who emigrate to a new country often find themselves a minority in that new country. Cultural or physical traits or religious affiliation may set the immigrant apart from the dominant group. Immigration from Europe, Asia, and Latin America has been a powerful force in shaping the fabric of life in the United States. Migration is the general term used to describe any transfer of population. Emigration (by emigrants) describes leaving a country to settle in another; immigration (by immigrants) denotes coming into the new country. From Vietnam’s perspective, the “boat people” were emigrants from Vietnam to the United States, but in the United States they were counted among this nation’s immigrants. Although people may migrate because they want to, leaving the home country is not always voluntary. Conflict or war has displaced people throughout human history. In the twentieth century, we saw huge population movements caused by two world wars; revolutions in Spain, Hungary, and Cuba; the partition of British India; conflicts in Southeast Asia, Korea, and Central America; and the confrontation between Arabs and Israelis. In all types of movement, even the movement of a U.S. family from Ohio to Florida, two sets of forces operate: push factors and pull factors. Push factors discourage a person from remaining where he or she lives. Religious persecution and economic factors such as dissatisfaction with employment opportunities are possible push factors. Pull factors, such as a better standard of living, friends and relatives who have already emigrated, and a promised job, attract an immigrant to a particular country. migration a general term that describes any transfer of population emigration leaving a country to settle in another immigration coming into a new country as a permanent resident Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 20 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity globalization worldwide integration of government policies, cultures, social movements, and financial markets through trade, movements of people, and the exchange of ideas colonialism a foreign power’s maintenance of political, social, economic, and cultural dominance over people for an extended period Although generally we think of migration as a voluntary process, much of the population transfer that has occurred in the world has been involuntary. The forced movement of people into another society guarantees a subordinate role. Involuntary migration is no longer common; although enslavement has a long history, all industrialized societies today prohibit such practices. Of course, many contemporary societies, including the United States, bear the legacy of slavery. Migration has taken on new significance in the twenty-first century partly because of globalization, or the worldwide integration of government policies, cultures, social movements, and financial markets through trade and the exchange of ideas. The increased movement of people and money across borders has made the distinction between temporary and permanent migration less meaningful. Although migration has always been fluid, people in today’s global economy are connected across societies culturally and economically as never before. Even after they have relocated, people maintain global linkages to their former country and with a global economy (Richmond 2002). Annexation world systems theory a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor Nations, particularly during wars or as a result of war, incorporate or attach land. This new land is contiguous to the nation, as in the German annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 and in the U.S. Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican–American War in 1848 gave the United States California, Utah, Nevada, most of New Mexico, and parts of Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado. The indigenous peoples in some of this huge territory were dominant in their society one day, only to become minority-group members the next. When annexation occurs, the dominant power generally suppresses the language and culture of the minority. Such was the practice of Russia with the Ukrainians and Poles and of Prussia with the Poles. Minorities try to maintain their cultural integrity despite annexation. Poles inhabited an area divided into territories ruled by three countries but maintained their own culture across political boundaries. Colonialism Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Colonialism has been the most common way for one group of people to dominate another. Colonialism is the maintenance of political, social, economic, and cultural dominance over people by a foreign power for an extended period (Bell 1991). Colonialism is rule by outsiders but, unlike annexation, does not involve actual incorporation into the dominant people’s nation. The long-standing control that was exercised by the British Empire over much of North America, parts of Africa, and India is an example of colonial domination (see Figure 1.5). Societies gain power over a foreign land through military strength, sophisticated political organization, and investment capital. The extent of power may also vary according to the dominant group’s scope of settlement in the colonial land. Relations between the colonial nation and the colonized people are similar to those between a dominant group and exploited subordinate groups. The colonial subjects generally are limited to menial jobs and the wages from their labor. The natural resources of their land benefit the members of the ruling class. By the 1980s, colonialism, in the sense of political rule, had become largely a phenomenon of the past, yet industrial countries of North America and Europe still dominated the world economically and politically. Drawing on the conflict perspective, sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) views the global economic system of today as much like the height of colonial days. Wallerstein has advanced the world systems theory, which views the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor. The limited economic resources available in developing nations exacerbate many of the ethnic, racial, and religious conflicts noted at the beginning of this chapter. In addition, the presence of massive inequality between nations only serves to encourage immigration generally and, more specifically, the movement of many of the most skilled from developing nations to the industrial nations. Chapter 1 GREENLAND (DENMARK) ALASKA (U.S.) ICELAND (DENMARK) SWEDEN PORTUGAL UNITED STATES ATLANTIC OCEAN SPAIN RUSSIAN EMPIRE GERMAN EMPIRE AUSTRIAHUNGARY ITALY GREECE OTTOMAN EMPIRE MOROCCO TRIPOLI EGYPT PUERTO RICO (U.S.) CUBA FRENCH WEST AFRICA COLOMBIA LIBERIA EQ UA T Equator ECUADOR KOREA JAPAN PACIFIC OCEAN ARABIA INDIA BURMA FRENCH SIAM INDOCHINA PHILIPPINE ISLANDS PACIFIC ISLANDS (GERMAN, 1899) BRITISH EAST AFRICA BELGIAN CONGO GERMAN EAST AFRICA MO ZA MB BOLIVIA GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA PARAGUAY URUGUAY CHILE CHINA ANGLOEGYPTIAN SUDAN ETHIOPIA CH EN FR ANGOLA BRAZIL PERU RI OR IA VENEZUELA NC HU AFGHANISTAN PERSIA DU TCH E AST INDIES INDIAN OCEAN IQUE MEXICO L AFRICA PACIFIC OCEAN MA A DENMARK THE NETHERLANDS GREAT BRITAIN BELGIUM FRANCE CANADA Exploring Race and Ethnicity 21 MADAGASCAR AUSTRALIA ARGENTINA NEW ZEALAND WORLD COLONIAL EMPIRES, S, 1900 Belgium B German Empire G Italy It Portugal P United States U FFrance Great Britain G TThe Netherlands Spain S Other independent states O FIGURE 1.5 World Colonial Empires (1900) Events of the nineteenth century increased European dominance over the world. By 1900, most independent African nations had disappeared, and the major European powers and Japan took advantage of China’s internal weakness to gain both trading ports and economic concessions. Source: H. W. Brands et al. 2009:582. The Consequences of Subordinate-Group Status There are several consequences for a group with subordinate status. These differ in their degree of harshness, ranging from physical annihilation to absorption into the dominant group. In this section, we examine six consequences of subordinate-group status: extermination, expulsion, secession, segregation, fusion, and assimilation. The figure below illustrates how these consequences can be defined using the spectrum of intergroup relations. SPECTRUM OF INTERGROUP RELATIONS ISBN 1-256-48952-2 EXPULSION SEGREGATION ASSIMILATION INCREASINGLY UNACCEPTABLE MORE TOLERABLE EXTERMINATION SECESSION FUSION PLURALISM or genocide or partitioning or amalgamation or melting pot or multiculturalism Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 22 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity genocide the deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation ethnic cleansing forced deportation of people, accompanied by systematic violence Extermination The most extreme way of dealing with a subordinate group is to eliminate it. Today, the term genocide is used to describe the deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation. This term is often used in reference to the Holocaust, Nazi Germany’s extermination of 12 million European Jews and other ethnic minorities during World War II. The term ethnic cleansing refers to the forced deportation of people, accompanied by systematic violence. The term was introduced in 1992 to the world’s vocabulary as ethnic Serbs instituted a policy intended to “cleanse”—eliminate—Muslims from parts of Bosnia. More recently, a genocidal war between the Hutu and Tutsi people in Rwanda left 300,000 school-age children orphaned (Chirot and Edwards 2003; Naimark 2004). However, genocide also appropriately describes White policies toward Native Americans in the nineteenth century. In 1800, the American Indian population in the United States was approximately 600,000; by 1850, it had been reduced to 250,000 through warfare with the U.S. Army, disease, and forced relocation to inhospitable environments. In 2008, the Australian government officially apologized for past treatment of its native people, the Aboriginal population. Not only did this involve brutality and neglect, but also a quarter of their children, the so-called lost generation, were taken from their families until the policy was finally abandoned in 1969 (Johnston 2008). Expulsion Dominant groups may choose to force a specific subordinate group to leave certain areas or even vacate a country. Expulsion, therefore, is another extreme consequence of minority-group status. European colonial powers in North America and eventually the U.S. government itself drove almost all Native Americans out of their tribal lands and into unfamiliar territory. More recently, beginning in 2009 France expelled over 10,000 ethnic Roma (or Gypsies) back to their home countries of Bulgaria and Romania. This appeared to violate the European Union’s (EU) ban against targeting ethnic groups as well as Europe’s policy of “freedom of movement.” In 2011, the EU withdrew its threat of legal action against France when the government said it would no longer expel Roma in particular but only those living in “illegal camps,” which many observers felt was only a technical way for the country to get around long-standing human rights policies. Secession Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 A group ceases to be a subordinate group when it secedes to form a new nation or moves to an already established nation, where it becomes dominant. After Great Britain withdrew from Palestine, Jewish people achieved a dominant position in 1948, attracting Jews from throughout the world to the new state of Israel. Similarly, Pakistan was created in 1947 when India was partitioned. The predominantly Muslim areas in the north became Pakistan, making India predominantly Hindu. Throughout this century, minorities have repudiated dominant customs. In this spirit, the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Armenian peoples, not content to be merely tolerated by the majority, all seceded to form independent states after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1999, ethnic Albanians fought bitterly for their cultural and political recognition in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia. Some African Americans have called for secession. Suggestions dating back to the early 1700s supported the return of Blacks to Africa as a solution to racial problems. The settlement target of the American Colonization Society was Liberia, but proposals were also advanced to establish settlements in other areas. Territorial separatism and the emigrationist ideology were recurrent and interrelated themes among African Americans from the late nineteenth century well into the 1980s. The Black Muslims, or Nation of Islam, once expressed the desire for complete separation in their own state or territory within the modern borders of the United States. Although a secession of Blacks from the United States has not taken place, it has been proposed. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 23 Segregation Segregation is the physical separation of two groups in residence, workplace, and social functions. Generally, the dominant group imposes segregation on a subordinate group. Segregation is rarely complete, however; intergroup contact inevitably occurs even in the most segregated societies. Sociologists Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton wrote American Apartheid (1993), which described segregation in U.S. cities on the basis of 1990 data. The title of their book was meant to indicate that neighborhoods in the United States resembled the segregation of the rigid government-imposed racial segregation that prevailed for so long in the Republic of South Africa. Analysis of census data shows continuing segregation despite racial and ethnic diversity in the nation. Scholars use a segregation index to measure separation. This index ranges from 0 (complete integration) to 100 (complete segregation), where the value indicates the percentage of the minority group that needs to move to be distributed exactly like Whites. So a segregation index of 60 for Blacks–Whites would mean that 60 percent of all African Americans would have to move to be residing just like Whites were. Using census data for the five years ending in 2009 shows the following metropolitan areas with the highest segregation indexes: segregation the physical separation of two groups, often imposed on a subordinate group by the dominant group resegregation the physical separation of racial and ethnic groups reappearing after a period of relative integration ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Black–White Milwaukee (81), Detroit (80), New York (79), Chicago (78) Hispanic–White Springfield, MA (64), New York (63), Los Angeles (63), Providence (62) Asian–White Pittsburgh (60), Youngstown (59), Buffalo (59), Birmingham, AL (59) Generally there has been very modest decline in residential segregation for African Americans since 2000; it has generally increased for Asian Americans and Latinos. Regardless, the racial isolation remains dramatic. The typical White lives in a neighborhood 79 percent White; the typical African American resides in an area 46 percent Black. The corresponding figures for Latinos and Asian Americans are 45 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Even when we consider social class, the patterns of minority segregation persist (Bureau of the Census 2010b; Kryan, Farley, and Cooper 2004; Frey 2011; Wilkes and Iceland 2004). This focus on metropolitan areas should not cause us to ignore the continuing legally sanctioned segregation of Native Americans on reservations. Although the majority of our nation’s first inhabitants live outside these tribal areas, the reservations play a prominent role in the identity of Native Americans. Although it is easier to maintain tribal identity on the reservation, economic and educational opportunities are more limited in these areas, which are segregated from the rest of society. A particularly troubling pattern has been the emergence of resegregation, or the physical separation of racial and ethnic groups reappearing after a period of relative integration. Resegregation has occurred in both neighborhoods and schools after a transitional period of desegregation. For example, in 1954, only one in 100,000 Black students attended a majority White school in the South. Thanks to the civil rights movement and a series of civil rights measures, by 1968, this was up to 23 percent and then 47 percent by 1988. But after White households relocated or alternatives reemerged through private schools and homeschooling, the proportion had dropped back to 27 percent in 2004. The latest analysis shows continuing if not increasing racial isolation While still not typical, more couples are crossing racial and ethnic boundaries in the (Orfield 2007; Orfield and Lee 2007; Rich 2008). Given segregation patterns, many Whites in the United States have limited United States today than any generation before. Clearly this will increase contact with people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. In one study of the potential for their children to identify as 100 affluent powerful White men that looked at their experiences past and biracial or multiracial rather than in a single present, it was clear they had lived in a “White bubble”—neighborhoods, category. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 24 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity fusion a minority and a majority group combining to form a new group amalgamation the process by which a dominant group and a subordinate group combine through intermarriage to form a new group melting pot diverse racial or ethnic groups or both, forming a new creation, a new cultural entity assimilation the process by which a subordinate individual or group takes on the characteristics of the dominant group schools, elite colleges, and workplaces were overwhelmingly White. The continuing pattern of segregation in the United States means our diverse population grows up in very different nations (Bonilla-Silva and Embrick 2007; Feagin and O’Brien 2003). Fusion Fusion occurs when a minority and a majority group combine to form a new group. This combining can be expressed as A + B + C S D, where A, B, and C represent the groups present in a society and D signifies the result, an ethnocultural-racial group sharing some of the characteristics of each initial group. Mexican people are an example of fusion, originating as they do out of the mixing of the Spanish and indigenous Indian cultures. Theoretically, fusion does not entail intermarriage, but it is very similar to amalgamation, or the process by which a dominant group and a subordinate group combine through intermarriage into a new people. In everyday speech, the words fusion and amalgamation are rarely used, but the concept is expressed in the notion of a human melting pot in which diverse racial or ethnic groups form a new creation, a new cultural entity (Newman 1973). The analogy of the cauldron, the “melting pot,” was first used to describe the United States by the French observer Crèvecoeur in 1782. The phrase dates back to the Middle Ages, when alchemists attempted to change less-valuable metals into gold and silver. Similarly, the idea of the human melting pot implied that the new group would represent only the best qualities and attributes of the different cultures contributing to it. The belief in the United States as a melting pot became widespread in the early twentieth century. This belief suggested that the United States had an almost divine mission to destroy artificial divisions and create a single kind of human. However, the dominant group had indicated its unwillingness to welcome such groups as Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, and Irish Roman Catholics into the melting pot. It is a mistake to think of the United States as an ethnic mixing bowl. Although there are superficial signs of fusion, as in a cuisine that includes sauerkraut and spaghetti, most contributions of subordinate groups are ignored (Gleason 1980). Marriage patterns indicate the resistance to fusion. People are unwilling, in varying degrees, to marry outside their own ethnic, religious, and racial groups. Until relatively recently interracial marriage was outlawed in much of the United States. As noted earlier, at the time that President Barack Obama’s parents married in Hawaii, their union would have been illegal and unable to occur in 22 other states. Surveys show that 20–50 percent of various White ethnic groups report single ancestry. When White ethnics do cross boundaries, they tend to marry within their religion and social class. For example, Italians are more likely to marry Irish, who are also Catholic, than they are to marry Protestant Swedes. Although it may seem that interracial matches are everywhere, there is only modest evidence of a fusion of races in the United States. Racial intermarriage has been increasing. In 1980, there were 651,000 interracial couples, but by 2009, there were 2.4 million. That is still less than 4 percent of married couples. Among couples in which at least one member is Hispanic, marriages with a non-Hispanic partner account for 28 percent. Taken together, all interracial and Hispanic–nonHispanic couples account for 8 percent of married couples today. But this includes decades of marriages. Among new ones, about 15 percent of marriage are between people of different races or between Hispanics and non-Hispanics (Bureau of the Census 2010a:Table 60; Taylor et al. 2010). Assimilation Black Places: Strategic Assimilation and Identity Construction in Middle-Class Suburbia on mysoclab.com Assimilation is the process by which a subordinate individual or group takes on the characteristics of the dominant group and is eventually accepted as part of that group. Assimilation is a majority ideology in which A + B + C S A. The majority (A) dominates in such a way that the minorities (B and C) become indistinguishable from the dominant group. Assimilation dictates conformity to the dominant group, regardless of how many racial, ethnic, or religious groups are involved (Newman 1973:53). Read on mysoclab.com Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Read the Document Black Spaces, Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 25 One aspect of assimilation is when immigrants seek to learn the language of the host society, as shown in this adult English as a Second Language class in Minneapolis, Minnesota. To be complete, assimilation must entail an active effort by the minority-group individual to shed all distinguishing actions and beliefs and the unqualified acceptance of that individual by the dominant society. In the United States, dominant White society encourages assimilation. The assimilation perspective tends to devalue alien culture and to treasure the dominant. For example, assimilation assumes that whatever is admirable among Blacks was adapted from Whites and that whatever is bad is inherently Black. The assimilation solution to Black–White conflict has been typically defined as the development of a consensus around White American values. Assimilation is very difficult. The person must forsake his or her cultural tradition to become part of a different, often antagonistic culture. However, assimilation should not be viewed as if immigrants are extraterrestrials. Cross-border movement is often preceded by adjustments and awareness of the culture that awaits the immigrant (Skrentny 2008). Assimilation does not occur at the same pace for all groups or for all individuals in the same group. Typically, assimilation is not a process completed by the first generation. Assimilation tends to take longer under the following conditions:  The differences between the minority and the majority are large. The majority is not receptive, or the minority retains its own culture.  The minority group arrives over a short period of time.  The minority-group residents are concentrated rather than dispersed.  The arrival is recent, and the homeland is accessible.  Assimilation is not a smooth process (Warner and Srole 1945). Assimilation is viewed by many as unfair or even dictatorial. However, members of the dominant group see it as reasonable that people shed their distinctive cultural traditions. In public discussions today, assimilation is the ideology of the dominant group in forcing people how to act. Consequently, the social institutions in the United States—the educational system, economy, government, religion, and medicine—all push toward assimilation, with occasional references to the pluralist approach. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 The Pluralist Perspective Thus far, we have concentrated on how subordinate groups cease to exist (removal) or take on the characteristics of the dominant group (assimilation). The alternative to these relationships between the majority and the minority is pluralism. Pluralism implies that various groups in a society have mutual respect for one another’s culture, a respect that allows minorities to express their own culture without suffering prejudice or discrimination. pluralism mutual respect between the various groups in a society for one another’s cultures, allowing minorities to express their own culture without experiencing prejudice or hostility Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 26 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Whereas the assimilationist or integrationist seeks the elimination of ethnic boundaries, the pluralist believes in maintaining many of them. There are limits to cultural freedom. A Romanian immigrant to the United States cannot expect to avoid learning English and still move up the occupational ladder. To survive, a society must have a consensus among its members on basic ideals, values, and beliefs. