Chapter 11_ Racial and Ethnic Inequality and Conflict

Document Sample
Chapter 11_ Racial and Ethnic Inequality and Conflict Powered By Docstoc
					Chapter 11

Racial and Ethnic
Inequality and Conflict
Intergroup Conflict

   Much of the prejudice among groups is
    not based on race.
   Examples:
    – Antagonisms between Protestants and
      Catholics in the U.S. during the 19th and
      20th centuries.
    – Conflict between English- and French-
      speaking Canadians.
    – Continuing massacres in Africa.
    – Tensions between groups in Iraq
Ethnic Groups

   Groups with different cultural heritages.
   The differences must both bind a group
    together (sense of “we”) and separate it
    from other groups.

 A race is a human group with common
  biological features.
 Racial groups differ in skin color, eyelid
  shape, the color and texture of hair and blood
 Features of “race” on a continuum – humans
  draw the lines that “construct” race
 Racial differences are important only because
  people attach cultural meaning to them.
    – Race matters because people believe race

   Certainly possible to talk of “prejudice in
    the head” – personality – some have “it”
    some don’t
   But perhaps more fruitful to see
    prejudice in all of us
   What factors explain why prejudice so
Why is there intergroup conflict?
   Ethnocentrism – Belief in superiority of one’s
    own culture
    – Stark critical of prejudice (ethnocentrism is one
      form) causes conflict argument
    – But important to recognize this a tendency in all
      of us – law of liking, ingroup vs. outgroup
   Identifiability
    – Physical differences makes it easy to think
      stereotypically (generalization that supposedly
      describes all members of a group)
    – Catch yourself… he is a bad driver or (if different
      race) they are bad drivers
Why continued…
   Competition
    – Scarcity = competition = conflict/dislike
    – Gordon Allport’s Nature of Prejudice
    – Sherif and Sherif summer camp study
   Status Inequality (group differences in
    (property, power, prestige)
    – Allport argued inequality reinforced dominant
      group’s views of superiority
    – …and subordinate group’s views of inferiority
    – Status Inequality = subordinate must submit
Example: Catholics vs.
 Contact in late 1800s, early 1900s… Irish,
 Culturally different
    – Stark deemphasizes too much?
 Contact characterized by status inequality (3
 Competition
    – ethnic groups often compete for jobs – will often
      work for less
 Prejudice subsided when Catholics gained
  economic parity and competed less directly
 But also, cultural differences subsided
Self Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP)

   False definition produces new behavior
    and makes the original false definition
    come true
   W. I. Thomas Theorem – situations
    defined as real are real in their
SFP explaining inequality
   Contact often characterized by similar factors
    – Ethnocentrism, identifiability, status inequality,
 These things cause prejudice and racism
  (negative feelings about group)
 Prejudice results in discrimination (deny
    – Discrimination limits opportunities (by definition)
 Discrimination reinforces and contributes to
  status inequality
 Inequality reinforces prejudice
There are also micro-level
implications of the SFP

   Labeling theory
   What would be the identify effects of
    being treated as if you are inferior?
   Eye of the Storm
Example: Slavery – In US, slavery
a result of prejudice and a cause
of prejudice
   Declaration of Independence (all men
    created equal) poses An American
   How could Fathers write this?
    – Black people not human
   Seen as not human because they were
    slaves or visa versa?
    – i.e., only contact (more or less) was seeing
      black people as slaves
   Imagine world with people of many colors
    (green, blue, purple)
    – Stark points out people of all colors have been
   Green people pick the Blues to be slaves
    – Let’s assume nothing against blue people… have
      the power to enslave them
   No greater status inequality than master/slave
    – Blues denied education, sold as livestock,
      completely dependent and subservient – this
      defines the relationship
Effects of this status inequality

   How do Greens see Blues?
    – Green children see Blue children doing what?
 How do Blues see Greens?
 How do Blues see themselves?
    – Inequality and mistreatment would have a
      devastating impact on identity, correct?
   If the enslavement of Blues ends what
    happens? Patterns above change?

