ANTH 3
Spring 2006
Midterm Study Guide
Format: Your exam will cover material from Robbins Chs. 1-3, Chavez’s ethnography, and all
of the articles and films. The exam will consist of: 10 identifications (5 points each), and 2 short
essays (25 points each) for a total of 100 points.
I.
Please define the following terms and provide an example or explain its significance
where appropriate:
Ethnocentrism
Relativism
British East India Company
Western Ethnocentrism
Leila Ahmed
Harem
Wendy Rose
Whiteshamanism
Transnational migration
Ethnographic Method
Participant Observation
Balinese Cockfight
Clifford Geertz
World Bank
White privilege
Babakiueria
Internally Displaced Persons
Proposition 187
Green Valley
Nation-state
Race
Genocide
Incorporation
Nacirema
WTO
Refugee
II.
Sample Short Essay Questions (about 4-5 paragraphs each): If you can answer the
following questions, you will be well-prepared for the exam. As you study, come up with
an outline for each question!
1.
I believe anthropologists can offer a great service to whatever society they
work in by easing the conflicts that arise as cultures mix, interact, and begin to
share space, beliefs, and behaviors. Such situations lend themselves to
tensions, misconceptions, and misunderstandings. The change that occurs as
cultures intermingle is difficult and often painful. But culture is never static,
and change is inevitable (Chavez 1998: xi).
In the above quotation, Chavez expresses his hope that anthropologists can do good things to
facilitate understanding between different cultures. In the first month of class, we read articles
by Miner, Ahmed, Rose and viewed the films, Babakiueria and White Shamans and Plastic
Medicine Men. These works document some of the tensions, misconceptions, and
misunderstandings that Chavez mentions above; they also show how anthropologists and
researchers have made mistakes in representing other cultures.
Essay question: Do you agree or disagree that anthropologists can offer a great service to
the societies in which they work and/or to the societies in which they live? Why or why
not? In order to support your argument, please give specific examples from at least THREE of
the works mentioned above (Chavez, Miner, Ahmed, Rose, Babakiueria and White Shamans and
Plastic Medicine Men). TWO of the works you mention must be WRITTEN texts, and ONE
may be a FILM. You may refer to more than three works if you like.
2. As Chavez designed his research on undocumented immigrants, one of his research
questions was: “What can we learn from the experiences of the undocumented
immigrants living and working in the United States?” (Chavez 1998:4).
Essay question: Having read Chavez, what do you think US Americans can learn
from the experiences of undocumented immigrants living and working in the United
States?
In your essay, give THREE specific examples. Be sure to take your examples from
Chavez’s ethnography and at least ONE of his films: In the Shadow of the Law or
Uneasy Neighbors.
3. You are a Professional Anthropologist who has just been appointed to the US Federal
Commission for Immigration Reform. Your task is to analyze the “birthright citizenship”
issue from an anthropological perspective. Read the attached article, “’Birthright
Citizenship’ Questioned” by David Crary.
Essay question: Do you think that the US should continue to grant “birthright
citizenship” to babies born to undocumented immigrants in the US? Why or why
not?
In your essay, describe TWO arguments for giving US citizenship to babies born to
undocumented immigrants and TWO arguments against giving US citizenship to babies
born to undocumented immigrants. Be sure to make reference to Chavez’s study in your
report.
'Birthright Citizenship' Questioned
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
By David Crary, AP National Writer
New York - A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies
born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to
resurface - kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.
At issue is "birthright citizenship" - provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was
ratified in 1868. Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States."
Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal
immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended
to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal
legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to
end birthright citizenship.
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal tried to include a
revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December.
GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.
"Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the country illegally,
give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American
Immigration Reform, which backs Deal's proposal.
Deal has said he will continue pushing the issue, describing birthright citizenship as "a huge
magnet" attracting illegal immigrants. He cited estimates - challenged by immigrant advocates that roughly 10 percent of births in the United States, or close to 400,000 a year, are babies born
to illegal immigrants.
"It's an issue that we are very concerned about," said Michele Waslin, director of immigration
policy research for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization that
opposes any effort to revoke birthright citizenship.
"This was always seen in the past as some extreme, wacko proposal that never goes anywhere,"
she said. "But these so-called wacko proposals are becoming more and more mainstream - it's
becoming more acceptable to have a discussion about it."
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his
organization opposes Deal's proposal and is girding for a battle for public opinion.
"This is red meat for conservatives," he said. "They throw out these issues they know aren't
winning issues, and they create an environment of anti-immigrant sentiment."
According to a survey last month by Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan public opinion research
firm, 49 percent of Americans favor ending birthright citizenship, and 41 percent favor keeping it.
The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a leading proponent of tougher measures to stop illegal
immigration, believes public opinion could shift further in favor of Deal's measure.
"Any issue that has a 'damn right' response, you can go with," Tancredo said. "You ask if we
should stop illegal immigrants from coming onto this country and having a baby here who is an
American citizen, and most people say, 'Damn right.'"
However, Tancredo acknowledged that Deal's measure faces major obstacles. Though he
believes the House GOP leadership will eventually allow the proposal to come to a vote,
Tancredo said it could flounder in the Senate or draw a veto from President Bush.
The best strategy, Tancredo suggested, might be to add it to a broader piece of legislation that the
Senate could not disregard.
Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project,
said some Western European nations with different policies have suffered problems.
"Look at Germany - the children of guest workers are not citizens," he said. "That creates
enormous social and racial tensions." Guttentag also said the federal courts would probably
strike down any measure that challenged the citizenship guarantees.
"It's a far-fetched, fundamentally misguided and unconstitutional proposal," he said.
Some critics of current policy refer to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as "anchor
babies" because - when they reach adulthood - they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent
residency. Immigrants-rights groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege,
but authoritative statistics are scarce.