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of room for variety. Earlier, fusion was described as A + B + C S D and assimilation as A + B + C S A Using this same scheme, we can think of pluralism as A + B + C S A + B + C, with groups coexisting in one society (Manning 1995; Newman 1973; Simpson 1995). In the United States, cultural pluralism is more an ideal than a reality. Although there are vestiges of cultural pluralism—in the various ethnic neighborhoods in major cities, for instance—the rule has been for subordinate groups to assimilate. Yet as the minority becomes the numerical majority, the ability to live out one’s identity becomes a bit easier. African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, and Asian Americans already outnumber Whites in most of the largest cities. The trend is toward even greater diversity. Nonetheless, the cost of cultural integrity throughout the nation’s history has been high. The various Native American tribes have succeeded to a large extent in maintaining their heritage, but the price has been bare subsistence on federal reservations. In the United States, there is a reemergence of ethnic identification by groups that had previously expressed little interest in their heritage. Groups that make up the dominant majority are also reasserting their ethnic heritages. Various nationality groups are rekindling interest in almost forgotten languages, customs, festivals, and traditions. In some instances, this expression of the past has taken the form of a protest against exclusion from the dominant society. For example, Chinese youths chastise their elders for forgetting the old ways and accepting White American influence and control. The most visible expression of pluralism is language use. As of 2008, nearly one in every five people (19.1 percent) over age five speaks a language other than English at home. Later, in Chapters 4 and 5, we consider how language use figures into issues relating to immigration and education (American Community Survey 2009:Table S1601). Facilitating a diverse and changing society emerges in just about every aspect of society. Yet another nod to pluralism, although not nearly so obvious as language to the general population, has been the changes within the funeral industry. Where Christian and Jewish funeral practices have dominated, funeral homes are now retraining to accommodate a variety of practices. Latinos often expect 24-hour viewing of their deceased, whereas Muslims may wish to participate in washing the deceased before burial in a grave pointing toward Mecca. Hindu and Buddhist requests to participate in cremation are now being respected (Brulliard 2006). Resistance and Change Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 By virtue of wielding power and influence, the dominant group may define the terms by which all members of society operate. This is particularly evident in a slave society, but even in contemporary industrialized nations, the dominant group has a disproportionate role in shaping immigration policy, the curriculum of the schools, and the content of the media. Subordinate groups do not merely accept the definitions and ideology proposed by the dominant group. A continuing theme in dominant–subordinate relations is the minority group’s challenge to its subordination. Resistance by subordinate groups is well documented as they seek to promote change that will bring them more rights and privileges, if not true equality. Often traditional notions of racial formation are overcome not only through panethnicity but also because Black people, along with Latinos and sympathetic Whites, join in the resistance (Moulder 1996; Winant 2004). Resistance can be seen in efforts by racial and ethnic groups to maintain their identity through newspapers and organizations and in today’s technological age through cable television stations, blogs, and Internet sites. Resistance manifests itself in social movements such as the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and gay rights efforts. The Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 27 ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Through recent efforts of collective action, African American farmers successfully received Congressional approval in 2010 for compensation denied them in the latter 1900s by the Department of Agriculture. passage of such legislation as the Age Discrimination Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act marks the success of oppressed groups in lobbying on their own behalf. Resistance efforts may begin through small actions. For example, residents of a reservation question why a toxic waste dump is to be located on their land. Although it may bring in money, they question the wisdom of such a move. Their concerns lead to further investigations of the extent to which American Indian lands are used disproportionately to house dangerous materials. This action in turn leads to a broader investigation of the way in which minority-group people often find themselves “hosting” dumps and incinerators. As we discuss later, these local efforts eventually led the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor the disproportionate placement of toxic facilities in or near racial and ethnic minority communities. There is little reason to expect that such reforms would have occurred if we had relied on traditional decision-making processes alone. Change has occurred. At the beginning of the twentieth century, lynching was practiced in many parts of the country. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, laws punishing hate crimes were increasingly common and embraced a variety of stigmatized groups. Although this social progress should not be ignored, the nation needs to focus concern ahead on the significant social inequalities that remain. It is too easy to look at the accomplishments of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and conclude “mission accomplished” in terms of racial and gender injustices (Best 2001). An even more basic form of resistance is to question societal values. In this book, we avoid using the term American to describe people of the United States because geographically Brazilians, Canadians, and El Salvadorans are Americans as well. It is very easy to overlook how our understanding of today has been shaped by the way institutions and even the very telling of history have been presented by members of the dominant group. African American studies scholar Molefi Kete Asante (2007, 2008) has called for an Afrocentric perspective that emphasizes the customs of African cultures and how they have pervaded the history, culture, and behavior of Blacks in the United States and around the world. Afrocentrism counters Eurocentrism and works toward a multiculturalist or pluralist orientation in which no viewpoint is suppressed. The Afrocentric approach could become part of our school curriculum, which has not adequately acknowledged the importance of this heritage. The Afrocentric perspective has attracted much attention in education. Opponents view it as a separatist view of history and culture that distorts both past and present. Its supporters counter that African peoples everywhere can come to full self-determination only when they are able to overthrow White or Eurocentric intellectual interpretations (Conyers 2004). Afrocentric perspective an emphasis on the customs of African cultures and how they have pervaded the history, culture, and behavior of Blacks in the United States and around the world Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 28 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity In considering the inequalities present today, as we do in the chapters that follow, it is easy to forget how much change has taken place. Much of the resistance to prejudice and discrimination in the past, either to slavery or to women’s prohibition from voting, took the active support of members of the dominant group. The indignities still experienced by subordinate groups continue to be resisted as subordinate groups and their allies among the dominant group seek further change. Conclusion One hundred years ago, sociologist and activist W. E. B. Du Bois took another famed Black activist, Booker T. Washington, to task for saying that the races could best work together apart, like fingers on a hand. Du Bois felt that Black people had to be a part of all social institutions and not create their own. Now with an African American elected to the presidency, Whites, African Americans, and other groups continue to debate what form society should take. Should we seek to bring everyone together into an integrated whole? Or do we strive to maintain as much of our group identities as possible while working cooperatively as necessary? In this chapter, we have attempted to organize our approach to subordinate–dominant relations in the United States. We observed that subordinate groups do not necessarily contain fewer members than the dominant group. Subordinate groups are classified into racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups. Racial classification has been of interest, but scientific findings do not explain contemporary race relations. Biological differences of race are not supported by scientific data. Yet as the continuing debate over standardized tests demonstrates, attempts to establish a biological meaning of race have not been swept entirely into the dustbin of history. However, the social meaning given to physical differences is very significant. People have defined racial differences in such a way as to encourage or discourage the progress of certain groups. Subordinate-group members’ reactions include the seeking of an alternative avenue to acceptance and success: “Why should we forsake what we are, to be accepted by them?” In response to this question, there continues to be strong ethnicity identification. Pluralism describes a society in which several different groups coexist, with no dominant or subordinate groups. People individually chose what cultural patterns to keep and which to let go. Subordinate groups have not and do not always accept their second-class status passively. They may protest, organize, revolt, and resist society as defined by the dominant group. Patterns of race and ethnic relations are changing, not stagnant. Indicative of the changing landscape, biracial and multiracial children present us with new definitions of identity emerging through a process of racial formation, reminding us that race is socially constructed. The two significant forces that are absent in a truly pluralistic society are prejudice and discrimination. In an assimilation society, prejudice disparages outgroup differences, and discrimination financially rewards those who shed their past. In the next two chapters, we explore the nature of prejudice and discrimination in the United States. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 29 What Do You Think? Study Studyand andReview Reviewon onmysoclab.com mysoclab.com Summary 1. When sociologists define a minority group, they are concerned primarily with the economic and political power, or powerlessness, of the group. 2. A racial group is set apart from others primarily by physical characteristics; an ethnic group is set apart primarily by national origin or cultural patterns. 3. People cannot be sorted into distinct racial groups, so race is best viewed as a social construct subject to different interpretations over time. 4. A small but still significant number of people in the United States—more than 7 million—readily see themselves as having a biracial or multiracial identity. 5. Functionalists point out that discrimination is both functional and dysfunctional for a society. Conflict theorists see racial subordination through the presence of tension between competing groups. Labeling theory directs our attention to the role that negative stereotypes play in race and ethnicity. 6. Subordinate-group status has emerged through migration, annexation, and colonialism. The social consequences of subordinate-group status include extermination, expulsion, secession, segregation, fusion, assimilation, and pluralism. 7. Despite highly public women politicians, the vast majority of elected officials in the United States, especially at the national level, are men. Gender is only one basis for the unequal treatment that women experience; this leads to a formulation called the matrix of domination that considers a variety of social dimensions. 8. Racial, ethnic, and other minorities maintain a long history of resisting efforts to restrict their rights. Key Terms Afrocentric perspective / 27 an emphasis on the customs of African cultures and how they have pervaded the history, culture, and behavior of Blacks in the United States and around the world amalgamation / 24 the process by which a dominant group and a subordinate group combine through intermarriage to form a new group ISBN 1-256-48952-2 assimilation / 24 the process by which a subordinate individual or group takes on the characteristics of the dominant group biological race / 10 the mistaken notion of a genetically isolated human group blaming the victim / 17 portraying the problems of racial and ethnic minorities as their fault rather than recognizing society’s responsibilities class / 15 as defined by Max Weber, people who share similar levels of wealth colonialism / 20 a foreign power’s maintenance of political, social, economic, and cultural dominance over people for an extended period conflict perspective / 17 a sociological approach that assumes that the social structure is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups dysfunction / 16 an element of society that may disrupt a social system or decrease its stability emigration / 19 leaving a country to settle in another ethnic cleansing / 22 forced deportation of people, accompanied by systematic violence ethnic group / 8 a group set apart from others because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns functionalist perspective / 16 a sociological approach emphasizing how parts of a society are structured to maintain its stability Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 30 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity fusion / 24 a minority and a majority group combining to form a new group migration / 19 a general term that describes any transfer of population genocide / 22 the deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation minority group / 5 a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than do the members of a dominant or majority group globalization / 20 worldwide integration of government policies, cultures, social movements, and financial markets through trade, movements of people, and the exchange of ideas immigration / 19 coming into a new country as a permanent resident intelligence quotient (IQ) / 11 the ratio of a person’s mental age (as computed by an IQ test) to his or her chronological age, multiplied by 100 labeling theory / 18 a sociological approach introduced by Howard Becker that attempts to explain why certain people are viewed as deviants and others engaging in the same behavior are not marginality / 15 the status of being between two cultures at the same time, such as the status of Jewish immigrants in the United States melting pot / 24 diverse racial or ethnic groups or both, forming a new creation, a new cultural entity panethnicity / 13 the development of solidarity between ethnic subgroups, as reflected in the terms Hispanic or Asian American pluralism / 25 mutual respect between the various groups in a society for one another’s cultures, allowing minorities to express their own culture without experiencing prejudice or hostility racial formation / 12 a sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed racial group / 7 a group that is socially set apart because of obvious physical differences segregation / 23 the physical separation of two groups, often imposed on a subordinate group by the dominant group self-fulfilling prophecy / 18 the tendency to respond to and act on the basis of stereotypes, a predisposition that can lead one to validate false definitions sociology / 15 the systematic study of social behavior and human groups stereotypes / 18 unreliable, exaggerated generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account stratification / 15 a structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal rewards and power in a society world systems theory / 20 a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor racism / 12 a doctrine that one race is superior resegregation / 23 the physical separation of racial and ethnic groups reappearing after a period of relative integration Review Questions 1. In what different ways is race viewed? 2. How do the concepts of “biracial” and “multiracial” relate to W. E. B. Du Bois’s notion of a “color line”? 3. How do the conflict, functionalist, and labeling approach apply to the social construction of race? Critical Thinking 1. How diverse is your city? Can you see evidence that some group is being subordinated? What social construction of categories do you see that may be different in your community as compared to elsewhere? Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 2. Select a racial or ethnic group and apply the Spectrum of Intergroup Relations on page 21. Can you provide an example today or in the past where each relationship occurs? 3. Identify some protest and resistance efforts by subordinated groups in your area. Have they been successful? Why are some people who say they favor equality uncomfortable with such efforts? How can people unconnected with such efforts either help or hinder such protests? Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 31 MySocLab® Watch. Explore. Read. MySocLab is designed just for you. Each chapter features a pre-test and post-test to help you learn and review key concepts and terms. Experience Racial and Ethnic Relations in action with dynamic visual activities, videos, and readings to enhance your learning experience. Here are a few activities you will find for this chapter: Watch on mysoclab.com Video clips feature sociologists in action, exploring important concepts in the study of Ethnicity. Watch:  Multiracial Identity: Clip 1 Social Explorer is an interactive application that allows you to explore Census data through interactivemaps. Explore the Social Explorer Report:  Social Explore Activity: Increases in the Multiracial Population Explore on mysoclab.com MySocLibrary includes primary source readings from various noted sociologists from around the world. Read:  Black Spaces, Black Places: Strategic Assimilation and Identity Construction in Middle-Class Suburbia ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Read on mysoclab.com Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc.
16 CHAPTER OUTLINE Mexico: Diversity South of the Border Canada: Multiculturalism Up North Brazil: Not a Racial Paradise Israel and the Palestinians Republic of South Africa Listen to Our Voices Africa, It Is Ours! Research Focus Intergroup Contact and South Africa #ONCLUSION s 3UMMARY s +EY 4ERMS s 2EVIEW 1UESTIONS s #RITICAL 4HINKING WHAT WILL YOU LEARN?  How Does Diversity Function South of the Border?  How Does Multiculturalism Function up North?  Why Is Brazil Not a Racial Paradise?  What Are the Tensions between Israel and Palestine?  Why Is Inequality Entrenched in the Republic of South Africa? ISBN 1-256-63918-4 370 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. Beyond the United 3TATES 4HE #OMPARATIVE Perspective ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Subordinating people because of race, nationality, or religion is not a social phenomenon unique to the United States; it occurs throughout the world. In Mexico, women and the descendants of the Mayans are given second-class status. Despite its being viewed as a homogeneous nation by some, Canada faces racial, linguistic, and tribal issues. Brazil is a large South American nation with a long history of racial inequality. In Israel, Jews and Palestinians struggle over territory and the definition of each other’s autonomy. In the Republic of South Africa, the legacy of apartheid dominates the present and the future. Confrontations along racial, ethnic, or religious lines can lead to extermination, expulsion, secession, segregation, fusion, assimilation, or pluralism. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 371 372 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective Listen to the Chapter Audio on mysoclab.com C world systems theory a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor EExplore the Concept Social Explorer Activity: Comparing Ethnicity Changes in the American Population on mysoclab.com onfrontations between racial and ethnic groups have escalated in frequency and intensity in the twentieth century. In surveying these conflicts, we can see two themes emerge: the previously considered world systems theory and ethnonational conflict. World systems theory considers the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor. Historically, the nations we are considering reflect this competition between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Whether the laborers are poor Catholics in Ireland or Black Africans, their contribution to the prosperity of the dominant group created the social inequality that people are trying to address today (Wallerstein 1974, 2004). Ethnonational conflict refers to conflicts among ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic groups within nations. In some areas of the world, ethnonational conflicts are more significant than tension between nations as the source of refugees and even death. As we can see in Figure 16.1, countries in all parts of the world, including the most populous nations, have significant diversity within their borders. These conflicts remind us that the processes operating in the United States to deny racial and ethnic groups rights and opportunities are also at work throughout the world (Connor 1994; Olzak 1998). Explore on mysoclab.com The sociological perspective on relations between dominant and subordinate groups treats race and ethnicity as social categories. As social concepts, they can be understood only in the context of the shared meanings attached to them by societies and their members. Although relationships between dominant and subordinate groups vary greatly, there are similarities across societies. Racial and ethnic hostilities arise out of economic needs and demands. These needs and demands may not always be realistic; that is, a group may Ethnic Diversity Worldwide Source: Smith 2008:22–23. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 FIGURE 16.1 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 373 seek out enemies where none exist or where victory will yield no rewards. Racial and ethnic conflicts are both the results and the precipitators of change in the economic and political sectors (Barclay, Kumar, and Simms 1976; Coser 1956). Relations between dominant and subordinate groups differ from society to society, as this chapter shows. Intergroup relations in Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Israel, and South Africa are striking in their similarities and contrasts. ethnonational conflicts conflicts between ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic groups within nations. These conflicts replace conflicts between nations Mexico: Diversity South of the Border Usually in the discussions of racial and ethnic relations, Mexico is considered only as a source of immigrants to the United States. In questions of economic development, Mexico again typically enters the discussion only as it affects our own economy. However, Mexico, a nation of 111 million people (in the Western hemisphere, only Brazil and the United States are larger) is an exceedingly complex nation (see Table 16.1). It is therefore appropriate that we understand Mexico and its issues of inequality better. This understanding will also shed light on the relationship of its people to the United States. Read the Read on mysoclab.com In the 1520s, Spain overthrew the Aztec Indian tribe that ruled Mexico. Mexico Document Our Mother’s remained a Spanish colony until the 1820s. In 1836, Texas declared its independence Grief on mysoclab from Mexico, and by 1846 Mexico was at war with the United States. As we described in .com Chapter 9, the Mexican–American War forced Mexico to surrender more than half of its territory. In the 1860s, France sought to turn Mexico into an empire under Austrian prince Maximilian but ultimately withdrew after bitter resistance led by a Mexican Indian, Benito Juárez, who later served as the nation’s president. TABLE 16.1 ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Five-Nation Comparison Country Population (in millions) GNI per capita ($) (U.S. = $45,850) Groups Represented Current Nation’s Formation Mexico 110.6 14,270 Mexican Indians, 9% 1823: Republic of Mexico declared independence from Spain Canada 34.1 36,220 French speaking, 13% Aboriginal peoples, 4% “Visible” minorities, 16% 1867: Unified as a colony of England 1948: Independence Brazil 193.3 10,070 1889: Became indepenWhite, 48% Pardo (brown, moreno, mulatto), 39% dent of Portugal Afro-Brazilians, 7.5% Asian and indigenous Indians, 1% Israel 7.6 29,800 Jews, 76% Arabs, 23% 1948: Independence from British mandate under United Nations Palestinian Territories 3.9 4,247 Palestinians, 99% Others, 1% (Excluding Jewish settlements) 1999: Israel cedes authority under Oslo Accords South Africa 49.9 9,780 Black Africans, 76% Whites, 13% Coloureds, 9% Asians, 3% 1948: Independence from Great Britain Note: All data for 2010 or most recently available. Sources: Author estimates, based on Canak and Swanson 1998; Castillo 2011; Central Intelligence Agency 2011; Haub 2010; South African Institute of Race Relations 2010; Statistics Canada 2011. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 374 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective mestizo people in the Americas of mixed European (usually Spanish) and local indigenous ancestry The Mexican Indian People and the Color Gradient Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 In contemporary Mexico, a major need has been to reassess the relations between the indigenous peoples—the Mexican Indians, many descended from the Mayas, and the government of Mexico. In 1900, the majority of the Mexican population still spoke Indian languages and lived in closed, semi-isolated villages or tribal communities according to color gradient ancestral customs. Many of these people were not a part of the growing industrialization the placement of people in Mexico and were not truly represented in the national legislature. Perhaps the major on a continuum from light change for them in the twentieth century was that many intermarried with the descendants to dark skin color rather of the Europeans, forming a mestizo class of people of mixed ancestry. The term mestizo than in distinct racial is used throughout the Americas to refer to people of mixed European (usually Spanish) groupings by skin color and local indigenous ancestry. Mestizos have become increasingly identified with Mexico’s growing middle class. They have developed their own distinct culture and, as the descendants of the European settlers are reduced in number and influence, have become the true bearers of the national Mexican sentiment. Meanwhile, however, these social changes have left the Mexican Indian people even further behind the rest of the population economically. Indian cultures have been stereotyped as backward and resistant to progress and modern ways of living. Indeed, the existence of the many Indian cultures was seen in much of the twentieth century as an impediment to the development of a national culture in Mexico. As noted in Chapter 9, a color gradient is the placement of people on a continuum from light to dark skin color rather than in distinct racial groupings by skin color. This is another example of the social construction of race, in which social class is linked to the social reality (or at least the appearance) of racial purity. At the top of this gradient or hierarchy are the criollos, the 10 percent of the population who are typically White, well-educated members of the business and intellectual elites with familial roots in Spain. In the middle is the large impoverished mestizo majority, most of whom have brown skin and a mixed racial lineage as a result of intermarriage. At the bottom of the color gradient are the destitute Mexican Indians and a small number of Blacks, some of them the descendants of 200,000 African slaves brought to Mexico. The relatively small Black Mexican community received national attention in 2005 and 2006 following a series of racist events that received media attention. Ironically, although this color gradient is an important part of day-to-day life—enough so that some Mexicans use hair dyes, skin lighteners, and blue or green contact lenses to appear more European—nearly all Mexicans are considered part Mexican Indian because of centuries of intermarriage (Villarreal 2010). On January 1, 1994, rebels from an armed insurgent group called the Zapatista National Liberation Army seized four towns in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico. Two thousand lightly armed Mayan Indians and peasants backed the rebels—who had named their organization after Emiliano Zapata, a farmer and leader of the 1910 revolution against a corrupt dictatorship. Zapatista leaders declared that they had turned to armed insurrection to protest economic injustices and discrimination against the region’s Indian population. The Mexican government mobilized the army to crush the revolt but was forced to retreat as news organizations broadcast pictures of the confrontation around the world. A ceasefire was declared after only 12 days of fighting, but 196 people had already died. Negotiations collapsed between the Mexican government and the Zapatista National Liberation Army, and there has been sporadic violence ever since. In response to the crisis, the Mexican legislature enacted the Law on Indian Rights and Culture, which went into effect in 2001. The act allows 62 recognized Indian groups to apply their own customs in resolving conflicts and electing leaders. Unfortunately, state legislatures must give final approval to these arrangements, a requirement that severely limits the rights of large Indian groups whose territories span several states. Tired The poverty of Mexican Indians is well docuof waiting for state approval, many indigenous communities in Chiapas mented and in some instances has led to violent protests for social change. have declared self-rule without obtaining official recognition. Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 375 Although many factors contributed to the Zapatista revolt, the subordinate status of Mexico’s Indian citizens, who account for an estimated 14 percent of the nation’s population, was surely important. More than 90 percent of the indigenous population lives in houses without access to sewers, compared with 21 percent of the population as a whole. And whereas just 10 percent of Mexican adults are illiterate, the proportion for Mexican Indians is 44 percent (Stahler-Sholk 2008). The Status of Women Often in the United States we consider our own problems to be so significant that we fail to recognize that many of these social issues exist elsewhere. Gender stratification is an example of an issue we share with almost all other countries, and Mexico is no exception. In 1975, Mexico City was the site of the first United Nations conference on the status of women. Much of the focus was on the situation of women in developing countries; in that regard, Mexico remains typical. Women in Mexico did not receive the right to vote until 1953. They have made significant progress in that short period in being elected into office, but they have a long way to go. As of 2011, women accounted for 26 percent of Mexico’s national assembly (Inter-Parliamentary Union 2011). Even when Mexican women work outside the home, they are often denied recognition as active and productive household members, and men are typically viewed as heads of the household in every respect. As one consequence, women find it difficult to obtain credit and technical assistance in many parts of Mexico and to inherit land in rural areas. Men are preferred over women in the more skilled jobs, and women lose out entirely as factories, even in developing nations such as Mexico, require more complex skills. In 2009, only 47 percent of women were in the paid labor force, compared with about 76 percent in Canada and 72 percent in the United States (Organisation on Economic Co-operation and Development 2011). In recent decades, Mexican women have begun to address an array of economic, political, and health issues. Often this organizing occurs at the grassroots level and outside traditional government forums. Because women continue to serve as household managers for their families, even when they work outside the home, they have been aware of the consequences of the inadequate public services in low-income urban neighborhoods. As far back as 1973, women in Monterrey, the nation’s sixth-largest city, began protesting the continuing disruptions of the city’s water supply. At first, individual women made complaints to city officials and the water authority, but subsequently, groups of female activists emerged. They sent delegations to confront politicians, organized protest rallies, and blocked traffic as a means of getting media attention. As a result of their efforts, there have been improvements in Monterrey’s water service, although the issue of reliable and safe water remains a concern in Mexico and many developing countries (Bennett 1995; Bennett and Rico 2005). Mexico is beginning to recognize that the issue of social inequality extends beyond poverty. A national survey found that eight out of 10 Mexicans felt it was as important to eliminate discrimination as poverty, yet 40 percent said that they did not want to live next to an Indian community, and one-third considered it “normal” for women not to earn as much as men (G. Thompson 2005). ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Canada: Multiculturalism Up North Multiculturalism is a fairly recent term in the United States; it is used to refer to diversity. In Canada, it has been adopted as a state policy for more than two decades. Still, many people in the United States, when they think of Canada, see it as a homogeneous nation with a smattering of Arctic-type people—merely a cross between the northern mainland United States and Alaska. This is not the social reality. One of the continuing discussions among Canadians is the need for a cohesive national identity or a sense of common peoplehood. The immense size of the country, much of which is sparsely populated, and the diversity of its people have complicated this need. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 376 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective The First Nation Canada, like the United States, has had an adversarial relationship with its native peoples. However, the Canadian experience has not been as violent. During all three stages of Canadian history—French colonialism, British colonialism, and Canadian nationhood—there has been, compared with the United States, little warfare between Canadian Whites and Canadian Native Americans. Yet the legacy today is similar. Prodded by settlers, colonial governments (and later Canadian governments) drove the Native Americans from their lands. Already by the 1830s, Indian reserves were being established that were similar to the reservations in the United States. Tribal members were encouraged to renounce their status and become Canadian citizens. Assimilation was the explicit policy until recently (Champagne 1994; Waldman 1985). The 1.2 million native peoples of Canada are collectively referred to by the government as the First Nation or Aboriginal Peoples and represent about 4 percent of the population. This population is classified into the following groups: Status Indians—The more than 600 tribes or bands officially recognized by the government, numbering about 680,000 in 2006, of whom 40 percent live on Indian reserves (or reservations). Inuit—The 50,480 people living in the northern part of the country, who in the past were called Eskimos. Métis (pronounced “may-TEE”)—Canadians of mixed Aboriginal ancestry, officially numbering 390,000 and many of whom still speak French Métis, a mixed language combining Aboriginal and European words. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Another 35,000 Canadians of mixed native ancestry are counted by the government as First Nation people, but there are perhaps another 600,000 non–status Indians who selfidentify themselves as having some Aboriginal ancestry but who are not so considered by the Canadian government (Huteson 2008; Statistics Canada 2010). The Métis and non–status Indians have historically enjoyed no separate legal recognition, but efforts continue to secure them special rights under the law, such as designated health, education, and welfare programs. The general public does not understand these legal distinctions, so if a Métis or non–status Indian “looks like an Indian,” she or he is subjected to the same treatment, discriminatory or otherwise (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Canadian Polar Commission 2000, 4). The new Canadian federal constitution of 1982 included a charter of rights that “recognized and affirmed . . . the existing aboriginal and treaty rights” of the Canadian Native American, Inuit, and Métis peoples. This recognition received the most visibility through the efforts of the Mohawk, one of the tribes of status Indians. At issue were land rights involving some property areas in Quebec that had spiritual significance for the Mohawk. Their protests and militant confrontations reawakened the Canadian people to the concerns of their diverse native peoples (Warry 2007). Some of the contemporary issues facing the First Nation of Canada are very similar to those faced by Native Americans in the United States. Contemporary Canadians are shocked to learn of past mistreatment leading to belated remedies. Exposure of past sexual and physical abuse of tens of thousands in boarding schools led to compensation to former students and an official apology by the government in 2008. Earlier in 2006, as part of a legal settlement, the government set aside $2 billion for payments to surviving students and to document their experiences. Tribal people feel that environmental justice must be addressed because of the disproportionate pollution they experience. Seeking better opportunities, First Nation people move to urban areas in Canada where social services are slowly meeting the needs. The social and economic fate of contemporary Aboriginal Peoples reflects many challenges. Only 40 percent graduate from high school compared to more than 70 percent for the country as a whole. The native peoples of Canada have unemployment rates twice as high and an average income one-third lower (Farley 2008; Guly and Farley 2008; Statistics Canada 2010; Warry 2007). Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 377 In a positive step, in 1999 Canada created a new territory in response to a native land claim in which the resident Inuit (formerly called Eskimos) dominated. Nunavut (“NOO-nah-voot”), meaning “our land,” recognizes the territorial rights of the Inuit. Admirable as this event is, observers noted it was easier to grant such economic rights and autonomy to 29,000 people in the isolated expanse of northern Canada than to the Aboriginal Peoples of the more populated southern provinces of Canada (Krauss 2006). The Québécois Assimilation and domination have been the plight of most minority groups. The French-speaking people of Similar to the situation of indigenous people in the United States, the province of Quebec—the Québécois, as they are Brazil, and Mexico, Canada has only recently begun to make known—represent a contrasting case. Since the mid- amends for past injustices to its First Nation people. Pictured here 1960s, they have reasserted their identity and captured are primary school students in the Gioa Haven, settlement of the Nunavut Territory, which has been given special autonomy from the the attention of the entire nation. central government of Ottawa. Quebec accounts for about one-fourth of the nation’s population and wealth. Reflecting its early settlement by the French, fully 95 percent of the province’s population claims to speak French compared Québécois with only 13 percent in the nation as a whole (Statistics Canada 2011). the French-speaking The Québécois have sought to put French Canadian culture on an equal footing with people of the province of English Canadian culture in the country as a whole and to dominate in the province. At Quebec in Canada the very least, this effort has been seen as an irritant outside Quebec and has been viewed with great concern by the English-speaking minority in Quebec. In the 1960s, the Québécois expressed the feeling that bilingual status was not enough. Even to have French recognized as one of two official languages in a nation dominated by the English-speaking population gave the Québécois second-class status in their view. With some leaders threatening to break completely with Canada and make Quebec an independent nation, Canada made French the official language of the province and the only acceptable language for commercial signs and public transactions. New residents are now required to send their children to French schools. The English-speaking residents felt as if they had been made aliens, even though many of them had roots extending back to the 1700s (Salée 1994). In 1995, the people of Quebec were given a referendum that they would vote on alone: whether they wanted to separate from Canada and form a new nation. In a very close vote, 50.5 percent of the voters indicated a preference to remain united with Canada. The vote was particularly striking, given the confusion over how separation would be accomplished and its significance economically. Separatists vowed to keep working for secession and called for another referendum in the future, although surveys show the support for independence has dropped. Many French-speaking residents now seem to accept the steps that have been taken, but a minority still seeks full control of financial and political policies (Mason 2007). Canada is characterized by the presence of two linguistic communities: the Anglophone and the Francophone, with the latter occurring largely in the one province of Quebec. Outside Quebec, Canadians are opposed to separatism; within Quebec, they are divided. Language and cultural issues, therefore, both unify and divide a nation of 33 million people. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Immigration and Race Immigration has also been a significant social force contributing to Canadian multiculturalism. Toronto and Vancouver both have a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than either Los Angeles or New York City. Canada, proportionately to its population, receives consistently the most immigrants of any nation. About 20 percent of its population is foreign-born, with an increasing proportion being of Asian background rather than European. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 378 Chapter 16 visible minorities in Canada, persons other than Aboriginal or First Nation people who are non-White in racial background Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective Canada also speaks of its visible minorities—persons other than Aboriginal or First Nation people who are non-White in racial background. This would include much of the immigrant population as well as the Black population. In the 2006 census, the visible minority population accounted for 16 percent, compared to less than 5 percent 25 years earlier. The largest visible minority are the Chinese, followed by South Asians collectively, Black Canadians, and Filipinos (Bélanger and Malenfant 2005; Statistics Canada 2010). People in the United States tend to view Canada’s race relations in favorable terms. In part, this view reflects Canada’s role as the “promised land” for slaves escaping the U.S. South and crossing the free North to Canada, where they were unlikely to be recaptured. The view of Canada as a land of positive intergroup relations is also fostered by Canadians’ comparing themselves with the United States. They have long been willing to compare their best social institutions to the worst examples of racism in the United States and to pride themselves on being more virtuous and high-minded (McClain 1979). The social reality, past and present, is quite different. Africans came in 1689 as involuntary immigrants to be enslaved by French colonists. Slavery officially continued until 1833. It never flourished because the Canadian economy did not need a large labor force, so most slaves worked as domestic servants. Blacks from the United States did flee to Canada before slavery ended, but some fugitive slaves returned after Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The early Black arrivals in Canada were greeted in a variety of ways. Often they were warmly received as fugitives from slavery, but as their numbers grew in some areas, Canadians became concerned that they would overwhelm the White population (Winks 1971). The contemporary Black Canadian population, about 2.5 percent of the nation’s population, consists of indigenous Afro-Canadians with several generations of roots in Canada, West Indian immigrants and their descendants, and a number of post–World War II immigrants from the United States. Slightly more than half of Canada’s Blacks are foreign born. Racial issues are barely below the surface, as evidenced by rioting in 2008 in a Montreal neighborhood that is predominantly Black and Hispanic. Rioting was precipitated by the police shooting of a Honduran teenager. After a weekend of looting, peace was restored amid promises to improve police–community relations (Gosselin 2008; Statistics Canada 2011). In 1541, Frenchman Jacques Cartier established the first European settlement along the St. Lawrence River, but within a year he withdrew because of confrontations with the Iroquois. Almost 500 years later, the descendants of the Europeans and Aboriginal Peoples are still trying to resolve Canada’s identity as it is shaped by issues of ethnicity, race, and language. Brazil: Not a Racial Paradise To someone who is knowledgeable about race and ethnic relations in the United States, Brazil seems familiar in several respects. Like the United States, Brazil was colonized by Europeans who overwhelmed the native people. Like the United States, Brazil imported Black Africans as slaves to meet the demand for laborers. Even today, Brazil is second only to the United States in the number of people of African descent, excluding nations on the African continent. Another similarity is the treatment of indigenous people. Although the focus here is on Black and White people in Brazil, another continuing concern is the treatment of Brazil’s native peoples as this developing nation continues to industrialize. Legacy of Slavery Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The current nature of Brazilian race relations is influenced by the legacy of slavery, as is true of Black–White relations in the United States. It is not necessary to repeat here a discussion of the brutality of the slave trade and slavery itself or of the influence of slavery on the survival of African cultures and family life. Scholars agree that slavery was not the same in Brazil as it was in the United States, but they disagree on how different it was and how significant these differences were (Elkins 1959; Tannenbaum 1946). Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 379 Brazil depended much more than the United States on the slave trade. Estimates place the total number of slaves imported to Brazil at 4 million, eight times the number brought to the United States. At the height of slavery, however, both nations had approximately the same slave population: 4–4.5 million. Brazil’s reliance on African-born slaves meant that typical Brazilian slaves had closer ties to Africa than did their U.S. counterparts. Revolts and escapes were more common among slaves in Brazil. The most dramatic example was the slave quilombo (or hideaway) of Palmores, whose 20,000 inhabitants repeatedly fought off Portuguese assaults until 1698. Interestingly, these quilombos have reappeared in the news as Black Brazilians have sought to recognize their claims related to these settlements. The most significant difference between slavery in the southern United States and in Brazil was the amount of manumission—the freeing of slaves. For every 1,000 slaves, 100 were freed annually in Brazil, compared to four per year in the U.S. South. It would be hasty to assume, however, as some people have, that Brazilian masters were more benevolent. Quite the contrary. Brazil’s slave economy was poorer than that of the U.S. South, and so slave owners in Brazil freed slaves into poverty whenever they became crippled, sick, or old. But this custom does not completely explain the presence of the many freed slaves in Brazil. Again unlike in the United States, the majority of Brazil’s population was composed of Africans and their descendants throughout the nineteenth century. Africans were needed as craft workers, shopkeepers, and boatmen, not just as agricultural workers. Freed slaves filled these needs. quilombo slave hideaways in Brazil mulatto escape hatch notion that Brazilians of mixed ancestry can move into high-status positions ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The “Racial Democracy” Illusion For some time in the twentieth century, Brazil was seen by some as a “racial democracy” and even a “racial paradise.” Indeed, historically the term race is rare in Brazil; the term côr or color is far more common. Historian Carl Degler (1971) identified the mulatto escape hatch as the key to the differences in Brazilian and American race relations. In Brazil, the mulatto or moreno (brown) is recognized as a group separate from either brancos (Whites) or prêtos (Blacks), whereas in the United States, mulattos are classed with Blacks. Yet this escape hatch is an illusion because mulattoes fare only marginally better economically than Black Brazilians or Afro Brazilians or Afro-descendant, the term used there to refer to the dark end of the Brazilian color gradient and increasingly used by college-educated persons and activists in Brazil. In addition, mulattoes do not escape through mobility into the income and status enjoyed by White Brazilians. Labor market analyses demonstrate that Blacks with the highest levels of education and occupation experience the most discrimination in terms of jobs, mobility, and income. In addition, they face a glass ceiling that limits their upward mobility (Daniel 2006; Fiola 2008; Schwartzman 2007). Today, the use of dozens of terms to describe oneself along the color gradient (see Chapter 12) is obvious in Brazil because, unlike in the United States, people of mixed ancestry are viewed as an identifiable social group. The 2010 census in Brazil classified 48 percent White, 43 percent pardo (mestizo, brown, or mulatto), 6 percent Afro-Brazilian, and 1 percent Asian and indigenous Brazilian Indian (Castillo 2011). In Brazil, today as in the past, light skin color enhances status, but the impact is often exaggerated. When Degler advanced the idea of the mulatto escape hatch, he implied that it was a means to success. The most recent income data controlling for gender, education, and age indicate that people of mixed ancestry earn 12 percent more than Blacks. Yet Whites earn another 26 percent more than the pardo. Clearly, the major distinction is between Whites and all “people of color” rather than between people of mixed ancestry and Afro- Increasingly, people of Brazil are coming to terms with the significant social inequality evident along color lines. Brazilians (IBGE 2006; Telles, 1992, 2004). Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 380 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective Brazilian Dilemma Gradually in Brazil there has been the recognition that racial prejudice and discrimination do exist. A 2000 survey in Rio de Janeiro found that 93 percent of those surveyed believe that racism exists in Brazil and 74 percent said there was a lot of bias. Yet 87 percent of the respondents said they themselves were not racist (Bailey 2004, 2009b). During the twentieth century, Brazil changed from a nation that prided itself on its freedom from racial intolerance to a country legally attacking discrimination against people of color. One of the first measures was in 1951 when the Afonso Arinos law was unanimously adopted, prohibiting racial discrimination in public places. Opinion is divided over the effectiveness of the law, which has been of no use in overturning subtle forms of discrimination. Even from the start, certain civilian careers, such as the diplomatic and military officer ranks, were virtually closed to Blacks. Curiously, the push for the law came from the United States, after a Black American dancer, Katherine Dunham, was denied a room at a São Paulo luxury hotel. Today, the income disparity is significant in Brazil. As shown in Figure 16.2, people of color are disproportionately clustered in the lowest income levels of society. Although not as disadvantaged as Blacks in South Africa, which we take up later in this chapter, the degree of inequality between Whites and people of color is much greater in Brazil than in the United States. There is a long history of activism among Afro-Americans overcoming the challenge of a society that thinks distinctions are based on social class. After all, if problems are based on poverty, they are easier to overcome than if problems are based on color. However, activism is also understandable because societal wealth is so unequal—the concentration of income and assets in the hands of a few is much greater than even in the United States. For Afro-Brazilians, even professional status can achieve only so much in one’s social standing. An individual’s blackness does not suddenly become invisible simply because he or she has acquired some social standing. The fame achieved by the Black Brazilian soccer player Pelé is a token exception and does not mean that Blacks have it easy or even have a readily available “escape hatch” through professional sports. A dramatic step was taken to explicitly acknowledge the role of race when affirmative action measures were introduced. Quotas were begun in 2007, by which students could indicate their race with their college-entrance applications. Reflecting the color gradient and the lack of clear-cut racial categories, committees were actually created to examine photographs of prospective students for the purpose of determining race. In its initial implementation, charges of reverse racism and specific cases of inexplicable classifications being made were common. Coming up with solutions in Brazil will be just as intractable as the problems themselves (Ash 2007; Bailey 2009a; Bailey and Péria 2010; Daniel 2006; Dzidzienyo 1987; Fiola 2008). Israel and the Palestinians Diaspora the exile of Jews from Palestine Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Watch the Video Synagogue Doubles As Mosque mysoclab.com In 1991, when the Gulf War ended, hopes were high in many parts of the world that a comprehensive Middle East peace plan could be hammered out. Just a decade later, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and then the toppling of the Egyptian government in 2011, which was the first Arab state to diplomatically recognize Israel, the expectations for a lasting peace were much dimmer. The key elements in any peace plan were to resolve the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors and to resolve the challenge of the Palestinian refugees. Although the issues are debated in the political arena, the origins of the conflict can be found in race, ethnicity, and religion. Watch on mysoclab.com Nearly 2,000 years ago, the Jews were exiled from Palestine in the Diaspora. The exiled Jews settled throughout Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East, where they often encountered hostility and the anti-Semitism described in Chapter 14. With the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, Palestine became the site of many Christian pilgrimages. Beginning in the seventh century, Palestine gradually fell under the Muslim influence of the Arabs. By the beginning of the twentieth century, tourism Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 381 FIGURE 16.2 2000+ Income Distribution by Race Brazil Note: Monthly income for Brazil and the United States in 1996; for South Africa, 1998. Monthly Income 1500 Source: Government agencies as reported in Telles 2004:108. Brown–Black White 1000 500 20 10 0 10 20 30 2000+ Monthly Income South Africa 1500 Black–Coloured White 1000 500 20 10 0 10 20 30 4000+ United States Monthly Income 3000 2000 Black White 1000 20 10 0 10 20 30 ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Percent had become established. In addition, some Jews had migrated from Russia and established settlements that were tolerated by the Ottoman Empire, which then controlled Palestine. Great Britain expanded its colonial control from Egypt into Palestine during World War I, driving out the Turks. Britain ruled the land but endorsed the eventual establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. The spirit of Zionism, the yearning to establish a Jewish state in the biblical homeland, was well under way. From the Arab perspective, Zionism meant the subjugation, if not the elimination, of the Palestinians. Thousands of Jews came to settle from throughout the world; even so, in the 1920s, Palestine was only about 15 percent Jewish. Ethnic tension grew as the Arabs of Palestine were threatened by the Zionist fervor. Rioting grew to such a point that in 1939, Britain yielded to Palestinian demands that Jewish immigration be stopped. This occurred at the same time as large numbers of Jews were fleeing Nazism in Europe. After World War II, Jews resumed their demand for a homeland, despite Arab objections. Britain turned to Zionism traditional Jewish religious yearning to return to the biblical homeland, now used to refer to support for the state of Israel Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 382 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective the newly formed United Nations to settle the dispute. In May 1948, the British mandate over Palestine ended, and the state of Israel was founded. The Palestinian people define themselves as the people who lived in this former British mandate, along with their descendants on their fathers’ side. They are viewed as an ethnic group within the larger group of Arabs. They generally speak Arabic, and most of them (97 percent) are Muslim (mostly Sunni). With a rapid rate of natural increase, the Palestinians have grown in number from 1.4 million at the end of World War II to about 7 