 Prejudice and racism (one race is superior to
  another) no doubt sometimes causes
 But perhaps more important (certainly is to
  Stark), inequality causes prejudice and
 How to overcome?
    – Status equality, tasks of cooperation (rather than
Bonacich: Why People Will Accept
Low Wages
   Very low standard of living.
   Lack of information. – They are unaware of
    minimum wage laws and have no way to
    collect unpaid wages.
   Lack of political power – They lack citizenship
    or be unable to force favorable reforms.
   Economic motives - They often intend to be
    temporary workers
   Conclusion: ethnic group an economic threat –
    cheap labor threatens to make all labor cheap.
Origins of Ethnic and Racial
Pluralism in the US - 4 stages of
national development
1.   Settlement
     – Colonists came to create a “New” England in
       image of one they left
     – Majority English speaking, overwhelming majority
     – Little diversity… little tolerance of diversity
2.   Expansion
     – Indians seen as nomadic and uncivilized – no
       rightful claim to land
     – “Manifest Destiny” – right to settle and conquer
       granted by God
     – Conquered Native Americans, annexed Mexican
4 stages continued

3.   Agricultural Development
     – No surplus population for cheap labor –
       slavery a solution
4.   Industrial Development
     – Immigrants from Asia (China and Japan)
       to west
     – Flood of white ethnics to Northeast
We are a “Nation of Immigrants”

   Columbus “discovered” America?
   So why the animosities?
    – E.g., California migrants to Wash
   Major waves of immigration typically
    met with doomsday predictions
    – E. A. Ross quote p. 308-309
Three Elements of Group
Upward Mobility in the U.S.
1.   Geographical concentration.
2.   Internal economic development and
     occupational specialization.
3.   Development of a middle class.
Asian Americans - Chinese
 Currently about 4% of the population
 Largest group Chinese
    – First came during Gold rush in 1800s
    – Another peak during mid to late 1800s – worked
      the railroad
    – Peak year 1882 – Chinese Exclusion Act (not
      repealed until 1943)
 Scarcity of women – essentially no women
  came to US (ratios)
 Immigration banned 1882-mid1900s – no
  group singled out as much?
Asian Americans - Japanese
 1907 peak year
 “Yellow Peril” – William Randolf Hearst
    – Along with Chinese, settled in west
    – Workers and unions see them as a threat
 1920s immigration laws all but eliminated
  Asian immigrants
 Only ethnic group to be imprisoned
    –   1942 - relocation camps
    –   100,00, 2/3 of which native born
    –   German and Italians not imprisoned
    –   Japanese-Amer in Hawaii not imprisoned
Model Minority?
 Stereotype, and all stereotypes unfair
 Why the “success” – culture?
 3 mechanisms that seem relevant (enclave
  economic theory)
    – Geographic concentration (some political power)
    – Economic development
       • Geographic concentration = economic dependence on
         one another
       • Language
    – Middle class
       • Geographic concentration = development of middle-class
       • Like Jewish and Cuban immigrants
Hispanic Americans

 In 2000 Census, outnumber African
  Americans (12.6 to 12.3)
 Hispanic is a US Bureau of Census
  designation (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban 3
 Cubans highest SES
    – First wave fled Castro – MC
    – Next 2 waves poor, mentally ill, prisoners
    – Older than other hispanics
   Puerto Rican lowest SES
African Americans

 Behind Asian and Cubans in SES, ahead of
  Mexican and Puerto Rican
 Stark: move from poor south to north means
  AA are “recent” immigrants
    – South of 1800s and first ½ 1900s far behind the
    – Since 1960s AA made significant gains
   Legacy of slavery, lack of a homeland,
    visibility make AA experience unique
Educational Achievement
of Americans Age 25–35
                               Less than         College
          Group             High school (%)   Graduates (%)
Total population                 13.6             23.7
Whites                           12.8             24.5
African Americans                19.5             13.2
Hispanic Americans               38.3             11.9
   Mexican Americans             45.7              8.4
   Puerto Rican Americans        32.4             11.3
   Cuban Americans               16.1             23.8
Relative Educational Gains
by African Americans, 1960–2000
                                        % Completed High School
                                 1960     1970    1980   1990   2000
     African Americans           20.1     31.4    51.2   66.2   78.5
           Whites                43.2     54.5    68.6   79.1   84.9
As a percentage of white rate    46.5     57.6    74.6   83.7   92.5
                                         % Completed College
     African Americans           3.1       4.4    8.4    11.3   16.5

           Whites                8.1       11.3   17.1   22.0   26.1

As a percentage of white rate:   38.3     38.9    49.1   51.4   63.2
Concluding Thoughts

   Brain Drain?
   Refugee status
   Immigration and illegal immigration
    – Build a wall…
    – President Bush moderate on this issue
   “female headed” rate 3 times as high in
    AA families as white families
Concluding thoughts on “cause of
prejudice and racism”
   Status inequality and competition cause
   SFP makes it difficult to “fix”
    – Prejudice = discrimination = limited
      opportunity = low SES and power = “proof”
      that beliefs correct
    – Also an identity effect of prejudice – micro
   Status equality = decline in prej
    – Video on Texas system