million worldwide: 700,000 in Israel, 2.6 million in the West Bank, and 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip (Central Intelligence Agency 2011; Third World Institute 2007:419). Arab–Israeli Conflicts No sooner had Israel been created than the Arab nations—particularly Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon—announced their intention to restore control to the Palestinian Arabs, by force if necessary. As hostilities broke out, the Israeli military stepped in to preserve the borders, which no Arab nation agreed to recognize. Some 60 percent of the 1.4 million Arabs fled or were expelled from Israeli territory, becoming refugees in neighboring countries. An uneasy peace followed as Israel attempted to encourage new Jewish immigration. Israel also extended the same services that were available to the Jews, such as education and health care, to the non-Jewish Israelis. The new Jewish population continued to grow under the country’s Law of Return, which gave every Jew in the world the right to settle permanently as a citizen. The question of Jerusalem remained unsettled, and the city was divided into two separate sections—Israeli Jewish and Jordanian Arab—a division both sides refused to regard as permanent. In 1967, Egypt, followed by Syria, responded to Israel’s military actions to take surrounding territory in what came to be called the Six-Day War. In the course of defeating the Arab states’ military, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Figure 16.3). The defeat was all the more bitter for the Arabs as Israeli-held territory expanded. Although our primary attention here is on the Palestinians and the Jews, another significant ethnic issue is present in Israel. Among Israel’s Jews, about 67 percent are Israeli-born, 23 percent are European or American, 6 percent are African, and 6 percent are Asian. The Law of Return has brought to Israel Jews of varying cultural backgrounds. European Jews have been the dominant force, but a significant migration of the more religiously observant Jews from North Africa and other parts of the Middle East has created what sociologist Ernest Krausz (1973) called “the two nations.” Not only are the various Jewish groups culturally diverse but also there are significant socioeconomic differences: the Europeans generally are more prosperous, better represented in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), and better educated. The secular Jews feel pressure from the more traditional and ultraorthodox Jews, who push for a nation more reflective of Jewish customs and law (Central Intelligence Agency 2011; Sela-Sheffy 2004; Third World Institute 2007:291). The Intifada Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Intifada the Palestinian uprising against Israeli authorities in the occupied territories The occupied territories were regarded initially by Israel as a security zone between it and its belligerent neighbors. By the 1980s, however, it was clear that the territories were also serving as the location of new settlements for Jews migrating to Israel, especially from Russia. Palestinians, though enjoying some political and monetary support of Arab nations, saw little likelihood of a successful military effort to eliminate Israel. Therefore, in December 1987, they began the first Intifada, the uprising against Israel by the Palestinians in the occupied territories through attacks against soldiers, the boycott of Israeli goods, general strikes, resistance, and noncooperation with Israeli authorities. The target of this first Intifada, lasting five years, was the Israelis. The Intifada was a popular grassroots movement whose growth in support was as much a surprise to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Arab nations as it was to Israel and its supporters. The broad range of participants in the Intifada—students, workers, union members, professionals, and business leaders—showed the unambiguous Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 383 FIGURE 16.3 LEBANON SYRIA Israeli and Palestinian Lands GOLAN HEIGHTS Golan Heights–Israel seized the Golan from Syria during the 1967 war and has occupied it ever since. Sea of Galilee Haifa Jordan River Nazareth Mediterranean Sea Tel-Aviv WEST BANK Gaza Strip–The Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt until Israel occupied it during the 1967. Ramla Ramallah Jerusalem Jericho Bethlehem Hebron West Bank and East Jerusalem–Israel took the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war. GAZA STRIP Dead Sea ISRAEL EGYPT JORDAN Palestinian opposition to occupation. The Intifada began out of the frustration of the Palestinians within Israel, but the confrontations were later encouraged by the PLO, an umbrella organization for several Palestinian factions of varying militancy. With television news footage of Israel soldiers appearing to attack defenseless youths, the Intifada transformed world opinion, especially in the United States. Palestinians came to be viewed as people struggling for self-determination rather than as terrorists out to destroy Israel. Instead of Israel being viewed as the “David” and its Arab neighbors “Goliath,” Israel came to take on the bully role and the Palestinians the sympathetic underdog role (Hubbard 1993; Third World Institute 2007). ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The Search for Solutions amid Violence The 1993 Oslo Accords between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and subsequent agreements ended the state of war and appeared to set in motion the creation of the first-ever self-governing Palestinian territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Hardliners on both sides, however, grew resistant to the move toward separate recognized Palestinian and Israeli states. Rabin was assassinated at a peace rally by an Israeli who felt the government had given up too much. Succeeding governments in Israel took stronger stands against relinquishing control of the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the anti-Israel Hamas party was elected to power following the death of Arafat in 2004. Despite the assurances at Oslo, Israel did not end its occupation of the Palestinian territories by 1999, justifying its actions as necessary to stop anti-Israel violence originating in Palestinian settlements. Complicating the picture was the continued growth of 121 officially Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 384 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective recognized Israeli settlements in the West Bank, bringing the total population to 300,000 by 2009. Palestinians, assisted by Arabs in other countries, mounted a second Intifada from 2000 through 2004, which was precipitated by the Israeli killing of several Palestinians at a Jerusalem mosque. This time, militant Palestinians went outside the occupied territories and bombed civilian sites in Israel through a series of suicide bombings. Each violent episode brought calls for retaliation by the other side and desperate calls for a ceasefire from outside the region. Israel, despite worldwide denunciation, created a 600-mile “security barrier” of 30-foot-high concrete walls, ditches, and barbed wire to try to protect its Jewish settlers, which served to limit the mobility of peaceful Palestinians trying to access crops, schools, hospitals, and jobs (MacFauquhar 2011; Prusher 2009). The immediate problem is to end the violence, but any lasting peace must face a series of difficult issues, including the following:    Beginning in 2005, Israel started constructing a 30-foot-high 6oo-mile barrier for security purposes, but the wall also served to keep Palestinians from schools and jobs.    The status of Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, which is also viewed by Muslims as the third-most-holy city in the world. The future of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank of the Palestinian Authority territories. The future of Palestinians and other Arabs with Israeli citizenship. The creation of a truly independent Palestinian national state with strong leadership. Israel–Palestinian Authority relations, with the latter’s government under control of Hamas, which is sworn to Israel’s destruction. The future of Palestinian refugees elsewhere. Added worries are the uneasy peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors and the sometimes interrelated events in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran. The last 60 years have witnessed significant changes: Israel has gone from a land under siege to a nation whose borders are recognized by almost everyone. Israel has come to terms with the various factions of religious and secular Jews trying to coexist. The Palestinian people have gone from disfranchisement to having territory. The current solution is fragile and very temporary, as is any form of secession with a foundation for accommodation amid continuing violence. Republic of South Africa In every nation in the world, some racial, ethnic, or religious groups enjoy advantages denied to other groups. Nations differ in the extent of this denial and in whether it is supported by law or by custom. In no other industrial society has the denial been so entrenched in recent law as in the Republic of South Africa. The Republic of South Africa is different from the rest of Africa because the original African peoples of the area are no longer present. Today, the country is multiracial, as shown in Table 16.2. The largest group is the Black Africans who migrated from the north in the eighteenth century as well as more recent migrations from neighboring African countries over the last 20 years. The Coloured (or Cape Coloureds), the product of mixed race, and Asians (or Indians) make up the remaining non-Whites. The small White community consists of the English and the Afrikaners, the latter descended from Dutch and other European settlers. As in all other multicultural nations we have considered, colonialism and immigration have left their mark. The permanent settlement of South Africa by Europeans began in 1652, when the Dutch East India Company established a colony in Cape Town as a port of call for shipping vessels bound for India. The area was sparsely populated, and the original inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope, the Hottentots and Bushmen, were pushed inland like the indigenous Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 The Legacy of Colonialism Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 385 TABLE 16.2 Racial Groups in the Republic of South Africa Whites (%) All Non-Whites (%) Black Africans (%) Coloureds (%) Asian Indians (%) 1904 22 78 67 9 2 1936 21 79 69 8 2 1951 21 79 68 9 3 2010 9 91 79 9 3 2021 (projected) 8 90 80 9 2 Note: “All Non-Whites” totals subject to rounding error. Sources: Author’s estimates, based on Statistics South Africa and Bureau of Market Research in MacFarlane 2006a:8–9; South African Institute of Race Relations 2007:6, 12; MacFarlane 2008:2; Berghe 1978:102. peoples of the New World. To fill the need for laborers, the Dutch imported slaves from areas of Africa farther north. Slavery was confined mostly to areas near towns and involved more limited numbers than in the United States. The Boers, semi-nomads descended from the Dutch, did not remain on the coast but trekked inland to establish vast sheep and cattle ranches. The trekkers, as they were known, regularly fought off the Black inhabitants of the interior regions. Sexual relations between Dutch men and slave and Hottentot women were quite common, giving rise to a mulatto group referred to today as Cape Coloureds. The British entered the scene by acquiring part of South Africa in 1814, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The British introduced workers from India as indentured servants on sugar plantations. They had also freed the slaves by 1834, with little compensation to the Dutch slave owners, and had given Blacks almost all political and civil rights. The Boers were not happy with these developments and spent most of the nineteenth century in a violent struggle with the growing number of English colonists. In 1902, the British finally overwhelmed the Boers, leaving bitter memories on both sides. Once in control, however, they recognized that the superior numbers of the non-Whites were a potential threat to their power, as they had been to the power of the Afrikaners. The growing non-White population consisted of the Coloureds, or mixed population, and the Black tribal groups, collectively called Bantus. The British gave both groups the vote but restricted the franchise to people who met certain property qualifications. Pass laws were introduced, placing curfews on the Bantus and limiting their geographic movement. These laws, enforced through “reference books” until 1986, were intended to prevent urban areas from becoming overcrowded with job-seeking Black Africans, a familiar occurrence in colonial Africa (Marx 1998; van den Berghe 1965). pass laws laws that controlled internal movement by nonWhites in South Africa apartheid the policy of the South African government intended to maintain separation of Blacks, Coloureds, and Asians from the dominant Whites ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Apartheid In 1948, South Africa was granted its independence from the United Kingdom, and the National Party, dominated by the Afrikaners, assumed control of the government. Under the leadership of this party, the rule of White supremacy, already well under way in the colonial period as custom, became more and more formalized into law. To deal with the multiracial population, the Whites devised a policy called apartheid to ensure their dominance. Apartheid (in Afrikaans, the language of the Afrikaners, it means “separation” or “apartness”) came to mean a policy of separate development, euphemistically called multinational development by the government. At the time, these changes were regarded as cosmetic outside South Africa and by most Black South Africans. South Africa employed an explicit system of de jure segregation under apartheid that included spatial separation on trains, as shown in these separate entry points in Johannesburg. Whites waited at the front of trains, while Black South Africans waited at the rear. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 386 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective The White ruling class was not homogeneous. The English and Afrikaners belonged to different political parties, lived apart, spoke different languages, and worshipped separately, but they shared the belief that some form of apartheid was necessary. Apartheid can perhaps be best understood as a twentieth-century effort to reestablish the master–slave relationship. Blacks could not vote. They could not move throughout the country freely. They were unable to hold jobs unless the government approved. To work at approved jobs, they were forced to live in temporary quarters at great distances from their real homes. Their access to education, health care, and social services was severely limited (Wilson 1973). Events took a significant turn in 1990, when South African Prime Minister F. W. De Klerk legalized 60 banned Black organizations and freed Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress (ANC), after 27 years of imprisonment. Mandela’s triumphant remarks after his release appear in Listen to Our Voices. Listen to Our Voices Africa, It Is Ours! Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Amandla! Amandla! i-Afrika, able to forgive. The sight of mayibuye! [Power! Power! freedom looming on the horiAfrica, it is ours!] zon should encourage us to My friends, comrades and redouble our efforts. It is only fellow South Africans, I greet through disciplined mass action you all in the name of peace, that our victory can be assured. democracy and freedom for all. We call on our white compaI stand here before you not as triots to join us in the shaping a prophet but as a humble serof a new South Africa. The freevant of you, the people. dom movement is the political Nelson Mandela Your tireless and heroic sachome for you, too. We call on rifices have made it possible for the international community to me to be here today. I therefore place the continue the campaign to isolate the apartremaining years of my life in your hands. heid regime. On this day of my release, I extend my To lift sanctions now would be to run the sincere and warmest gratitude to the milrisk of aborting the process toward the comlions of my compatriots and those in every plete eradication of apartheid. Our march corner of the globe who have campaigned to freedom is irreversible. We must not allow tirelessly for my release. fear to stand in our way. Negotiations on the dismantling of apartUniversal suffrage of a common voters’ heid will have to address the overwhelming role in a united democratic and nonracial demand of our people for a democratic nonSouth Africa is the only way to peace and racial and unitary South Africa. There must racial harmony. be an end to white monopoly on political In conclusion, I wish to go to my own power. words during my trial in 1964. They are And [there must be] a fundamental as true today as they were then. I wrote: restructuring of our political and economic I have fought against white domination, systems to ensure that the inequalities of and I have fought against black dominaapartheid are addressed and our society tion. I have cherished the idea of a demothoroughly democratized. . . . cratic and free society in which all persons Our struggle has reached a decisive live together in harmony and with equal moment. We call on our people to seize this opportunities. moment so that the process toward democIt is an ideal which I hope to live for and racy is rapid and uninterrupted. We have to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for waited too long for our freedom. We can no which I am prepared to die. longer wait. Now is the time to intensify the Source: Mandela 1990. Copyright © 1990 by struggle on all fronts. the New York Times Company. Reprinted by To relax our efforts now would be a mispermission of the New York Times. take which generations to come will not be Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 387 The next year, De Klerk and Black leaders signed a National Peace Accord, pledging themselves to the establishment of a multiparty democracy and an end to violence. After a series of political defeats, De Klerk called for a referendum in 1992 to allow Whites to vote on ending apartheid. If he failed to receive popular support, he vowed to resign. A record high turnout gave a solid 68.6 percent vote that favored the continued dismantling of legal apartheid and the creation of a new constitution through negotiation. The process toward power sharing ended symbolically when De Klerk and Mandela were jointly awarded the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize (Marx 1998; Ottaway and Taylor 1992; Winant 2001). The Era of Reconciliation and Moving On In April 1994, South Africa held its first universal election. Apartheid had ended. Nelson Mandela’s ANC received 62 percent of the vote, giving him a five-year term as president. Mandela enjoyed the advantage of wide personal support throughout the nation. He retired in 1999 when his second term ended. His successors have faced a daunting agenda because of the legacy of apartheid. A significant step to help South Africa move past apartheid was the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). People were allowed to come forward and confess to horrors they had committed under apartheid from 1961 through 1993. If they were judged by the TRC to be truly remorseful, and most were, they were not subject to prosecution. If they failed to confess to all crimes they had committed, they were prosecuted. The stories gripped the country as people learned that actions taken in the name of the Afrikaner government were often worse than anyone had anticipated (Gobodo-Madikizela 2003). The immediate relief that came with the end of apartheid has given way to greater concerns about the future of all South Africans. In Research Focus, we consider how intergroup contact may affect the views expressed by contemporary South Africans. With the emergence of the new multiracial government in South Africa, we see a country with enormous promise but many challenges that are similar to those of our own multiracial society. Some of the controversial issues facing the ANC-led government are very familiar to citizens in the United States. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Desperate poverty: Despite the growth of a small but conspicuous middle class among Black South Africans, poverty rates stand at 40 percent, compared to 4–5 percent of White South Africans. Affirmative action: Race-based employment goals and other preference programs have been proposed, yet critics insist that such efforts constitute reverse apartheid. Medical care: The nation is trying to confront the duality of private care for the affluent (usually Whites) and government-subsidized care (usually for people of color). AIDS has reached devastating levels, with 11 percent of the population having HIV or AIDS as of 2010. Crime: Although the government-initiated violence under apartheid has ended, the generations of conflict and years of intertribal attacks have created a climate for crime, illegal gun ownership, and disrespect for law enforcement. School integration: Multiracial schools are replacing the apartheid system, but for some, the change is occurring too fast or not fast enough. Although 15 percent of Whites hold a college degree, only 1.8 percent of Black South Africans are so advantaged. These issues must be addressed with minimal increases in government spending as the government seeks to reverse deficit spending without an increase in taxes that would frighten away needed foreign investment. As difficult as all these challenges are, perhaps the most difficult is land reform (Dugger 2010; Geddes 2010; South African Institute of Race Relations 2010). The government has pledged to address the issue of land ownership. Between 1960 and 1990, the government forced Black South Africans from their land and often allowed Whites to settle on it. Beginning in 1994, the government took steps to transfer 30 percent of agricultural land to Black South Africans. Where feasible, the government plans to restore the original inhabitants to their land; where this is not feasible, the government is to make “just and equitable compensation.” The magnitude of this land reform issue Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 388 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective contact hypothesis an interactionist perspective stating that intergroup contact between people of equal status in noncompetitive circumstances will reduce prejudice Research Focus )NTERGROUP #ONTACT AND 3OUTH !FRICA There is little question that the Republic of South Africa’s recent history has been defined by racism. With less than two decades since the end of apartheid, every aspect of South African society from transportation to hospitals to sports reflects this legacy. So how do White and Black South Africans get along on a daily basis? They are certainly more likely to meet on an equal-status basis whether it is in schools or the workplace than they were under apartheid. This would seem to be an ideal opportunity to test the validity of contact hypothesis. First introduced in Chapter 2, the contact hypothesis draws upon the interactionist perspective stating that intergroup contact between people of equal status in noncompetitive circumstances will reduce prejudice. Can this hold true in a country with such a long history of intergroup discrimination and conflict supported by the central government? Since the end of apartheid, surveys show that Black Africans are increasingly identifying themselves by the national social identity of “South African” while retaining their own tribal identity. Afrikaans- and English-speaking Whites seem to more increasingly identify with their ethnic group and are less likely to see themselves less as South Africans. This would not seem to suggest that intergroup contact in the new South Africa can lead to lessening of prejudice. Yet, national surveys conducted in the twenty-first century find contact and especially more regular, intimate contact leads to more positive feelings among racial groups in South Africa. Successive studies show increased interaction especially by Whites, as measured by self-reports of having nonWhite friends or dining with those friends. Contact across racial lines seems to have less positive impact on the attitudes held by Black South Africans. Tests of the contact hypothesis among South African college students showed relatively little contact across racial lines but when it does occur, more positive feelings follow, especially among Whites. Why do White South Africans seem to be affected more positively by contact? Even if the contemporary contact is harmonious, it occurs within the social context of unequal power position in which “Whiteness” is privileged over “Blackness.” Researchers note that given the racist backdrop of today’s South Africa, Whites may be quicker to evaluate intergroup contact as equal whereas the long-oppressed Black South Africans may find equal status more difficult to accept. This is understandable since so often even today Black–White relationships are still occurring, with Whites in a distinctly more powerful position, while the reverse is much less likely. Furthermore, given the magnitude of structural change that South Africa must undergo, it may be especially difficult for Black South Africans to be quick to move beyond the Apartheid past. Intergroup contact is not a panacea anywhere, including South Africa, but, rather, one element moving from an exclusionary society to a more pluralistic one. Sources: Bornman 2010, Gibson and Classen 2010; Pettigrew 2010; Tredoux and Finchilescu 2010; Vincent 2008. cannot be minimized. Originally, the goal was to achieve the land transfer by 2004, but this has now been deferred to 2025. Certain critics say at the current rate it will take until 2060 to reach the 2004 objective (South Africa Institute of Race Relations 2010). As shown in the figure below, each society, in its own way, illustrates the processes in the Spectrum of Intergroup Relations first introduced in Chapter 1. The examples range from the Holocaust, which precipitated the emergence of Israel, to the efforts to create a multiracial government in South Africa. A study of these five societies, coupled with knowledge of subordinate groups in the United States, provide the background from which to draw some conclusions about patterns of race and ethnic relations in the world today. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Conclusion Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 389 SPECTRUM OF INTERGROUP RELATIONS SEGREGATION EXPULSION ASSIMILATION INCREASINGLY UNACCEPTABLE MORE TOLERABLE EXTERMINATION SECESSION FUSION PLURALISM or genocide or partitioning or amalgamation or melting pot or multiculturalism Holocaust in Europe precipitated Israeli state formation Initial exile of Jews from Palestine Zionism Goal of some Québécois Quilombos in Brazil Prado in Brazil Apartheid Mexican Indians and Spaniards Indian reserves in Canada ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Palestinian Territory By looking beyond our borders, we gather new insights into the social processes that frame and define intergroup relationships. The colonial experience has played a role in all cases under consideration in this chapter but particularly in South Africa. In Mexico and South Africa, which have long histories of multiethnic societies, intergroup sexual relations have been widespread but with different results. Mestizos in Mexico occupy a middle racial group and experience less tension, whereas in South Africa, the Cape Coloureds had freedoms under apartheid almost as limited as those of the Black Africans. South Africa enforced de jure segregation, whereas Israeli communities seem to have de facto segregation. Israel’s and South Africa’s intergroup conflicts have involved the world community. Indigenous people figure in the social landscape of Canada, Brazil, and Mexico. Policies giving preference to previously devalued racial groups are in place in both Brazil and South Africa. Complete assimilation is absent in all five societies considered in this chapter and is unlikely to occur in the near future; the legal and informal barriers to assimilation and pluralism vary for subordinate people choosing either option. Looking at the status of women in Mexico reminds us of the worldwide nature of gender stratification and Immigrants to Canada Métis of Canada Coloureds of South Africa Status Indians in Canada Multiracial government of South Africa Jewish groups within Israel also offers insight into the patterns present in developing nations. If we add the United States to these societies, the similarities become even more striking. The problems of racial and ethnic adjustment in the United States have dominated our attention, but they parallel past and present experiences in other societies with racial, ethnic, or religious heterogeneity. The U.S. government has been involved in providing educational, financial, and legal support for programs intended to help particular racial or ethnic groups, and it continues to avoid interfering with religious freedom. Bilingual, bicultural programs in schools, autonomy for Native Americans on reservations, and increased participation in decision making by residents of ghettoes and barrios are all viewed as acceptable goals, although they are not pursued to the extent that many subordinate-group people would like. The analysis of this chapter has reminded us of the global nature of dominant–subordinate relations along dimensions of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. In the next chapter, we provide an overview of racial and ethnic relations as well as explore social inequality along the dimensions of age, disability status, and sexual orientation. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 390 Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 7HAT $O 9OU 4HINK Study and Review on mysoclab.com Summary 1. Mexico’s mosaic of mestizos and native indigenous people creates a diversified society, with segments of the population that definitely feel disadvantaged and ignored. 2. Canada, with one of the largest proportions of indigenous peoples, continues to develop strategies to promote economic development while preserving cultural traditions. A similar pattern has emerged among the growing immigrant community. 3. The sizable French-speaking population within Canada has asked and receives consideration for its special cultural heritage, which is not fully endorsed by others in the nation. 4. Brazil is not a racial paradise, as has sometimes been suggested, but continues to deal with significant disparity among people of color. 5. Israel has both a significant Arab population and a diverse Jewish community among whom there are sharp political and religious differences. 6. Palestinians in the occupied territories are in a desperate economic situation that has been aggravated by violent divisions within their ranks and by reprisals from Israel in response to attacks from those within the territories. 7. The apartheid era in South Africa underscores how race can be a tool for total subjugation of millions of people. 8. The South Africa of the post-apartheid era is marked by reconciliation of the different racial groups, which are facing significant issues involving land, education, health, and public safety. Key Terms apartheid / 385 the policy of the South African government intended to maintain separation of Blacks, Coloureds, and Asians from the dominant Whites color gradient / 374 the placement of people on a continuum from light to dark skin color rather than in distinct racial groupings by skin color Diaspora / 380 the exile of Jews from Palestine Intifada / 382 the Palestinian uprising against Israeli authorities in the occupied territories mestizo / 374 people in the Americas of mixed European (usually Spanish) and local indigenous ancestry mulatto escape hatch / 379 notion that Brazilians of mixed ancestry can move into high-status positions pass laws / 385 laws that controlled internal movement by non-Whites in South Africa Québécois / 377 the French-speaking people of the province of Quebec in Canada quilombo / 379 slave hideaways in Brazil visible minorities / 378 in Canada, persons other than Aboriginal or First Nation people who are non-White in racial background world systems theory / 372 a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor Zionism / 381 traditional Jewish religious yearning to return to the biblical homeland, now used to refer to support for the state of Israel Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-63918-4 contact hypothesis / 388 an interactionist perspective stating that intergroup contact between people of equal status in noncompetitive circumstances will reduce prejudice ethnonational conflict / 373 conflicts between ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic groups within nations. These conflicts replace conflicts between nations Chapter 16 Beyond the United States: The Comparative Perspective 391 Review Questions 1. Identify who the native peoples are and what their role has been in each of the societies discussed in this chapter. 2. On what levels can one speak of an identity issue facing Canada as a nation? 4. How have civil uprisings affected intergroup tensions in Mexico and Israel? 5. To what extent are the problems facing Brazil and South Africa today part of the legacy of racial divisions? 3. What role has secession played in Canada and Israel? Critical Thinking 1. Social construction of race emphasizes how we create arbitrary definitions of skin color that then have social consequences. Drawing on the societies discussed, select one nation and identify how social definitions work in other ways to define group boundaries. 3. The conflicts outlined in this chapter are examples of ethnonational conflicts, but how have the actions or inactions of the United States contributed to these problems? 2. Apply the functionalist and conflict approaches of sociology first introduced in Chapter 1 to each of the societies under study in this chapter. MySocLab® Watch. Explore. Read. MySocLab is designed just for you. Each chapter features a pre-test and post-test to help you learn and review key concepts and terms. Experience Racial and Ethnic Relations in action with dynamic visual activities, videos, and readings to enhance your learning experience. Here are a few activities you will find for this chapter: Watch on mysoclab.com Core Concepts video clips feature sociologists in action, exploring important concepts in the study of Ethnicity. Watch:  Synagogue Doubles As Mosque Social Explorer is an interactive application that allows you to explore Census data through interactivemaps. Explore the Social Explorer Report:  Social Explorer Activity: Comparing Ethnicity Changes in the American Population Explore on mysoclab.com MySocLibrary includes primary source readings from various noted sociologists from around the world. Read:  Our Mother’s Grief ISBN 1-256-63918-4 Read on mysoclab.com Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc.
1 CHAPTER OUTLINE Ranking Groups Types of Groups Listen to Our Voices Problem of the Color Line Does Race Matter? Biracial and Multiracial Identity: Who Am I? Research Focus Multiracial Identity Sociology and the Study of Race and Ethnicity The Creation of Subordinate-Group Status The Consequences of Subordinate-Group Status Resistance and Change #ONCLUSION s 3UMMARY s +EY 4ERMS 2EVIEW 1UESTIONS s #RITICAL 4HINKING WHAT WILL YOU LEARN?  How Does Society Rank Different Groups?  What Are the Four Types of Groups?  Does Race Still Matter?  How is Biracial and Multiracial Identity Defined?  How Is Sociology Applied to the Study of Race and Ethnicity?  What Leads to the Creation of Subordinate-Group Status?  What Are the Consequences of Subordinate-Group Status?  How Does Change Occur in Race Relations? ISBN 1-256-48952-2 2 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Minority groups are subordinated in terms of power and privilege to the majority, or dominant group. A minority is defined not by being outnumbered but by five characteristics: unequal treatment, distinguishing physical or cultural traits, involuntary membership, awareness of subordination, and ingroup marriage. Subordinate groups are classified in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. The social importance of race is derived from a process of racial formation; any biological significance is relatively unimportant to society. The theoretical perspectives of functionalism, conflict theory, and labeling offer insights into the sociology of intergroup relations. Immigration, annexation, and colonialism are processes that may create subordinate groups. Other processes such as extermination and expulsion may remove the presence of a subordinate group. Significant for racial and ethnic oppression in the United States today is the distinction between assimilation and pluralism. Assimilation demands subordinate-group conformity to the dominant group, and pluralism implies mutual respect among diverse groups. Minority women are more likely to be poor, which creates what sociologists have termed the matrix of domination. Although dominant groups seek to define the social landscape, groups who experience unequal treatment have in the past resisted power and sought significant social change and continue to do so today. 3 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 4 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Listen to the Chapter Audio on mysoclab.com R ace and ethnicity in the twenty-first century. The United States has a Black president but when his parents were married in 1961 in Hawaii, the marriage of a White person and Black African would have been illegal in 22 of the other states. Shoppers in supermarkets readily find seasonings of chili peppers, cumin, ginger, and roasted coriander, reflecting the influx of immigrants and their food tastes being accepted by more and more Americans. Yet recent research shows that if a person with a strong accent says, “Ants do sleep,” we are less likely to believe it than if said by someone with no accent. Race and ethnicity is exceedingly complex in the United States. A Methodist church in Brooklyn founded by European immigrants more than a century ago is now operated by Latino parishioners whose numbers have dwindled to 30. To keep the church going they lease space to a growing Chinese Methodist church, which numbers over a thousand. Meanwhile, in nearby Queens, a Methodist church split between Latin Americans and Caribbean immigrants has just made room for a separate Pakistani Methodist congregation. Also consider the racial and ethnic stereotypes that are shamelessly exhibited on Halloween, when many young adults view the festivities as a “safe” way to defy social norms. College students report seeing fellow White students dressed in baggy jeans wearing gold chains and drinking malt liquor to represent “gangstas.” Some add blackface makeup to complete the appearance. Such escapades are not limited to misguided youth. National retailers stock a “Kung Fool” ensemble complete with Japanese kimono and a buck-toothed slant-eyed mask. Also available is “Vato Loco,” a stereotyped caricature of a bandana-clad, tattooed Latino gang thug. Racial and ethnic tensions are not limited to the real world; they are also alive and well in the virtual world. Hate groups, anti-Jewish organizations, and even the Ku Klux Klan thrive on Web sites. Such fringe groups, enjoying their First Amendment rights in the United States, spread their messages in many languages globally via the Internet, whereas the creation of such hate sites is banned in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere. Facebook has emerged as a significant way in which people interact, but it also is a means to learn about others by their online profile. Already by 2007, colleges and universities cited Facebook as the major source of prospective students (or their parents) requesting roommate changes even before arriving on campus, because of the intended roommate’s race, religion, or sexual orientation (Collura 2007; Dolnick 2010; Lev-Ari and Keysar 2010; Mueller, Dirks, and Picca 2007; Working 2007). The United States is a very diverse nation and is becoming even more so, as shown in Table 1.1. In 2010, approximately 17 percent of the population was members of racial minorities, and another 16 percent or so were Hispanic. These percentages represent over three out of 10 people in the United States, without counting White ethnic groups or foreignborn Whites. As shown in Figure 1.1, between 2010 and 2050 the Black, Barack Obama’s historic campaign and his Hispanic, Asian, and Native American portion of the population in the elevation to becoming the 44th president of United States is expected to increase from 36 percent to 54 percent. the United States in January 2009 marks a Although the composition of the population is changing, problems of significant moment in U.S. history. The fact that prejudice, discrimination, and mistrust remain. he is the first African American (and also the first Ranking Groups In every society not all groups are treated or viewed equally. Identifying a subordinate group or a minority in a society seems to be a simple task. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 person who is not White) to serve as president demonstrates how much progress has been achieved in race relations in this country. It also serves to underscore both how long it has taken and how much more needs to be accomplished for the United States to truly be “a more perfect union” as stated in the Constitution. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 5 TABLE 1.1 Racial and Ethnic Groups in the United States Classification RACIAL GROUPS Whites (non-Hispanic) Blacks/African Americans Native Americans, Alaskan Natives Asian Americans Chinese Asian Indians Filipinos Vietnamese Koreans Japanese Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, and other Asian Americans ETHNIC GROUPS White ancestry (single or mixed, non-Hispanic) Germans Irish English Italians Poles French Scottish and Scotch-Irish Jews Hispanics (or Latinos) Mexican Americans Puerto Ricans Cubans Salvadorans Dominicans Guatemalans Other Hispanics TOTAL (ALL GROUPS) Number in Thousands Percentage of Total Population 194,553 34,658 2,476 14,229 3,106 2,602 2,476 1,482 1,336 767 2,460 63.0 11.2 0.8 4.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.8 50,708 36,915 27,658 18,085 10,091 9,412 9,417 6,452 50,478 31,798 4,624 1,785 1,648 1,415 1,044 8,164 308,746 16.5 12.0 9.0 5.9 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.1 16.3 10.3 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 2.6 ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Note: All data for 2009 except three racial groups listed at top, Hispanic total and subgroups, and total population figure, which are for 2010. Percentages do not total 100 percent, and subheads do not add up to totals in major categories because of overlap between groups (e.g., Polish American Jews or people of mixed ancestry such as Irish and Italian). Source: 2009 data from American Community Survey 2010:Tables B02006, B03001, C04006; 2010 data from Davidson and Pyle 2011:117; Ennis et al. 2011; Humes et al. 2011. In the United States, the groups readily identified as minorities—Blacks and Native Americans, for example—are outnumbered by non-Blacks and non-Native Americans. However, minority status is not necessarily the result of being outnumbered. A social minority need not be a mathematical one. A minority group is a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than do the members of a dominant or majority group. In sociology, minority means the same as subordinate, and dominant is used interchangeably with majority. Confronted with evidence that a particular minority in the United States is subordinate to the majority, some people respond, “Why not? After all, this is a democracy, so minority group a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than do the members of a dominant or majority group Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 6 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity the majority rules.” However, the subordination of a minority involves more than its inability to rule over society. A member of a African Asian Americans and Pacific subordinate or minority group experiences 12.8% Islanders a narrowing of life’s opportunities—for 5.0% Hispanic Hispanic White success, education, wealth, the pursuit of 31.3% 16.3% non-Hispanic happiness—that goes beyond any personal 46% White shortcoming he or she may have. A minornon-Hispanic ity group does not share in proportion to African 63.9% Americans its numbers what a given society, such as 12.8% American the United States, defines as valuable. Indian Being superior in numbers does not 1.0% guarantee a group control over its desAsian and other tiny and ensure majority status. In 1920, 9.9% the majority of people in Mississippi FIGURE 1.1 and South Carolina were African AmeriPopulation of the United States by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2050 cans. Yet African Americans did not have (Projected) as much control over their lives as did According to projections by the Census Bureau, the proportion of residents of Whites, let alone control of the states of the United States who are White and non-Hispanic will decrease significantly Mississippi and South Carolina. Throughby the year 2015. By contrast, there will be a striking rise in the proportion out the United States today are counties of both Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. or neighborhoods in which the majority Source: Bureau of the Census 2010b. of people are African American, Native American, or Hispanic, but where White Americans are the dominant force. Nationally, 50.7 percent of the population is female, but males still dominate positions of authority and wealth well beyond their numbers. A minority or subordinate group has five characteristics: unequal treatment, distinguishing physical or cultural traits, involuntary membership, awareness of subordination, and ingroup marriage (Wagley and Harris 1958): 2010 2050 (projected) 1. Members of a minority experience unequal treatment and have less power over their lives than members of a dominant group have over theirs. Prejudice, discrimination, segregation, and even extermination create this social inequality. 2. Members of a minority group share physical or cultural characteristics such as skin color or language that distinguish them from the dominant group. Each society has its own arbitrary standard for determining which characteristics are most important in defining dominant and minority groups. 3. Membership in a dominant or minority group is not voluntary: people are born into the group. A person does not choose to be African American or White. 4. Minority-group members have a strong sense of group solidarity. William Graham Sumner, writing in 1906, noted that people make distinctions between members of their own group (the ingroup) and everyone else (the outgroup). When a group is the object of long-term prejudice and discrimination, the feeling of “us versus them” often becomes intense. 5. Members of a minority generally marry others from the same group. A member of a dominant group often is unwilling to join a supposedly inferior minority by marrying one of its members. In addition, the minority group’s sense of solidarity encourages marriage within the group and discourages marriage to outsiders. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Although “minority” status is not about numbers, there is no denying that the White American majority is diminishing in size relative to the growing diversity of racial and ethnic groups, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 7 Perc Percentage or more 5 50.0 to 49.9 3 36.3 to 36.2 2 25.0 to 24.9 1 10.0 then 10.0 L Less FIGURE 1.2 Minority Population by County In four states (California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas) and the District of Columbia, as well as in about one-tenth of all counties, minorities constitute the numerical majority. Types of Groups There are four types of minority or subordinate groups. All four, except where noted, have the five properties previously outlined. The four criteria for classifying minority groups are race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Racial Groups The term racial group is reserved for minorities and the corresponding majorities that are socially set apart because of obvious physical differences. Notice the two crucial words in the definition: obvious and physical. What is obvious? Hair color? Shape of an earlobe? Presence of body hair? To whom are these differences obvious, and why? Each society defines what it finds obvious. In the United States, skin color is one obvious difference. On a cold winter day when one has clothing covering all but one’s head, however, skin color may be less obvious than hair color. Yet people in the United States have learned informally that skin color is important and hair color is unimportant. We need to say more than that. In the United States, people have traditionally classified themselves as either Black or White. There is no in-between state except for people readily identified as Native Americans or Asian Americans. Later in this chapter, we explore this issue more deeply and see how such assumptions have very complex implications. Other societies use skin color as a standard but may have a more elaborate system of classification. In Brazil, where hostility between races is less than in the United States, numerous categories identify people on the basis of skin color. In the United States, a person is Black or White. In Brazil, a variety of terms such as cafuso, mazombo, preto, and escuro are used to describe various combinations of skin color, facial features, and hair texture. racial group a group that is socially set apart because of obvious physical differences Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 8 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity ethnic group a group set apart from others because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns The designation of a racial group emphasizes physical differences as opposed to cultural distinctions. In the United States, minority races include Blacks, Native Americans (or American Indians), Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, Arab Americans, Filipinos, Hawaiians, and other Asian peoples. The issue of race and racial differences has been an important one, not only in the United States but also throughout the entire sphere of European influence. Later in this chapter, we examine race and its significance more closely. We should not forget that Whites are a race too. As we consider in Chapter 5, who is White has been subject to change over time as certain European groups historically were felt not to deserve being considered White, but over time, partly to compete against a growing Black population, the “Whiting” of some European Americans has occurred. Some racial groups may also have unique cultural traditions, as we can readily see in the many Chinatowns throughout the United States. For racial groups, however, the physical distinctiveness and not the cultural differences generally prove to be the barrier to acceptance by the host society. For example, Chinese Americans who are faithful Protestants and know the names of all the members of the Baseball Hall of Fame may be bearers of American culture. Yet these Chinese Americans are still part of a minority because they are seen as physically different. Ethnic Groups Ethnic minority groups are differentiated from the dominant group on the basis of cultural differences such as language, attitudes toward marriage and parenting, and food habits. Ethnic groups are groups set apart from others because of their national origin or distinctive cultural patterns. Ethnic groups in the United States include a grouping that we call Hispanics or Latinos and include Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Latin Americans in the United States. Hispanics can be either Black or White, as in the case of a dark-skinned Puerto Rican who may be taken as Black in central Texas but may be viewed as Puerto Rican in New York City. The ethnic group category also includes White ethnics such as Irish Americans, Polish Americans, and Norwegian Americans. The cultural traits that make groups distinctive usually originate from their homelands or, for Jews, from a long history of being segregated and prohibited from becoming a part of the host society. Once in the United States, an immigrant group may maintain distinctive cultural practices through associations, clubs, and worship. Ethnic enclaves such as a Little Haiti or a Greektown in urban areas also perpetuate cultural distinctiveness. Ethnicity continues to be important, as recent events in Bosnia and other parts of Eastern Europe have demonstrated. More than a century ago, African American sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois, addressing in 1900 an audience at a world antislavery convention in London, called attention to the overwhelming importance of the color line throughout the world. In “Listen to Our Voices,” we read the remarks of Du Bois, the first Black person to receive a doctorate from Harvard, who later helped to organize the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Du Bois’s observations give us a historic perspective on the struggle for equality. We can look ahead, knowing how far we have come and speculating on how much further we have to go. Religious Groups Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Association with a religion other than the dominant faith is the third basis for minoritygroup status. In the United States, Protestants, as a group, outnumber members of all other religions. Roman Catholics form the largest minority religion. Chapter 5 focuses on the increasing Judeo–Christian–Islamic diversity of the United States. For people who are not a part of the Christian tradition, such as followers of Islam, allegiance to the faith often is misunderstood and stigmatizes people. This stigmatization became especially Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 9 Listen to Our Voices Problem of the Color Line ISBN 1-256-48952-2 In the metropolis of the modof culture bends itself towards ern world, in this the closing giving Negroes and other dark year of the nineteenth cenmen the largest and broadest tury, there has been assembled opportunity for education and a congress of men and women self-development, then this of African blood, to delibercontact and influence is bound ate solemnly upon the presto have a beneficial effect upon ent situation and outlook of the world and hasten human the darker races of mankind. progress. But if, by reason of W. E. B. Du Bois The problem of the twentieth carelessness, prejudice, greed, century is the problem of the and injustice, the black world is color line, the question as to how far difto be exploited and ravished and degraded, ferences of race—which show themselves the results must be deplorable, if not fatal— chiefly in the color of the skin and the texnot simply to them, but to the high ideals of ture of the hair—will hereafter be made justice, freedom and culture which a thouthe basis of denying to over half the world sand years of Christian civilization have held the right of sharing to their utmost ability before Europe. . . . the opportunities and privileges of modern Let the world take no backward step in civilization. . . . that slow but sure progress which has sucTo be sure, the darker races are today cessively refused to let the spirit of class, of the least advanced in culture according to caste, of privilege, or of birth, debar from European standards. This has not, however, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness a always been the case in the past, and cerstriving human soul. tainly the world’s history, both ancient and Let not color or race be a feature of modern, has given many instances of no distinction between White and Black men, despicable ability and capacity among the regardless of worth or ability. . . . blackest races of men. Thus we appeal with boldness and conIn any case, the modern world must fidence to the Great Powers of the civiremember that in this age when the ends lized world, trusting in the wide spirit of of the world are being brought so near humanity, and the deep sense of justice of together, the millions of black men in Africa, our age, for a generous recognition of the America, and Islands of the Sea, not to speak righteousness of our cause. of the brown and yellow myriads elsewhere, Source: From W. E. B. Du Bois 1900 [1969a], are bound to have a great influence upon the ABC of Color, pp. 20–21, 23. Copyright 1969 world in the future, by reason of sheer numby International Publishers. bers and physical contact. If now the world widespread and legitimated by government action in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Religious minorities include groups such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Amish, Muslims, and Buddhists. Cults or sects associated with practices such as animal sacrifice, doomsday prophecy, demon worship, or the use of snakes in a ritualistic fashion would also constitute minorities. Jews are excluded from this category and placed among ethnic groups. Culture is a more important defining trait for Jewish people worldwide than is religious dogma. Jewish Americans share a cultural tradition that goes beyond theology. In this sense, it is appropriate to view them as an ethnic group rather than as members of a religious faith. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 10 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Gender Groups Gender is another attribute that creates dominant and subordinate groups. Males are the social majority; females, although numerous, are relegated to the position of the social minority. Women are considered a minority even though they do not exhibit all the characteristics outlined earlier (e.g., there is little ingroup marriage). Women encounter prejudice and discrimination and are physically distinguishable. Group membership is involuntary, and many women have developed a sense of sisterhood. Women who are members of racial and ethnic minorities face a special challenge to achieving equality. They suffer from greater inequality because they belong to two separate minority groups: a racial or ethnic group plus a subordinate gender group. Other Subordinate Groups This book focuses on groups that meet a set of criteria for subordinate status. People encounter prejudice or are excluded from full participation in society for many reasons. Racial, ethnic, religious, and gender barriers are the main ones, but there are others. Age, disability status, physical appearance, and sexual orientation are among some other factors that are used to subordinate groups of people. Does Race Matter? We see people around us—some of whom may look quite different from us. Do these differences matter? The simple answer is no, but because so many people have for so long acted as if difference in physical characteristics as well as geographic origin and shared culture do matter, distinct groups have been created in people’s minds. Race has many meanings for many people. Often these meanings are inaccurate and based on theories discarded by scientists generations ago. As we will see, race is a socially constructed concept (Young 2003). Biological Meaning biological race the mistaken notion of a genetically isolated human group The way the term race has been used by some people to apply to human beings lacks any scientific meaning. We cannot identify distinctive physical characteristics for groups of human beings the same way that scientists distinguish one animal species from another. The idea of biological race is based on the mistaken notion of a genetically isolated human group. Source: Secret Asian Man © Tak Toyoshima. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Given the diversity in the nation, it is not always self-evident how people view themselves in terms of ethnic and racial background, as cartoonist Tak Toyoshima humorously points out. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 11 ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Absence of Pure Races Even among past proponents who believed that sharp, scientific divisions exist among humans, there were endless debates over what the races of the world were. Given people’s frequent migration, exploration, and invasions, pure genetic types have not existed for some time, if they ever did. There are no mutually exclusive races. Skin color among African Americans varies tremendously, as it does among White Americans. There is even an overlapping of dark-skinned Whites and light-skinned African Americans. If we grouped people by genetic resistance to malaria and by fingerprint patterns, then Norwegians and many African groups would be of the same race. If we grouped people by some digestive capacities, some Africans, Asians, and southern Europeans would be of one group and West Africans and northern Europeans of another (Leehotz 1995; Shanklin 1994). Biologically there are no pure, distinct races. Research as a part of the Human Genome Project mapping human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has only served to confirm genetic diversity, with differences within traditionally regarded racial groups (e.g., Black Africans) much greater than that between groups (e.g., between Black Africans and Europeans). Contemporary studies of DNA on a global basis have determined that about 90 percent of human genetic variation is within “local populations,” such as within the French or within the Afghan people. The remaining 10 percent of total human variation is what we think of today as constituting races and accounts for skin color, hair form, nose shape, and so forth (Feldman 2010). Research has also been conducted to determine whether personality characteristics such as temperament and nervous habits are inherited among minority groups. It is no surprise that the question of whether races have different innate levels of intelligence has led to the most explosive controversies (Bamshad and Olson 2003; El-Haj 2007). Intelligence Tests Typically, intelligence is measured as an intelligence quotient (IQ), which is the ratio of a person’s mental age to his or her chronological age, multiplied by 100, with 100 representing average intelligence and higher scores representing greater intelligence. It should be noted that there is little consensus over just what intelligence is, other than as defined by such IQ tests. Intelligence tests are adjusted for a person’s age so that 10-year-olds take a very different test from someone 20 years old. Although research shows that certain learning strategies can improve a person’s IQ, generally IQ remains stable as one ages. A great deal of debate continues over the accuracy of these tests. Are they biased toward people who come to the tests with knowledge similar to that of the test writers? Skeptics argue that such test questions do not truly measure intellectual potential. The issue of cultural bias in tests remains an unresolved concern. The most recent research shows that differences in intelligence scores between Blacks and Whites are almost eliminated when adjustments are made for social and economic characteristics (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, and Duncan 1996; Herrnstein and Murray 1994:30; Kagan 1971; Young 2003). In 1994, an 845-page book unleashed a new national debate on the issue of IQ. This research effort of psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and social scientist Charles Murray, published in The Bell Curve (1994), concluded that 60 percent of IQ is inheritable and that racial groups offer a convenient means to generalize about any differences in intelligence. Unlike most other proponents of the race–IQ link, the authors offered policy suggestions that included ending welfare to discourage births among low-IQ poor women and changing immigration laws so that the IQ pool in the United States is not diminished. Herrnstein and Murray even made generalizations about IQ levels among Asians and Hispanics in the United States, groups subject to even more intermarriage. It is not possible to generalize about absolute differences between groups, such as Latinos versus Whites, when almost half of Latinos in the United States marry non-Hispanics. More than a decade later, the mere mention of the “bell curve” still signals to many people a belief in a racial hierarchy, with Whites toward the top and Blacks near the bottom. The research present then and repeated today points to the difficulty in definitions: What is intelligence, and what constitutes a racial group, given generations (if not centuries) of intermarriage? How can we speak of definitive inherited racial differences if there has been intermarriage between people of every color? Furthermore, as people on both intelligence quotient (IQ) the ratio of a person’s mental age (as computed by an IQ test) to his or her chronological age, multiplied by 100 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 12 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity sides of the debate have noted, regardless of the findings, we would still want to strive to maximize the talents of each individual. All research shows that the differences within a group are much greater than any alleged differences between group averages. Why does such IQ research reemerge if the data are subject to different interpretations? The argument that “we” are superior to “them” is very appealing to the dominant group. It justifies receiving opportunities that are denied to others. We can anticipate that the debate over IQ and the allegations of significant group differences will continue. Policymakers need to acknowledge the difficulty in treating race as a biologically significant characteristic. Social Construction of Race racism a doctrine that one race is superior Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 racial formation a sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed If race does not distinguish humans from one another biologically, then why does it seem to be so important? It is important because of the social meaning people have attached to it. The 1950 (UNESCO) Statement on Race maintains, “for all practical social purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth” (Montagu 1972:118). Adolf Hitler expressed concern over the “Jewish race” and translated this concern into Nazi death camps. Winston Churchill spoke proudly of the “British race” and used that pride to spur a nation to fight. Evidently, race was a useful political tool for two very different leaders in the 1930s and 1940s. Race is a social construction, and this process benefits the oppressor, who defines who is privileged and who is not. The acceptance of race in a society as a legitimate category allows racial hierarchies to emerge to the benefit of the dominant “races.” For example, inner-city drive-by shootings have come to be seen as a race-specific problem worthy of local officials cleaning up troubled neighborhoods. Yet, schoolyard shootouts are viewed as a societal concern and placed on the national agenda. People could speculate that if human groups have obvious physical differences, then they could have corresponding mental or personality differences. No one disagrees that people differ in temperament, potential to learn, and sense of humor. In its social sense, race implies that groups that differ physically also bear distinctive emotional and mental abilities or disabilities. These beliefs are based on the notion that humankind can be divided into distinct groups. We have already seen the difficulties associated with pigeonholing people into racial categories. Despite these difficulties, belief in the inheritance of behavior patterns and in an association between physical and cultural traits is widespread. It is called racism when this belief is coupled with the feeling that certain groups or races are inherently superior to others. Racism is a doctrine of racial supremacy that states one race is superior to another (Bash 2001; Bonilla-Silva 1996). We questioned the biological significance of race in the previous section. In modern complex industrial societies, we find little adaptive utility in the presence or absence of prominent chins, epicanthic folds of the eyelids, or the comparative amount of melanin in the skin. What is important is not that people are genetically different but that they approach one another with dissimilar perspectives. It is in the social setting that race is decisive. Race is significant because people have given it significance. Race definitions are crystallized through what Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994) called racial formation, a sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed. Those in power define groups of people in a certain way that depends on a racist social structure. The Native Americans and the creation of the reservation system for Native Americans in the late 1800s is an example of this racial formation. The federal American Indian policy combined previously distinctive tribes into a single group. No one escapes the extent and frequency to which we are subjected to racial formation. With rising immigration from Latin America in the latter part of the twentieth century, the fluid nature of racial formation is evident. As if it happened in one day, people in the United States have spoken about the Latin Americanization of the United States or that the biracial order of Black and White was now replaced with a triracial order. It is this social context of the changing nature of diversity that we examine to understand how scholars Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 13 have sought to generalize about intergroup relations in the United States and elsewhere (Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich 2011; Frank et al. 2010). In the southern United States, the social construction of race was known as the “onedrop rule.” This tradition stipulated that if a person had even a single drop of “Black blood,” that person was defined and viewed as Black. Today, children of biracial or multiracial marriages try to build their own identities in a country that seems intent on placing them in some single, traditional category—a topic we look at next. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Biracial and Multiracial Identity: Who Am I? People are now more willing to accept and advance identities that do not fit neatly into mutually exclusive categories. Hence, increasing numbers of people are identifying themselves as biracial or multiracial or, at the very least, explicitly viewing themselves as reflecting a diverse racial and ethnic identity. Barack Obama is the most visible person with a biracial background. President Obama has explicitly stated he sees himself as a Black man, although his mother was White. This led him to comment in his post-election press conference to a question about his promise to his children that they could have a dog in the White House. Obama said the dog would most likely be a “mutt,” just like himself (Fram 2008). Explore on mysoclab.com The diversity of the United States today has made it more difficult for many people to place themselves on the racial and ethnic landscape. It reminds us that racial formation continues to take place. Obviously, the racial and ethnic landscape, as we have seen, is constructed not naturally but socially and, therefore, is subject to change and different interpretations. Although our focus is on the United States, almost every nation faces the same problems. The United States tracks people by race and ethnicity for myriad reasons, ranging from attempting to improve the status of oppressed groups to diversifying classrooms. But how can we measure the growing number of people whose ancestry is mixed by anyone’s definition? In “Research Focus” we consider how the U.S. Bureau of the Census dealt with this issue. Besides the increasing respect for biracial identity and multiracial identity, group names undergo change as well. Within little more than a generation during the twentieth century, labels that were applied to subordinate groups changed from Negroes to Blacks to African Americans, from American Indians to Native Americans or Native Peoples. However, more Native Americans prefer the use of their tribal name, such as Seminole, instead of a collective label. The old 1950s statistical term of “people with a Spanish surname” has long been discarded, yet there is disagreement over a new term: Latino or Hispanic. Like Native Americans, Hispanic Americans avoid such global terms and prefer their native names, such as Puerto Ricans or Cubans. People of Mexican ancestry indicate preferences for a variety of names, such as Mexican American, Chicano, or simply Mexican. In the United States and other multiracial, multiethnic societies, panethnicity, the development of solidarity between ethnic subgroups, has emerged. The coalition of tribal groups as Native Americans or American Indians to confront outside forces, notably the federal government, is one example of panethnicity. Hispanics or Latinos and Asian Americans are other examples of panethnicity. Although it is rarely recognized by dominant society, the very term Black or African American represents the descendants of many different ethnic or tribal groups, such as Akamba, Fulani, Hausa, Malinke, and Yoruba (Lopez and Espiritu 1990). Is panethnicity a convenient label for “outsiders” or a term that reflects a mutual identity? Certainly, many people outside the group are unable or unwilling to recognize ethnic differences and prefer umbrella terms such as Asian Americans. For some small groups, combining with others is emerging as a useful way to make them heard, but there is always a fear that their own distinctive culture will become submerged. Although many Hispanics share the Spanish language and many are united by Roman Catholicism, only one in Explore the Concept Social Explore Activity: Increases in the Multiracial Population on mysoclab. com panethnicity the development of solidarity between ethnic subgroups, as reflected in the terms Hispanic or Asian American Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 14 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Research Focus Multiracial Identity Watch the Video Multiracial Identity: Clip 1 mysoclab.com Approaching Census 2000, a movement was spawned by people who were frustrated by government questionnaires that forced them to indicate only one race. Take the case of Stacey Davis in New Orleans. The young woman’s mother is Thai and her father is Creole, a blend of Black, French, and German. People seeing Stacey confuse her for a Latina, Filipina, or Hawaiian. Officially, she has been “White” all her life because she looked White. The census in 2000 for the first time gave people the option to check off one or more racial groups. “Biracial” or “multiracial” was not an option because pretests showed very few people would use it. This meant that the government recognized in Census 2000 different social constructions of racial identity—that is, a person could be Asian American and White. Most people did select one racial category in Census 2000 and again in 2010. Overall, approximately 9 million people, or 2.9 percent of the total population, selected two or more racial groups in 2010. This was a smaller proportion than many observers had anticipated. In fact, not even the majority of mixedrace couples identified their children with more than one racial classification. As shown in Figure 1.3, White and African Americans were the most common multiple identity, with 1.8 million people or so selecting that response. As a group, American Indians were most likely to select a second category and Whites least likely. Race is socially defined. Complicating the situation is that people are asked separately whether they are Hispanic or non-Hispanic. So a Hispanic person can be any race. In the 2010 census, 94 percent indicated they were one race, but 6 percent indicated two or more races; this proportion was twice as high than among non-Hispanics. Therefore, Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanics to indicate a multiracial ancestry. The Census Bureau’s decision does not necessarily resolve the frustration of hundreds of thousands of people such as Stacey Davis, who daily face people trying to place them in some racial or ethnic category that is convenient for them. However, it does underscore the complexity of social construction and trying to apply arbitrary definitions to the diversity of the human population. Symbolic of this social construction of race can be seen in President Barack Obama, born of a White woman and a Black immigrant from Kenya. Although he has always identified himself as a Black man, it is worthy to note he was born in Hawaii, a state in which 23.6 percent of people see themselves as more than one race, compared to the national average of 2.9 percent. Watch on mysoclab.com Sources: DaCosta 2007; Grieco and Cassidy 2001; Humes 2011 et al.:2–11; Jones and Smith 2001; Saulny 2011; Welch 2011; Williams 2005. “White and Black or African American” FIGURE 1.3 Multiple-Race Choices in Census 2010 “White and Asian” 18.0% “White and American Indian and Alaska Native” “Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native” All other combinations of two races Three or more races 15.9% 3.0% 34.4% 8.3% Source: Humes et al. 2011:10. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 This figure shows the percentage distribution of the 9 million people who chose two or more races (out of the total population of 309 million). 20.4% Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 15 four native-born people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban descent prefers a panethnic label to nationality or ethnic identity. Yet the growth of a variety of panethnic associations among many groups, including Hispanics, continued into the twenty-first century (de la Garza, DeSipio, Garcia, Garcia, and Falcon 1992; Espiritu 1992; Steinberg 2007). Another challenge to identity is marginality; the status of being between two cultures, as in the case of a person whose mother is a Jew and father a Christian. Du Bois (1903) spoke eloquently of the “double consciousness” that Black Americans feel—caught between being a citizen of the United States but viewed as something quite apart from the dominant social forces of society. Incomplete assimilation by immigrants also results in marginality. Although a Filipino woman migrating to the United States may take on the characteristics of her new host society, she may not be fully accepted and may, therefore, feel neither Filipino nor American. Marginalized individuals often encounter social situations in which their identities are sources of tension, especially when the expression of multiple identities are not accepted, finds him- or herself being perceived differently in different environments, with varying expectations (Park 1928; Stonequist 1937; Townsend, Markos, and Bergsieker 2009). As we seek to understand diversity in the United States, we must be mindful that ethnic and racial labels are just that: labels that have been socially constructed. Yet these social constructs can have a powerful impact, whether self-applied or applied by others. marginality the status of being between two cultures at the same time, such as the status of Jewish immigrants in the United States sociology the systematic study of social behavior and human groups stratification a structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal rewards and power in a society class as defined by Max Weber, people who share similar levels of wealth Sociology and the Study of Race and Ethnicity Before proceeding further with our study of racial and ethnic groups, let us consider several sociological perspectives that provide insight into dominant–subordinate relationships. Sociology is the systematic study of social behavior and human groups, so it is aptly suited to enlarge our understanding of intergroup relations. There is a long, valuable history of the study of race relations in sociology. Admittedly, it has not always been progressive; indeed, at times it has reflected the prejudices of society. In some instances, scholars who are members of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, as well as women, have not been permitted to make the kind of contributions they are capable of making to the field. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Stratification by Class and Gender All societies are characterized by members having unequal amounts of wealth, prestige, or power. Sociologists observe that entire groups may be assigned less or more of what a society values. The hierarchy that emerges is called stratification. Stratification is the structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal rewards and power in a society. Much discussion of stratification identifies the class, or social ranking, of people who share similar wealth, according to sociologist Max Weber’s classic definition. Mobility from one class to another is not easy. Movement into classes of greater wealth may be particularly difficult for subordinate-group members faced with lifelong prejudice and discrimination (Banton 2008; Gerth and Mills 1958). Recall that the first property of subordinate-group standing is unequal treatment by the dominant group in the form of prejudice, discrimination, and segregation. Stratification is intertwined with the subordination of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups. Race has implications for the way people are treated; so does class. One also has to add the effects of race and class together. For example, being poor and Black is not the same as being either one by itself. A wealthy Mexican American is not the same as an affluent Anglo American or as Mexican Americans as a group. Public discussion of issues such as housing or public assistance often is disguised as a discussion of class issues, when in fact the issues are based primarily on race. Similarly, some topics such as the poorest of the poor or the working poor are addressed in terms of race when the class component should be explicit. Nonetheless, the link between race and class in society is abundantly clear (Winant 2004). Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 16 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity functionalist perspective a sociological approach emphasizing how parts of a society are structured to maintain its stability dysfunction an element of society that may disrupt a social system or decrease its stability Another stratification factor that we need to consider is gender. How different is the situation for women as contrasted with men? Returning again to the first property of minority groups—unequal treatment and less control—treatment of women is not equal to that received by men. Whether the issue is jobs or poverty, education or crime, the experience of women typically is more difficult. In addition, the situation faced by women in areas such as healthcare and welfare raises different concerns than it does for men. Just as we need to consider the role of social class to understand race and ethnicity better, we also need to consider the role of gender. Theoretical Perspectives Sociologists view society in different ways. Some see the world basically as a stable and ongoing entity. The endurance of a Chinatown, the general sameness of male–female roles over time, and other aspects of intergroup relations impress them. Some sociologists see society as composed of many groups in conflict, competing for scarce resources. Within this conflict, some people or even entire groups may be labeled or stigmatized in a way that blocks their access to what a society values. We examine three theoretical perspectives that are widely used by sociologists today: the functionalist, conflict, and labeling perspectives. Functionalist Perspective In the view of a functionalist, a society is like a living organism in which each part contributes to the survival of the whole. The functionalist perspective emphasizes how the parts of society are structured to maintain its stability. According to this approach, if an aspect of social life does not contribute to a society’s stability or survival, then it will not be passed on from one generation to the next. It seems reasonable to assume that bigotry between races offers no such positive function, and so we ask, why does it persist? Although agreeing that racial hostility is hardly to be admired, the functionalist would point out that it serves some positive functions from the perspective of the racists. We can identify five functions that racial beliefs have for the dominant group: 1. Racist ideologies provide a moral justification for maintaining a society that routinely deprives a group of its rights and privileges. 2. Racist beliefs discourage subordinate people from attempting to question their lowly status and performing “the dirty work”; to do so is to question the very foundation of the society. 3. Racial ideologies not only justify existing practices but also serve as a rallying point for social movements, as seen in the rise of the Nazi party or present-day Aryan movements. 4. Racist myths encourage support for the existing order. Some argue that if there were any major societal change, the subordinate group would suffer even greater poverty, and the dominant group would suffer lower living standards. 5. Racist beliefs relieve the dominant group of the responsibility to address the economic and educational problems faced by subordinate groups. As a result, racial ideology grows when a value system (e.g., that underlying a colonial empire or slavery) is being threatened (Levin and Nolan 2011:115–145; Nash 1962). There are also definite dysfunctions caused by prejudice and discrimination. Dysfunctions are elements of society that may disrupt a social system or decrease its stability. There are six ways in which racism is dysfunctional to a society, including to its dominant group: 2. Discrimination aggravates social problems such as poverty, delinquency, and crime and places the financial burden of alleviating these problems on the dominant group. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 1. A society that practices discrimination fails to use the resources of all individuals. Discrimination limits the search for talent and leadership to the dominant group. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 17 3. Society must invest a good deal of time and money to defend the barriers that prevent the full participation of all members. 4. Racial prejudice and discrimination undercut goodwill and friendly diplomatic relations between nations. They also negatively affect efforts to increase global trade. 5. Social change is inhibited because change may assist a subordinate group. 6. Discrimination promotes disrespect for law enforcement and for the peaceful settlement of disputes. That racism has costs for the dominant group as well as for the subordinate group reminds us that intergroup conflict is exceedingly complex (Bowser and Hunt 1996; Feagin, Vera, and Batur 2000; Rose 1951). conflict perspective a sociological approach that assumes that the social structure is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups blaming the victim portraying the problems of racial and ethnic minorities as their fault rather than recognizing society’s responsibilities ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Conflict Perspective In contrast to the functionalists’ emphasis on stability, conflict sociologists see the social world as being in continual struggle. The conflict perspective assumes that the social structure is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups. The result of this conflict is significant economic disparity and structural inequality in education, the labor market, housing, and healthcare delivery. Specifically, society is a struggle between the privileged (the dominant group) and the exploited (the subordinate group). Such conflicts need not be physically violent and may take the form of immigration restrictions, real estate practices, or disputes over cuts in the federal budget. The conflict model often is selected today when one is examining race and ethnicity because it readily accounts for the presence of tension between competing groups. According to the conflict perspective, competition takes place between groups with unequal amounts of economic and political power. The minorities are exploited or, at best, ignored by the dominant group. The conflict perspective is viewed as more radical and activist than functionalism because conflict theorists emphasize social change and the redistribution of resources. Functionalists are not necessarily in favor of inequality; rather, their approach helps us understand why such systems persist. Those who follow the conflict approach to race and ethnicity have remarked repeatedly that the subordinate group is criticized for its low status. That the dominant group is responsible for subordination is often ignored. William Ryan (1976) calls this an instance of blaming the victim: portraying the problems of racial and ethnic minorities as their fault rather than recognizing society’s responsibility. From the conflict perspective, the emphasis should not be primarily on the attributes of the individual (i.e., “blaming the victim”) but on structural factors such as the labor market, affordable housing, and availability of programs to assist people with addiction or mental health issues. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 18 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity labeling theory a sociological approach introduced by Howard Becker that attempts to explain why certain people are viewed as deviants and others engaging in the same behavior are not stereotypes unreliable, exaggerated generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account self-fulfilling prophecy the tendency to respond to and act on the basis of stereotypes, a predisposition that can lead one to validate false definitions Conflict theorists consider the costs that come with residential segregation. Besides the more obvious cost of reducing housing options, racial and social class isolation reduces for people (including Whites) all available options in schools, retail shopping, and medical care. People can travel to access services and businesses, and it is more likely that racial and ethnic minorities will have to make that sometimes costly and time-consuming trip (Carr and Kutty 2008). Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Labeling Approach Related to the conflict perspective and its concern over blaming the victim is labeling theory, a concept introduced by sociologist Howard Becker to explain why certain people are viewed as deviant and others engaging in the same behavior are not. Students of crime and deviance have relied heavily on labeling theory. According to labeling theory, a youth who misbehaves may be considered and treated as a delinquent if he or she comes from the “wrong kind of family.” Another youth from a middle-class family who commits the same sort of misbehavior might be given another chance before being punished. The labeling perspective directs our attention to the role that negative stereotypes play in race and ethnicity. The image that prejudiced people maintain of a group toward which they hold ill feelings is called a stereotype. Stereotypes are unreliable generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account. The warrior image of Native American (American Indian) people is perpetuated by the frequent use of tribal names or even names such as “Indians” and “Redskins” for sports teams. In Chapter 2, we review some of the research on the stereotyping of minorities. This labeling is not limited to racial and ethnic groups, however. For instance, age can be used to exclude a person from an activity in which he or she is qualified to engage. Groups are subjected to stereotypes and discrimination in such a way that their treatment resembles that of social minorities. Social prejudice exists toward ex-convicts, gamblers, alcoholics, lesbians, gays, prostitutes, people with AIDS, and people with disabilities, to name a few. The labeling approach points out that stereotypes, when applied by people in power, can have very negative consequences for people or groups identified falsely. A crucial aspect of the relationship between dominant and subordinate groups is the prerogative of the dominant group to define society’s values. U.S. sociologist William I. Thomas (1923), an early critic of racial and gender discrimination, saw that the “definition of the situation” could mold the personality of the individual. In other words, Thomas observed that people respond not only to the objective features of a situation (or person) but also to the meaning these features have for them. So, for example, a lone walker seeing a young Black man walking toward him may perceive the situation differently than if the oncoming person is an older woman. In this manner, we can create false images or stereotypes that become real in their social consequences. In certain situations, we may respond to negative stereotypes and act on them, with the result that false definitions become accurate. This is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. A person or group described as having particular characteristics begins to display the very traits attributed to him or her. Thus, a child who is praised for being a natural comic may focus on learning to become funny to gain approval and attention. Self-fulfilling prophecies can be devastating for minority groups (Figure 1.4). Such groups often find that they are allowed to hold only low-paying jobs with little prestige or opportunity for advancement. The rationale of the dominant society is that these minority people lack the ability to perform in more important and lucrative positions. Training to become scientists, executives, or physicians is denied to many subordinate-group individuals (SGIs), who are then locked into society’s inferior jobs. As a result, the false definition becomes real. The subordinate group has become inferior because it was defined at the start as inferior and was, therefore, prevented from achieving the levels attained by the majority. Because of this vicious circle, a talented subordinate-group person may come to see the worlds of entertainment and professional sports as his or her only hope for achieving wealth and fame. Thus, it is no accident that successive waves of Irish, Jewish, Italian, African American, and Hispanic performers and athletes have made their mark on culture in Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 19 FIGURE 1.4 White taxpayers do not want to waste money SGI is inferior by cultural measures of success SGI has self-doubt and self-hate SGI attends poorly financed school (Judged by others) (Judged by himself or herself) Self-Fulfilling Prophecy SGI drops out or SGI pushed out or SGI has less job opportunity SGI performs poorly on exams SGI 1. Has poor health 2. Shops at less -attractive stores with higher prices 3. Has poor housing 4. Is more likely to be a crime victim SGI earns less money SGI = subordinate-group individual The self-validating effects of dominant-group definitions are shown here. The subordinate-group individual attends a poorly financed school and is left unequipped to perform jobs that offer high status and pay. He or she then gets a low-paying job and must settle for a standard of living far short of society’s standards. Because the person shares these societal standards, he or she may begin to feel self-doubt and self-hatred. the United States. Unfortunately, these very successes may convince the dominant group that its original stereotypes were valid—that these are the only areas of society in which subordinate-group members can excel. Furthermore, athletics and the arts are highly competitive areas. For every LeBron James and Jennifer Lopez who makes it, many, many more SGIs will end up disappointed. The Creation of Subordinate-Group Status Three situations are likely to lead to the formation of a relationship between a subordinate group and the dominant group. A subordinate group emerges through migration, annexation, and colonialism. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Migration People who emigrate to a new country often find themselves a minority in that new country. Cultural or physical traits or religious affiliation may set the immigrant apart from the dominant group. Immigration from Europe, Asia, and Latin America has been a powerful force in shaping the fabric of life in the United States. Migration is the general term used to describe any transfer of population. Emigration (by emigrants) describes leaving a country to settle in another; immigration (by immigrants) denotes coming into the new country. From Vietnam’s perspective, the “boat people” were emigrants from Vietnam to the United States, but in the United States they were counted among this nation’s immigrants. Although people may migrate because they want to, leaving the home country is not always voluntary. Conflict or war has displaced people throughout human history. In the twentieth century, we saw huge population movements caused by two world wars; revolutions in Spain, Hungary, and Cuba; the partition of British India; conflicts in Southeast Asia, Korea, and Central America; and the confrontation between Arabs and Israelis. In all types of movement, even the movement of a U.S. family from Ohio to Florida, two sets of forces operate: push factors and pull factors. Push factors discourage a person from remaining where he or she lives. Religious persecution and economic factors such as dissatisfaction with employment opportunities are possible push factors. Pull factors, such as a better standard of living, friends and relatives who have already emigrated, and a promised job, attract an immigrant to a particular country. migration a general term that describes any transfer of population emigration leaving a country to settle in another immigration coming into a new country as a permanent resident Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 20 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity globalization worldwide integration of government policies, cultures, social movements, and financial markets through trade, movements of people, and the exchange of ideas colonialism a foreign power’s maintenance of political, social, economic, and cultural dominance over people for an extended period Although generally we think of migration as a voluntary process, much of the population transfer that has occurred in the world has been involuntary. The forced movement of people into another society guarantees a subordinate role. Involuntary migration is no longer common; although enslavement has a long history, all industrialized societies today prohibit such practices. Of course, many contemporary societies, including the United States, bear the legacy of slavery. Migration has taken on new significance in the twenty-first century partly because of globalization, or the worldwide integration of government policies, cultures, social movements, and financial markets through trade and the exchange of ideas. The increased movement of people and money across borders has made the distinction between temporary and permanent migration less meaningful. Although migration has always been fluid, people in today’s global economy are connected across societies culturally and economically as never before. Even after they have relocated, people maintain global linkages to their former country and with a global economy (Richmond 2002). Annexation world systems theory a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor Nations, particularly during wars or as a result of war, incorporate or attach land. This new land is contiguous to the nation, as in the German annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 and in the U.S. Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican–American War in 1848 gave the United States California, Utah, Nevada, most of New Mexico, and parts of Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado. The indigenous peoples in some of this huge territory were dominant in their society one day, only to become minority-group members the next. When annexation occurs, the dominant power generally suppresses the language and culture of the minority. Such was the practice of Russia with the Ukrainians and Poles and of Prussia with the Poles. Minorities try to maintain their cultural integrity despite annexation. Poles inhabited an area divided into territories ruled by three countries but maintained their own culture across political boundaries. Colonialism Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Colonialism has been the most common way for one group of people to dominate another. Colonialism is the maintenance of political, social, economic, and cultural dominance over people by a foreign power for an extended period (Bell 1991). Colonialism is rule by outsiders but, unlike annexation, does not involve actual incorporation into the dominant people’s nation. The long-standing control that was exercised by the British Empire over much of North America, parts of Africa, and India is an example of colonial domination (see Figure 1.5). Societies gain power over a foreign land through military strength, sophisticated political organization, and investment capital. The extent of power may also vary according to the dominant group’s scope of settlement in the colonial land. Relations between the colonial nation and the colonized people are similar to those between a dominant group and exploited subordinate groups. The colonial subjects generally are limited to menial jobs and the wages from their labor. The natural resources of their land benefit the members of the ruling class. By the 1980s, colonialism, in the sense of political rule, had become largely a phenomenon of the past, yet industrial countries of North America and Europe still dominated the world economically and politically. Drawing on the conflict perspective, sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) views the global economic system of today as much like the height of colonial days. Wallerstein has advanced the world systems theory, which views the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor. The limited economic resources available in developing nations exacerbate many of the ethnic, racial, and religious conflicts noted at the beginning of this chapter. In addition, the presence of massive inequality between nations only serves to encourage immigration generally and, more specifically, the movement of many of the most skilled from developing nations to the industrial nations. Chapter 1 GREENLAND (DENMARK) ALASKA (U.S.) ICELAND (DENMARK) SWEDEN PORTUGAL UNITED STATES ATLANTIC OCEAN SPAIN RUSSIAN EMPIRE GERMAN EMPIRE AUSTRIAHUNGARY ITALY GREECE OTTOMAN EMPIRE MOROCCO TRIPOLI EGYPT PUERTO RICO (U.S.) CUBA FRENCH WEST AFRICA COLOMBIA LIBERIA EQ UA T Equator ECUADOR KOREA JAPAN PACIFIC OCEAN ARABIA INDIA BURMA FRENCH SIAM INDOCHINA PHILIPPINE ISLANDS PACIFIC ISLANDS (GERMAN, 1899) BRITISH EAST AFRICA BELGIAN CONGO GERMAN EAST AFRICA MO ZA MB BOLIVIA GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA PARAGUAY URUGUAY CHILE CHINA ANGLOEGYPTIAN SUDAN ETHIOPIA CH EN FR ANGOLA BRAZIL PERU RI OR IA VENEZUELA NC HU AFGHANISTAN PERSIA DU TCH E AST INDIES INDIAN OCEAN IQUE MEXICO L AFRICA PACIFIC OCEAN MA A DENMARK THE NETHERLANDS GREAT BRITAIN BELGIUM FRANCE CANADA Exploring Race and Ethnicity 21 MADAGASCAR AUSTRALIA ARGENTINA NEW ZEALAND WORLD COLONIAL EMPIRES, S, 1900 Belgium B German Empire G Italy It Portugal P United States U FFrance Great Britain G TThe Netherlands Spain S Other independent states O FIGURE 1.5 World Colonial Empires (1900) Events of the nineteenth century increased European dominance over the world. By 1900, most independent African nations had disappeared, and the major European powers and Japan took advantage of China’s internal weakness to gain both trading ports and economic concessions. Source: H. W. Brands et al. 2009:582. The Consequences of Subordinate-Group Status There are several consequences for a group with subordinate status. These differ in their degree of harshness, ranging from physical annihilation to absorption into the dominant group. In this section, we examine six consequences of subordinate-group status: extermination, expulsion, secession, segregation, fusion, and assimilation. The figure below illustrates how these consequences can be defined using the spectrum of intergroup relations. SPECTRUM OF INTERGROUP RELATIONS ISBN 1-256-48952-2 EXPULSION SEGREGATION ASSIMILATION INCREASINGLY UNACCEPTABLE MORE TOLERABLE EXTERMINATION SECESSION FUSION PLURALISM or genocide or partitioning or amalgamation or melting pot or multiculturalism Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 22 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity genocide the deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation ethnic cleansing forced deportation of people, accompanied by systematic violence Extermination The most extreme way of dealing with a subordinate group is to eliminate it. Today, the term genocide is used to describe the deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation. This term is often used in reference to the Holocaust, Nazi Germany’s extermination of 12 million European Jews and other ethnic minorities during World War II. The term ethnic cleansing refers to the forced deportation of people, accompanied by systematic violence. The term was introduced in 1992 to the world’s vocabulary as ethnic Serbs instituted a policy intended to “cleanse”—eliminate—Muslims from parts of Bosnia. More recently, a genocidal war between the Hutu and Tutsi people in Rwanda left 300,000 school-age children orphaned (Chirot and Edwards 2003; Naimark 2004). However, genocide also appropriately describes White policies toward Native Americans in the nineteenth century. In 1800, the American Indian population in the United States was approximately 600,000; by 1850, it had been reduced to 250,000 through warfare with the U.S. Army, disease, and forced relocation to inhospitable environments. In 2008, the Australian government officially apologized for past treatment of its native people, the Aboriginal population. Not only did this involve brutality and neglect, but also a quarter of their children, the so-called lost generation, were taken from their families until the policy was finally abandoned in 1969 (Johnston 2008). Expulsion Dominant groups may choose to force a specific subordinate group to leave certain areas or even vacate a country. Expulsion, therefore, is another extreme consequence of minority-group status. European colonial powers in North America and eventually the U.S. government itself drove almost all Native Americans out of their tribal lands and into unfamiliar territory. More recently, beginning in 2009 France expelled over 10,000 ethnic Roma (or Gypsies) back to their home countries of Bulgaria and Romania. This appeared to violate the European Union’s (EU) ban against targeting ethnic groups as well as Europe’s policy of “freedom of movement.” In 2011, the EU withdrew its threat of legal action against France when the government said it would no longer expel Roma in particular but only those living in “illegal camps,” which many observers felt was only a technical way for the country to get around long-standing human rights policies. Secession Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 A group ceases to be a subordinate group when it secedes to form a new nation or moves to an already established nation, where it becomes dominant. After Great Britain withdrew from Palestine, Jewish people achieved a dominant position in 1948, attracting Jews from throughout the world to the new state of Israel. Similarly, Pakistan was created in 1947 when India was partitioned. The predominantly Muslim areas in the north became Pakistan, making India predominantly Hindu. Throughout this century, minorities have repudiated dominant customs. In this spirit, the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Armenian peoples, not content to be merely tolerated by the majority, all seceded to form independent states after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1999, ethnic Albanians fought bitterly for their cultural and political recognition in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia. Some African Americans have called for secession. Suggestions dating back to the early 1700s supported the return of Blacks to Africa as a solution to racial problems. The settlement target of the American Colonization Society was Liberia, but proposals were also advanced to establish settlements in other areas. Territorial separatism and the emigrationist ideology were recurrent and interrelated themes among African Americans from the late nineteenth century well into the 1980s. The Black Muslims, or Nation of Islam, once expressed the desire for complete separation in their own state or territory within the modern borders of the United States. Although a secession of Blacks from the United States has not taken place, it has been proposed. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 23 Segregation Segregation is the physical separation of two groups in residence, workplace, and social functions. Generally, the dominant group imposes segregation on a subordinate group. Segregation is rarely complete, however; intergroup contact inevitably occurs even in the most segregated societies. Sociologists Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton wrote American Apartheid (1993), which described segregation in U.S. cities on the basis of 1990 data. The title of their book was meant to indicate that neighborhoods in the United States resembled the segregation of the rigid government-imposed racial segregation that prevailed for so long in the Republic of South Africa. Analysis of census data shows continuing segregation despite racial and ethnic diversity in the nation. Scholars use a segregation index to measure separation. This index ranges from 0 (complete integration) to 100 (complete segregation), where the value indicates the percentage of the minority group that needs to move to be distributed exactly like Whites. So a segregation index of 60 for Blacks–Whites would mean that 60 percent of all African Americans would have to move to be residing just like Whites were. Using census data for the five years ending in 2009 shows the following metropolitan areas with the highest segregation indexes: segregation the physical separation of two groups, often imposed on a subordinate group by the dominant group resegregation the physical separation of racial and ethnic groups reappearing after a period of relative integration ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Black–White Milwaukee (81), Detroit (80), New York (79), Chicago (78) Hispanic–White Springfield, MA (64), New York (63), Los Angeles (63), Providence (62) Asian–White Pittsburgh (60), Youngstown (59), Buffalo (59), Birmingham, AL (59) Generally there has been very modest decline in residential segregation for African Americans since 2000; it has generally increased for Asian Americans and Latinos. Regardless, the racial isolation remains dramatic. The typical White lives in a neighborhood 79 percent White; the typical African American resides in an area 46 percent Black. The corresponding figures for Latinos and Asian Americans are 45 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Even when we consider social class, the patterns of minority segregation persist (Bureau of the Census 2010b; Kryan, Farley, and Cooper 2004; Frey 2011; Wilkes and Iceland 2004). This focus on metropolitan areas should not cause us to ignore the continuing legally sanctioned segregation of Native Americans on reservations. Although the majority of our nation’s first inhabitants live outside these tribal areas, the reservations play a prominent role in the identity of Native Americans. Although it is easier to maintain tribal identity on the reservation, economic and educational opportunities are more limited in these areas, which are segregated from the rest of society. A particularly troubling pattern has been the emergence of resegregation, or the physical separation of racial and ethnic groups reappearing after a period of relative integration. Resegregation has occurred in both neighborhoods and schools after a transitional period of desegregation. For example, in 1954, only one in 100,000 Black students attended a majority White school in the South. Thanks to the civil rights movement and a series of civil rights measures, by 1968, this was up to 23 percent and then 47 percent by 1988. But after White households relocated or alternatives reemerged through private schools and homeschooling, the proportion had dropped back to 27 percent in 2004. The latest analysis shows continuing if not increasing racial isolation While still not typical, more couples are crossing racial and ethnic boundaries in the (Orfield 2007; Orfield and Lee 2007; Rich 2008). Given segregation patterns, many Whites in the United States have limited United States today than any generation before. Clearly this will increase contact with people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. In one study of the potential for their children to identify as 100 affluent powerful White men that looked at their experiences past and biracial or multiracial rather than in a single present, it was clear they had lived in a “White bubble”—neighborhoods, category. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 24 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity fusion a minority and a majority group combining to form a new group amalgamation the process by which a dominant group and a subordinate group combine through intermarriage to form a new group melting pot diverse racial or ethnic groups or both, forming a new creation, a new cultural entity assimilation the process by which a subordinate individual or group takes on the characteristics of the dominant group schools, elite colleges, and workplaces were overwhelmingly White. The continuing pattern of segregation in the United States means our diverse population grows up in very different nations (Bonilla-Silva and Embrick 2007; Feagin and O’Brien 2003). Fusion Fusion occurs when a minority and a majority group combine to form a new group. This combining can be expressed as A + B + C S D, where A, B, and C represent the groups present in a society and D signifies the result, an ethnocultural-racial group sharing some of the characteristics of each initial group. Mexican people are an example of fusion, originating as they do out of the mixing of the Spanish and indigenous Indian cultures. Theoretically, fusion does not entail intermarriage, but it is very similar to amalgamation, or the process by which a dominant group and a subordinate group combine through intermarriage into a new people. In everyday speech, the words fusion and amalgamation are rarely used, but the concept is expressed in the notion of a human melting pot in which diverse racial or ethnic groups form a new creation, a new cultural entity (Newman 1973). The analogy of the cauldron, the “melting pot,” was first used to describe the United States by the French observer Crèvecoeur in 1782. The phrase dates back to the Middle Ages, when alchemists attempted to change less-valuable metals into gold and silver. Similarly, the idea of the human melting pot implied that the new group would represent only the best qualities and attributes of the different cultures contributing to it. The belief in the United States as a melting pot became widespread in the early twentieth century. This belief suggested that the United States had an almost divine mission to destroy artificial divisions and create a single kind of human. However, the dominant group had indicated its unwillingness to welcome such groups as Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, and Irish Roman Catholics into the melting pot. It is a mistake to think of the United States as an ethnic mixing bowl. Although there are superficial signs of fusion, as in a cuisine that includes sauerkraut and spaghetti, most contributions of subordinate groups are ignored (Gleason 1980). Marriage patterns indicate the resistance to fusion. People are unwilling, in varying degrees, to marry outside their own ethnic, religious, and racial groups. Until relatively recently interracial marriage was outlawed in much of the United States. As noted earlier, at the time that President Barack Obama’s parents married in Hawaii, their union would have been illegal and unable to occur in 22 other states. Surveys show that 20–50 percent of various White ethnic groups report single ancestry. When White ethnics do cross boundaries, they tend to marry within their religion and social class. For example, Italians are more likely to marry Irish, who are also Catholic, than they are to marry Protestant Swedes. Although it may seem that interracial matches are everywhere, there is only modest evidence of a fusion of races in the United States. Racial intermarriage has been increasing. In 1980, there were 651,000 interracial couples, but by 2009, there were 2.4 million. That is still less than 4 percent of married couples. Among couples in which at least one member is Hispanic, marriages with a non-Hispanic partner account for 28 percent. Taken together, all interracial and Hispanic–nonHispanic couples account for 8 percent of married couples today. But this includes decades of marriages. Among new ones, about 15 percent of marriage are between people of different races or between Hispanics and non-Hispanics (Bureau of the Census 2010a:Table 60; Taylor et al. 2010). Assimilation Black Places: Strategic Assimilation and Identity Construction in Middle-Class Suburbia on mysoclab.com Assimilation is the process by which a subordinate individual or group takes on the characteristics of the dominant group and is eventually accepted as part of that group. Assimilation is a majority ideology in which A + B + C S A. The majority (A) dominates in such a way that the minorities (B and C) become indistinguishable from the dominant group. Assimilation dictates conformity to the dominant group, regardless of how many racial, ethnic, or religious groups are involved (Newman 1973:53). Read on mysoclab.com Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Read the Document Black Spaces, Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 25 One aspect of assimilation is when immigrants seek to learn the language of the host society, as shown in this adult English as a Second Language class in Minneapolis, Minnesota. To be complete, assimilation must entail an active effort by the minority-group individual to shed all distinguishing actions and beliefs and the unqualified acceptance of that individual by the dominant society. In the United States, dominant White society encourages assimilation. The assimilation perspective tends to devalue alien culture and to treasure the dominant. For example, assimilation assumes that whatever is admirable among Blacks was adapted from Whites and that whatever is bad is inherently Black. The assimilation solution to Black–White conflict has been typically defined as the development of a consensus around White American values. Assimilation is very difficult. The person must forsake his or her cultural tradition to become part of a different, often antagonistic culture. However, assimilation should not be viewed as if immigrants are extraterrestrials. Cross-border movement is often preceded by adjustments and awareness of the culture that awaits the immigrant (Skrentny 2008). Assimilation does not occur at the same pace for all groups or for all individuals in the same group. Typically, assimilation is not a process completed by the first generation. Assimilation tends to take longer under the following conditions:  The differences between the minority and the majority are large. The majority is not receptive, or the minority retains its own culture.  The minority group arrives over a short period of time.  The minority-group residents are concentrated rather than dispersed.  The arrival is recent, and the homeland is accessible.  Assimilation is not a smooth process (Warner and Srole 1945). Assimilation is viewed by many as unfair or even dictatorial. However, members of the dominant group see it as reasonable that people shed their distinctive cultural traditions. In public discussions today, assimilation is the ideology of the dominant group in forcing people how to act. Consequently, the social institutions in the United States—the educational system, economy, government, religion, and medicine—all push toward assimilation, with occasional references to the pluralist approach. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 The Pluralist Perspective Thus far, we have concentrated on how subordinate groups cease to exist (removal) or take on the characteristics of the dominant group (assimilation). The alternative to these relationships between the majority and the minority is pluralism. Pluralism implies that various groups in a society have mutual respect for one another’s culture, a respect that allows minorities to express their own culture without suffering prejudice or discrimination. pluralism mutual respect between the various groups in a society for one another’s cultures, allowing minorities to express their own culture without experiencing prejudice or hostility Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 26 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity Whereas the assimilationist or integrationist seeks the elimination of ethnic boundaries, the pluralist believes in maintaining many of them. There are limits to cultural freedom. A Romanian immigrant to the United States cannot expect to avoid learning English and still move up the occupational ladder. To survive, a society must have a consensus among its members on basic ideals, values, and beliefs. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of room for variety. Earlier, fusion was described as A + B + C S D and assimilation as A + B + C S A Using this same scheme, we can think of pluralism as A + B + C S A + B + C, with groups coexisting in one society (Manning 1995; Newman 1973; Simpson 1995). In the United States, cultural pluralism is more an ideal than a reality. Although there are vestiges of cultural pluralism—in the various ethnic neighborhoods in major cities, for instance—the rule has been for subordinate groups to assimilate. Yet as the minority becomes the numerical majority, the ability to live out one’s identity becomes a bit easier. African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, and Asian Americans already outnumber Whites in most of the largest cities. The trend is toward even greater diversity. Nonetheless, the cost of cultural integrity throughout the nation’s history has been high. The various Native American tribes have succeeded to a large extent in maintaining their heritage, but the price has been bare subsistence on federal reservations. In the United States, there is a reemergence of ethnic identification by groups that had previously expressed little interest in their heritage. Groups that make up the dominant majority are also reasserting their ethnic heritages. Various nationality groups are rekindling interest in almost forgotten languages, customs, festivals, and traditions. In some instances, this expression of the past has taken the form of a protest against exclusion from the dominant society. For example, Chinese youths chastise their elders for forgetting the old ways and accepting White American influence and control. The most visible expression of pluralism is language use. As of 2008, nearly one in every five people (19.1 percent) over age five speaks a language other than English at home. Later, in Chapters 4 and 5, we consider how language use figures into issues relating to immigration and education (American Community Survey 2009:Table S1601). Facilitating a diverse and changing society emerges in just about every aspect of society. Yet another nod to pluralism, although not nearly so obvious as language to the general population, has been the changes within the funeral industry. Where Christian and Jewish funeral practices have dominated, funeral homes are now retraining to accommodate a variety of practices. Latinos often expect 24-hour viewing of their deceased, whereas Muslims may wish to participate in washing the deceased before burial in a grave pointing toward Mecca. Hindu and Buddhist requests to participate in cremation are now being respected (Brulliard 2006). Resistance and Change Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 By virtue of wielding power and influence, the dominant group may define the terms by which all members of society operate. This is particularly evident in a slave society, but even in contemporary industrialized nations, the dominant group has a disproportionate role in shaping immigration policy, the curriculum of the schools, and the content of the media. Subordinate groups do not merely accept the definitions and ideology proposed by the dominant group. A continuing theme in dominant–subordinate relations is the minority group’s challenge to its subordination. Resistance by subordinate groups is well documented as they seek to promote change that will bring them more rights and privileges, if not true equality. Often traditional notions of racial formation are overcome not only through panethnicity but also because Black people, along with Latinos and sympathetic Whites, join in the resistance (Moulder 1996; Winant 2004). Resistance can be seen in efforts by racial and ethnic groups to maintain their identity through newspapers and organizations and in today’s technological age through cable television stations, blogs, and Internet sites. Resistance manifests itself in social movements such as the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and gay rights efforts. The Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 27 ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Through recent efforts of collective action, African American farmers successfully received Congressional approval in 2010 for compensation denied them in the latter 1900s by the Department of Agriculture. passage of such legislation as the Age Discrimination Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act marks the success of oppressed groups in lobbying on their own behalf. Resistance efforts may begin through small actions. For example, residents of a reservation question why a toxic waste dump is to be located on their land. Although it may bring in money, they question the wisdom of such a move. Their concerns lead to further investigations of the extent to which American Indian lands are used disproportionately to house dangerous materials. This action in turn leads to a broader investigation of the way in which minority-group people often find themselves “hosting” dumps and incinerators. As we discuss later, these local efforts eventually led the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor the disproportionate placement of toxic facilities in or near racial and ethnic minority communities. There is little reason to expect that such reforms would have occurred if we had relied on traditional decision-making processes alone. Change has occurred. At the beginning of the twentieth century, lynching was practiced in many parts of the country. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, laws punishing hate crimes were increasingly common and embraced a variety of stigmatized groups. Although this social progress should not be ignored, the nation needs to focus concern ahead on the significant social inequalities that remain. It is too easy to look at the accomplishments of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and conclude “mission accomplished” in terms of racial and gender injustices (Best 2001). An even more basic form of resistance is to question societal values. In this book, we avoid using the term American to describe people of the United States because geographically Brazilians, Canadians, and El Salvadorans are Americans as well. It is very easy to overlook how our understanding of today has been shaped by the way institutions and even the very telling of history have been presented by members of the dominant group. African American studies scholar Molefi Kete Asante (2007, 2008) has called for an Afrocentric perspective that emphasizes the customs of African cultures and how they have pervaded the history, culture, and behavior of Blacks in the United States and around the world. Afrocentrism counters Eurocentrism and works toward a multiculturalist or pluralist orientation in which no viewpoint is suppressed. The Afrocentric approach could become part of our school curriculum, which has not adequately acknowledged the importance of this heritage. The Afrocentric perspective has attracted much attention in education. Opponents view it as a separatist view of history and culture that distorts both past and present. Its supporters counter that African peoples everywhere can come to full self-determination only when they are able to overthrow White or Eurocentric intellectual interpretations (Conyers 2004). Afrocentric perspective an emphasis on the customs of African cultures and how they have pervaded the history, culture, and behavior of Blacks in the United States and around the world Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 28 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity In considering the inequalities present today, as we do in the chapters that follow, it is easy to forget how much change has taken place. Much of the resistance to prejudice and discrimination in the past, either to slavery or to women’s prohibition from voting, took the active support of members of the dominant group. The indignities still experienced by subordinate groups continue to be resisted as subordinate groups and their allies among the dominant group seek further change. Conclusion One hundred years ago, sociologist and activist W. E. B. Du Bois took another famed Black activist, Booker T. Washington, to task for saying that the races could best work together apart, like fingers on a hand. Du Bois felt that Black people had to be a part of all social institutions and not create their own. Now with an African American elected to the presidency, Whites, African Americans, and other groups continue to debate what form society should take. Should we seek to bring everyone together into an integrated whole? Or do we strive to maintain as much of our group identities as possible while working cooperatively as necessary? In this chapter, we have attempted to organize our approach to subordinate–dominant relations in the United States. We observed that subordinate groups do not necessarily contain fewer members than the dominant group. Subordinate groups are classified into racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups. Racial classification has been of interest, but scientific findings do not explain contemporary race relations. Biological differences of race are not supported by scientific data. Yet as the continuing debate over standardized tests demonstrates, attempts to establish a biological meaning of race have not been swept entirely into the dustbin of history. However, the social meaning given to physical differences is very significant. People have defined racial differences in such a way as to encourage or discourage the progress of certain groups. Subordinate-group members’ reactions include the seeking of an alternative avenue to acceptance and success: “Why should we forsake what we are, to be accepted by them?” In response to this question, there continues to be strong ethnicity identification. Pluralism describes a society in which several different groups coexist, with no dominant or subordinate groups. People individually chose what cultural patterns to keep and which to let go. Subordinate groups have not and do not always accept their second-class status passively. They may protest, organize, revolt, and resist society as defined by the dominant group. Patterns of race and ethnic relations are changing, not stagnant. Indicative of the changing landscape, biracial and multiracial children present us with new definitions of identity emerging through a process of racial formation, reminding us that race is socially constructed. The two significant forces that are absent in a truly pluralistic society are prejudice and discrimination. In an assimilation society, prejudice disparages outgroup differences, and discrimination financially rewards those who shed their past. In the next two chapters, we explore the nature of prejudice and discrimination in the United States. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 29 What Do You Think? Study Studyand andReview Reviewon onmysoclab.com mysoclab.com Summary 1. When sociologists define a minority group, they are concerned primarily with the economic and political power, or powerlessness, of the group. 2. A racial group is set apart from others primarily by physical characteristics; an ethnic group is set apart primarily by national origin or cultural patterns. 3. People cannot be sorted into distinct racial groups, so race is best viewed as a social construct subject to different interpretations over time. 4. A small but still significant number of people in the United States—more than 7 million—readily see themselves as having a biracial or multiracial identity. 5. Functionalists point out that discrimination is both functional and dysfunctional for a society. Conflict theorists see racial subordination through the presence of tension between competing groups. Labeling theory directs our attention to the role that negative stereotypes play in race and ethnicity. 6. Subordinate-group status has emerged through migration, annexation, and colonialism. The social consequences of subordinate-group status include extermination, expulsion, secession, segregation, fusion, assimilation, and pluralism. 7. Despite highly public women politicians, the vast majority of elected officials in the United States, especially at the national level, are men. Gender is only one basis for the unequal treatment that women experience; this leads to a formulation called the matrix of domination that considers a variety of social dimensions. 8. Racial, ethnic, and other minorities maintain a long history of resisting efforts to restrict their rights. Key Terms Afrocentric perspective / 27 an emphasis on the customs of African cultures and how they have pervaded the history, culture, and behavior of Blacks in the United States and around the world amalgamation / 24 the process by which a dominant group and a subordinate group combine through intermarriage to form a new group ISBN 1-256-48952-2 assimilation / 24 the process by which a subordinate individual or group takes on the characteristics of the dominant group biological race / 10 the mistaken notion of a genetically isolated human group blaming the victim / 17 portraying the problems of racial and ethnic minorities as their fault rather than recognizing society’s responsibilities class / 15 as defined by Max Weber, people who share similar levels of wealth colonialism / 20 a foreign power’s maintenance of political, social, economic, and cultural dominance over people for an extended period conflict perspective / 17 a sociological approach that assumes that the social structure is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups dysfunction / 16 an element of society that may disrupt a social system or decrease its stability emigration / 19 leaving a country to settle in another ethnic cleansing / 22 forced deportation of people, accompanied by systematic violence ethnic group / 8 a group set apart from others because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns functionalist perspective / 16 a sociological approach emphasizing how parts of a society are structured to maintain its stability Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. 30 Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity fusion / 24 a minority and a majority group combining to form a new group migration / 19 a general term that describes any transfer of population genocide / 22 the deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation minority group / 5 a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives than do the members of a dominant or majority group globalization / 20 worldwide integration of government policies, cultures, social movements, and financial markets through trade, movements of people, and the exchange of ideas immigration / 19 coming into a new country as a permanent resident intelligence quotient (IQ) / 11 the ratio of a person’s mental age (as computed by an IQ test) to his or her chronological age, multiplied by 100 labeling theory / 18 a sociological approach introduced by Howard Becker that attempts to explain why certain people are viewed as deviants and others engaging in the same behavior are not marginality / 15 the status of being between two cultures at the same time, such as the status of Jewish immigrants in the United States melting pot / 24 diverse racial or ethnic groups or both, forming a new creation, a new cultural entity panethnicity / 13 the development of solidarity between ethnic subgroups, as reflected in the terms Hispanic or Asian American pluralism / 25 mutual respect between the various groups in a society for one another’s cultures, allowing minorities to express their own culture without experiencing prejudice or hostility racial formation / 12 a sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed racial group / 7 a group that is socially set apart because of obvious physical differences segregation / 23 the physical separation of two groups, often imposed on a subordinate group by the dominant group self-fulfilling prophecy / 18 the tendency to respond to and act on the basis of stereotypes, a predisposition that can lead one to validate false definitions sociology / 15 the systematic study of social behavior and human groups stereotypes / 18 unreliable, exaggerated generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account stratification / 15 a structured ranking of entire groups of people that perpetuates unequal rewards and power in a society world systems theory / 20 a view of the global economic system as divided between nations that control wealth and those that provide natural resources and labor racism / 12 a doctrine that one race is superior resegregation / 23 the physical separation of racial and ethnic groups reappearing after a period of relative integration Review Questions 1. In what different ways is race viewed? 2. How do the concepts of “biracial” and “multiracial” relate to W. E. B. Du Bois’s notion of a “color line”? 3. How do the conflict, functionalist, and labeling approach apply to the social construction of race? Critical Thinking 1. How diverse is your city? Can you see evidence that some group is being subordinated? What social construction of categories do you see that may be different in your community as compared to elsewhere? Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 1-256-48952-2 2. Select a racial or ethnic group and apply the Spectrum of Intergroup Relations on page 21. Can you provide an example today or in the past where each relationship occurs? 3. Identify some protest and resistance efforts by subordinated groups in your area. Have they been successful? Why are some people who say they favor equality uncomfortable with such efforts? How can people unconnected with such efforts either help or hinder such protests? Chapter 1 Exploring Race and Ethnicity 31 MySocLab® Watch. Explore. Read. MySocLab is designed just for you. Each chapter features a pre-test and post-test to help you learn and review key concepts and terms. Experience Racial and Ethnic Relations in action with dynamic visual activities, videos, and readings to enhance your learning experience. Here are a few activities you will find for this chapter: Watch on mysoclab.com Video clips feature sociologists in action, exploring important concepts in the study of Ethnicity. Watch:  Multiracial Identity: Clip 1 Social Explorer is an interactive application that allows you to explore Census data through interactivemaps. Explore the Social Explorer Report:  Social Explore Activity: Increases in the Multiracial Population Explore on mysoclab.com MySocLibrary includes primary source readings from various noted sociologists from around the world. Read:  Black Spaces, Black Places: Strategic Assimilation and Identity Construction in Middle-Class Suburbia ISBN 1-256-48952-2 Read on mysoclab.com Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Merrill Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors