James Henry Hammond: Letter to an English Abolitionist
As a Southern plantation owner writing years before emancipation, Hammond voices the
pro-slavery arguments of the time in this letter to Thomas Clarkson, who was a British opponent
to slavery and the slave trade. For Hammond slavery was the corner-stone of republican
institutions—an “inexorable necessity…a moral and humane institution, productive of the
greastest political and social advantages.” For the slaves, he argues, it was an advantage to be
brought to America, even if as “perpetual bondsmen”, as it allowed them to emerge from “the
darkness into the light—from barbarism into civilization.” The plantation owners viewed the
slaves as property that, like land, could be purchased and inherited. Hammond says that slavery
was ordained by God, as evident in the Bible’s usage of the term “bondman forever.” There he
finds evidence that man can hold property in man; that, in fact, slavery is an “inevitable
condition of the human society.” He writes: “American slavery is not only not a sin, but
specially commanded by God through Moses, and approved by Christ through his apostles.” To
oppose slavery would be, in his view, to oppose God’s will. He rejects Jefferson’s assertion that
“all men are born equal”, citing that “No society has ever existed…without a natural variety of
classes.” Racial hiearchy is a necessity not just of American society but of all societies.
Hammond posits that a political benefit of slavery is that it keeps the poor/ignorant, which are
mostly slaves, from voting and thus from having any significant political influence. Only a
“wretched and insecure government” would grant universal suffrage and be susceptible to be
ruled “by its most ignorant citizens.” Therefore, a successful republican govt. needs slavery. By
keeping the indigent slave class controlled, Hammond argues that slavery is an agent for social
peace and that the “only thing that can create a mob…is the appearance of an abolitionist.”
Economically, Hammond insists that slavery is not to be equated with unpaid labor. He calls to
attention the fact that slaves must be clothed and fed, and that if the US could it would adopt a
new system of labor. Unfortunately, at that point in time, the US economy could not afford the
switch to any labor system other than slave labor. Also, the black laborers were a “hardy and
healthy race…peculiarly adapted to the [US’] climate and productions.”
Frederick Douglass: What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?
Frederick Douglass denounces the system of slavery that Hammond defends. He calls it
“the great sin and shame of America!” He affirms “the equal manhood of the Negro race” by
mentioning that those of the black race have family units resembling those of white households,
that black people are capable of holding jobs of both physical and intellectual rigor, and that,
above all, many of them confess to and worship “the Christian’s God.” In the eyes of God,
according to him, all men are human and are thus created equal. Douglass asserts Jefferson’s
creed. Douglass particularly accuses what he terms American Slavery, since the United States
tasted oppression under the British crown and even after winning its freedom it denies it to the
slaves. The US was guilty of hypocrisy in his eyes, as it guaranteed freedom in the constitution
for all men that it said were created equal, and yet it denied the slave his freedom. Douglass
condemns the Fugitive Slave Law, under which “an American judge [got] ten dollars for every
victim he consign[ed] to slavery.” The law stated that any federal marshal who did not arrest an
alleged runaway slave could be fined $1,000. People suspected of being a runaway slave could
be arrested without warrant and turned over to a claimant on nothing more than his sworn
testimony of ownership. A suspected black slave could not ask for a jury trial nor testify on his
or her behalf. Douglass calls the American Church “the bulwark of American slavery, and the
shield of American slave hunters.” He believes the Constitution to be a “glorious liberty
document” and denies, as many others asserted, that it was of pro-slavery character and that as
such, guaranteed the institution. He says that there are no “pro-slavery clauses” in it.
Derrick Bell : Faces at the Bottom of the Well
Separate but equal: policy enacted into law throughout the U.S. Southern States during the period of
segregation, in which African Americans and Americans of European descent would receive the same
services (schools, hospitals, water fountains, bathrooms, etc.), but that there would be distinct facilities for
each race. Because of racist attitudes, however, the facilities were, in fact, unequal, with poorer facilities
being allotted to Blacks.
Plessy vs. Ferguson: 1896 Supreme Court case that upheld the legitimacy of the separate but equal
laws; approved legal racial segragation in public facilities, and ruled that states could prohibit the use of
public facilities by Blacks
Civil Rights Act of 1964: The original purpose of the Bill was to protect black men from job (and other)
discrimination, but at the last minute in an attempt to kill the bill, it was expanded to include protection
for women. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. It
brought an end to Jim Crow and the separate but equal laws.
Fair Housing Act of 1968: federal law of the United States prohibiting discrimination in housing;
specifically deals with discrimination based on race, national origin, color or religion but in 1974 an
amendment was added that also includes any discrimination on the basis of sex as well.
Brown v. Board of Education: case of the US Supreme Court which explicitly outlawed racial
segregation of public education facilities (legal establishment of separate government-run schools for
blacks and whites), ruling so on the grounds that the doctrine of "separate but equal” public education
could never truly provide black Americans with facilities of the same standards available to white
Americans
Fourteenth Amendment: 1868, provided citizenship to former slaves and their offspring; guaranteed
equal protection of the laws…
Bell proposes a hypothetical situation as a way of showing the inevitability of racial
discrimination in the US. The Racial Preference Licensing Act is his answer to the problem.
Such a law does not assume an inherent national racial tolerance, calling, rather, for racial
realism. Under such an act all employers and propietors of public spaces could apply to the
federal govt. to obtain a license authorizing the exclusion and separation of persons on the basis
of race and color. The licenses were to be displayed publicly and discrimination had to be
practiced in accordance with the license in a non-selective basis. Those facilities failing to abide
by the Act must pay a fine to the fed. Govt. to finance projects that would help Black businesses
and the education of Black students. Bell calls legislations such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964
idealistic, seeing as neither “racial segregation” or “racial integration” have NOT proved
“satisfactory or effective in furthering harmony and domestic tranquility.” Bell views “laws
requiring cessation of white conduct deemed harful to blacks” as “hard to enforce because they
seek to police morality.” The Racial Preference Licensing Act is beneficial in that “it maximizes
freedom of racial choice for all citizens while guaranteeing that people of color will benefit
either directly from equal access or indirectly from the fruits of the license taxes paid by those
who choose policies of racial exclusion.” What ensures the success of such a law is that it
guarantees “blacks a measure of relief” that will concurrently “serve some interest of importance
to whites.” The reason why traditional civil rights laws have failed is that they arise in
accordance with the white self-interest principle. In other words, they are passed only when it
is convenient for whites to have them. Furthermore, traditional civil rights laws fail because they
are built on a “law enforcement model” assuming that most citizens will obey the law. However,
whites will be willing to violate such laws unless the laws are somehow convenient to them. By
pleasing both camps of the civil rights fight, the Racial Preference Licensing Act would be
successful. The act, although it would fail to completely eradicate racism, “may dilute both the
financial and the psychological benefits of racism” by requiring the discriminator to “both
publicize and to pay all blacks a price” for the right to discriminate.
Mary C. Waters: Black Identities—Identities of the Second Generation
The important thing about this article is that it is a strong argument for segmented
assimilation. She focuses on West Indian immigrants in NYC. The second generation West
Indian immigrants “grow up exposed both to the negative opinions voiced by their parents about
American blacks and to the apparently more favorable responses of whites to foreign-born
blacks.” The problem for them arises in that they lack explicit cultural markers such as an
accent. Two main identity paths are available for the second generation West Indians: (a) to
hold on to their ethnicity and emphasize their distinction from American blacks, so as to remove
themselves from the negative stereotypes of blacks in the US [ethnic identity] (b) shift toward
developing a strong racial identity, reject their parents’ ethnicity, and primarily identify
themselves as black Americans [oppositional identity]. It is significant that some of the West
Indians identify with the racialized Black Americans in that it shows that assimilation can
happen even despite racialization. These modes of identification depend on race, class, and
gender. For the West Indians racial discrimination is a given, and because the way in which
second-generation West Indians experience and react to it influences the type of identity they
choose, the class background of the parents largely dictates what neighborhoods they grow up in
and what schools they go to. Middle class teens for the most part choose an ethnic identity since
they go to schools where there are more white students. Still, many of them still live in the black
ghettos and generally reject the Black identity, and one would wonder if they would still do so if
they had more models of succesful native blacks. On the other hand, those teens growing up in
poor households in the black ghettos are most likely to adopt an “oppositional identity.” Those
adopting an oppositional identity described racial prejudice as pervasive and limiting of their
chances in life. They see a significant difference between being black and being a Black
American—identifying with the former but not the latter. A lot of the times they suffer racial
discrimination from whites who think that they are Black Americans (since they lack an accent),
or from Blacks, who accuse the West Indians of not acting black enough, or, in essence, of
“acting white.” Those West Indians that adopted an oppositional identity and identified
themselves with Black Americans followed a path of assimilation similar to the model in the
straight-line theory (immigrant generationlittle English; second generation bilingualism;
third generation English monolingualism). A third group in the study were West Indians who
identified themselves as immigrants—many of which were recent immigrants themselves. For
this group the identification phase is easier since their accent, style of clothing and behavior
largely signals them as ethnic Americans, and not as black Americans. The contrast between
these respondents and those that were born in the US and adopted an ethnic identity is that the
immigrants did not necessarily reject Blacks nor saw them as inferior. Because they remained
neutral toward American distinctions between ethnics and black Americans, and because rather
they stressed their nationality or birthplace as defining their identity, immigrant-identifying West
Indians exhibit high transnationalism. Gender affected the respondents in the different
meanings they attached to being American. Because girls were under more restrictions and
control from parents than the boys, they saw being Black American as indicative of the freedom
they desired from parental control; whereas the boys discussed being black American in terms
of racial solidarity in the face of societal exclusion and disapproval. Boys also express far more
racial harassment from whites and from the police than did the girls, and they felt less at ease
when they left their all-black neighborhoods than did the girls. This shows that the girls
experience less overt hostility and exclusion by mainstream society, creating a more direct
choice of identification for boys. Therefore, although they still identify as Black because of they
are noentheless racially discriminated, the girls’ more relaxed acceptance into mainstream White
American society makes them adopt a black identity that is not as sharply differentiated from the
mainstream as that of the boys.
Ian F. Haney Lopez: The Salience of Race to Latinos/as
LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens; Mexican Civil rights organization that took
up Pete Hernandez’s case, hoping to use it to attack the systematic exclusion of Mexican
Americans from jury service in Texas; defended Hernandez as White because the organization,
fouded in 1929, stressed both cultural pride and assimilation; in other words, LULAC resolved
the tension between seeking both difference and sameness by pursuing difference in terms of
culture and heritage, but sameness (of skin color) regarding civil rights and civic participation
Pete Hernandez case: convicted of murder in Texas by an all-White jury; LULAC lawyers
appealed on the basis that the exclusion of Mexicans from the jury violated the Fourteenth
Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws; the appeal was denied a second time on
the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment only applied to the white race and the black race; the
Supreme court, however, reversed Hernandez’s conviction not by alleging that MexicanAmericans constituted a protected racial group, but rather by considering Hernandez to be part
of a class, distinguishable on some basis “other than race or color,” that nevertheless suffered
discrimination; Thus, the cases’s significance is that it was the first Supreme Court case to
extend the protections of the 14th Amendment to Latinos/as, and the principal case in which the
Supreme Court addressed the racial identity of Latinos
Biological view of race: group differences are deeply embedded in nature and highly
determinative of group character; under this approach, racial identity=both fixed and easily
known
Social conception of race: race and its associated characteristics are the products of social
practices
Haney’s main arguments are that Latinos in the US should be considered not as ethnic
group as they currently are, but as a racial group; and that race should not be regarded as a
biological constant, but rather as a social belief. Although in the Hernandez case the court
decided that discrimination against Latinos was based on some aspect other than race, Haney
asserts that “stark evidence of racism permeates Hernandez.” Evidence: routine distinguishing
between “white” and “Mexican”; Mexican-American exclusion from business and community
groups; until a few years prior to 1951, Mexican children required to attend a segregated school
for the first four grades; one restaurant announced in a sign “No Mexicans Served”; the
courthouses’ toilets, one unmarked, the other marked “Colored Men” and “Hombres Aqui”; for
the last 25 years, there had been no Mexican person that had served on any type of jury. At first
the lawyers described the Mexicans as being discriminated as a “third class—a notch above the
Negroes…but several notches below the rest of the population.” The court’s grouping the
Mexicans in a category “other than race” stems from its characterizing Mexicans as racially
white. The court’s concept of race, then, was that it is an inevitable, immutable natural
phenomenon directly that is solely a matter of biology. At first, even the LULAC lawyers
regarded their client as White. Haney opposes this biological determinist view of race, and
instead argues that “it is in the attittudes toward and the treatment of Mexican Americans…that
one must locate the origins of Mexican-American racial identity.” Historically, he says, ever
since the US moved wesward to encroach on Mexican territory after 1821, the Americans
clashed with the Mexicans, eventually giving rise to the war between Mexico and the US in
1846. At this point, Whites in America “elaborated a Mexican identity in terms of innate,
insuperable racial inferiority”—in other words, as a “nationality related to whites, but as a race
apart.” Haney views race as a product of time in history, social practice, and location. In other
words, the racialization of Mexicans in Texas is specific to Texas alone. The excuse given by
the courts for the exclusion of Mexicans from the jury was that this absence reflected “the lack of
Mexican Americans qualified under the Texas statute for jury service”; what Haney argues was
that this “ignorance” was a cause of the racial discrimination, as Mexicans were forced to attend
worse schools, etc…. Under Heaney’s vision, it seems, racialization is inevitable in any society
and America’s future looks rather bleak in that respect.
Jorge Klor de Alva, Cornel West: Our Next Race Question, The Uneasiness between Blacks
and Latinos
The article explores the tensions between Blacks and Latinos as a way of eradicating the
focus on the Black-White racial division that predominates America. Both Klor de Alva and
West consider race to be relative. Much like Heaney, Alba considers race to depend largely on
time and place. For example, for him Cornell is not necessarily black, since if he were to go to
Africa, West would probably not be identified as black. For Cornell, “black” is a modern
construct made to fit a specific time and place. He says that “implicit in that category of ‘black
man’ is American white supremacy, African slavery,” culture…. They both object “to
essentialist conceptions of race, to the idea that differences are innate and outside of history.”
Klor de Alva disagrees with the one drop rule, “wherein anyone who ever had an African
ancestor, however remote, is identifiable only as black.” He argues that blacks should rid
themselves of the label, as it has only “helped to promote their denigration.” For West, Black is
not synonimous to American. For him, Black alludes to an experience of exclusion from the
American mainstream, and it is directly dependent on a HISTORY of racism. He seems to be a
proponent of black exclusionism and of the embeddedness of racial hiearchy in America. He
associates blackness with “protection, association, and recognition.” To end association with the
term black, would be, in West’s perspective, an eradication of history. Klor de Alva,
disapproves of “the utility of the concept of race”, and, unlike Heaney, views Latinos as an
ETHNIC group. Unlike West, Alva views blacks as Americans, as Anglos. But Latinos,
however, are not Anglos because they are of a different culture. They can essentially be of any
race. West points out that white women have been the major beneficiaries of affirmative action,
since “more of them have been up against the patriarchy than black and brown people have been
up against racism.” Alva believes that Blacks were the primary intended beneficiaries of
affirmative action, and that it is an ineffective strategy for the resolution of the Latinos’ problem.
Affirmative action has created a black middle class that is very difficult for Latinos to tap into,
according to Alva. Therefore, he thinks that “any new social or public policy must begin with
dismantling the language of race.” Both agree that class creates significant division within the
Black and Brown communities, and that part of the purpose of the black-brown dialogues is
exactly to find a way to resolve these differences. Klor de Alva thinks that the national discourse
should elide race and focus on economics, or class. For Cornell, both Browns and Blacks can
unite politically under the Democratic Party with common “white anxieties and white fears”, that
go beyond whether the groups are being discriminated against ethnically or racially. What
matters, for West it seems, is that White America is the one doing the discrimination, period.
The problem with this, Klor de Alva says, is that brown-black alliances will only last
temporarily, as long as there’s a common enemy. Consequently, they will not lead to much. To
create common, lasting linkages between the ethnic Browns and the race-based Blacks, Alva
believes that it is important to higlight the common suffering of the lower classes, regardless of
color or culture.
Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White
Perhaps the most important book. . . Thernstroms demonstrate that economic and social
circumstances for African-Americans have improved markedly over the course of the past
century. Their most controversial argument is that the bulk of improvement for Blacks came in
the three decades following World War II – before affirmative action began hardening into a
spoils system. They first recount the history of racial segregation and the civil rights movement.
Next, they detail an impressive record of black progress tempered by high levels of crime,
failures in primary and secondary education, and family instability. For us, their primary
contribution is in examining which racial remedies have worked and which ones have failed.
Analysis shows that blacks have enjoyed a revolutionary advance since their large
northward migration in the 1940s. ''No ethnic group in American history has ever improved its
position so dramatically in so short a period, though it must be said in the same breath that no
other group had so far to go.'' The percentage of black families in poverty, for example, fell to
26% in 1995, down from a horrific 87% in 1940. In 1940, 1.3% of black adults were college
graduates; today, 13.2%. In 1940, 60% of employed black women were household servants;
today, that same percentage is in white-collar jobs.
Also important: this achievement is not widely recognized, particularly by blacks. Half of
Blacks in a ‘91 Gallup poll said they believed that three-fourths of their number were both poor
and living in inner cities. The reality: Only one-fifth are. Why this lingering stereotype of
failure? The Thernstroms say it lies in the mix of “Black anger and White shame that sustains the
race-based social policies implemented since the late 1960s. They report, in fact, that neither
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased the pace of
black economic progress beyond its already impressive rate. Also surprising is their conclusion
*that the widely quoted report of the Kerner Commission, issued in 1968 following black riots in
several inner cities, incorrectly stated that segregation was accelerating.*
Despite these seemingly positive findings, the book contains, in addition, many
cautionary notes. While Black married couples enjoy a median income of $41,000 (compared to
the $48,000 earned by Whites), almost half of all Black families are headed by a single female
parent and have a median income of just $15,000. In 1960, two-thirds of black children lived in
intact families; today, just one-third do. In 1960, 22% of black babies were born out of wedlock;
today (by today, I always mean 1997) the figure is 70%.
Educational disparities high as well. Today's typical Black high school senior scores no better on
reading proficiencies than the average white eighth grader. This, even though school spending is
generally higher for predominantly minority school districts (I had a bit of an issue with this
statement. . .). The achievement gap, which had been narrowing during the 1980s, is again
widening.
Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory
“…. minorities have a right to maintain and transmit their ways of life, and denying it to them is
both indefensible and likely to provoke resistance.” (p197)
Bhikhu’s main argument throughout these piece is based around this fact. The author
discusses the different modes of integration proceduralist, civic assimilationist and millet
modules their general ideas are discussed as well as their shortcomings. He highlights the
originally Hobbsian idea of proceduralist integration with attention to the state position as a
neutral being providing only the minimum necessary modes of conduct, thereby providing
“maximum political unity with maximum diversity”(p199). The idea of civil assimilation, on
which Bhikhu would seem to lay more weight, on the other hand is more a mixture of the
Hobbsian idea of proceduralist integration and the idea of assimilation. There is the belief that
there must be agreement on the structure of authority but unlike proceduralist integration it is
also deemed necessary to have a shared culture in order to achieve common goals. The final
model, the Millet model, is the one used in Ancient Greece and Rome, which sees humans as
essentially cultural beings, leaves the state with no moral status what so ever and rather a loose
federation of communities with peoples loyalties to their community first and the state second.
Bhikhu explains that while the assimilation theory ignores the claims of diversity, the
millet theory ignores those of unity and the proceduralist and civic assimilationist theories while
respecting both fail to strike the correct equilibrium between them. She accuses them of not
taking onto consideration the difficulty of creating an imaginary line between the public and
private spheres. Bhikhu also analyses the principles of all the models as she sees them including
the structure of authority, justice, collective rights and common culture. In explaining and
analysing all the models and their universal principles Bhikhu fails to give us an alternative to
the classical models. In terms of which political structure the author favours, the piece would
seem unclear as he seems to be damning off all.
Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen,
“Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Felons in the United States”
Article focuses on the impact of disenfranchising large numbers of non-incarcerated
felons. The U.S. stands alone as the only democratic country denying large numbers of nonincarcerated felons to vote. Racially disparate impact of the laws which calls into question the
importance of racial politics in the origins and contemporary practice of disenfranchisement.
While this policy dates back to Greece and Rome, it has been abandoned in the modern world.
Historical:It was very rare for states to have such laws when suffrage was restricted to only
whites males. But from 1840 onward it increased, broadening scope of crimes and those
punished at the same time as a decline in property restrictions for white males. Second wave was
post civil war. Analysis showed that states, between 1850 and 2002 with larger non white
populations were more likely to pass these type of laws. Connections between racial politics and
felon disenfranchisement, drew upon widespread stereotypes about propensity of AA (African
Americans) to commit crimes. After late 1950s another wave occurred. But during a liberty wave
in, 1960s and 70s, 17 states repealed their laws. Corresponds to a time of increasing importance
of black voters.
Legal aspects: Constitution does not provide for ex-felons. 14th amendment has a passage that
says representation should decrease according to disenfranchisement, unless the crime was
considered rebellious. This allows for stabile representation without regard for
disenfranchisement. There are no national standards, causing variation from state to state. Maine
and Vermont only states to allow all felons to vote . Estimated 4.7 mil ex felons prevented from
voting in 2000, but were still included to determine turnout rates this explains the decline since
1960s. Probably an undercount because it does not include people who are tangled in the system
and can’t vote but are practically disenfranchised. Also some people don’t know if they can vote
because of changing state laws. Majority of felons are people who are living lives in
communities, off of parole.
Does it matter?: Because of SES state prison inmates less likely to vote, but mostly democratic.
Speculated low voter turnout. 73 percent would have selected democrats, so the laws are helping
the republicans. 7 senate and 2 presidential elections could have been influenced by this.
1/6 AA men disenfranchised due to current or past felonies.
Public opinion: Dichotomy- Public fear of crime and focus on justice side by side with a love for
democracy and liberty. Many agree with the idea of suspending voting rights, but not taking
away rights permanently. This feeling does not extend to those in prison.
The US is unique since it has six to ten times as many incarcerated persons as those most
similar to countries similar to the US.
However most felons get rights restored after incarceration. All states have some way to restore
rights. BUT the US has an unparalleled amount of felons and ex-felons that cannot vote, it is
closest to that of early regimes
There is a possible link between voting rights and integration into society of ex felons.
Theme: There is a causal role for race and important set of race based impacts in
disenfranchisement laws.
David Hollinger, “Amalgamation and Hypodescent: The Question of Ethnoracial
Mixture in the History of the United States”
Loving vs. Virginia- Virginia statute against interracial marriages unconstitutional. Ended
restrictions against any and all color lines.
Original defenders of Jim crow claimed that integration would create interracial marriage. In
1967 only one state allowed interracial marriage.
Miscegenation is an American concept, and word originally meaning “mistaken mixture.” But
has come to be a word for intermarriage.
It has also been used along “melting pot” to describe the mixing of ethnic whites with each other.
Disagreement whether it entails the mixing of all people to create one new type of person, or
taking new cultures and making them change to adapt to a central culture.
Author asserts that the stigma carried by blackness is unique. Example- the one drop rule which
called all people who were found to have a drop of black ancestry, black. But this originates in
the interests of slave owners. Children born by black women would grow up slave, and thus not
be entitled to property.
The term mulatto was dropped technically in 1920 and the term white was made to signify
“people who have no drop of anything except Caucasian.”
Understanding these things can give blacks the ability to chose to identify with whatever they
wish will be a step towards the US realizing that black/white mixing occurred as well
understanding that blackness in the US is an ascribed status imposed on a spectrum of color
shades rather than a category of nature.
Contact hypothesis- the more black is accepted through race mixing, and people of mixed
descent the less stigmatized persons of mixed descent or African Americans will be.
Chinese exclusion act of 1882 was the first nationally or ethno-racially group-specific restriction
on immigration. Asians were often put with black in racial intermarrying laws. But now Asians
intermarry at very high rates. However they differ from blacks since most arrived when anti
Asian sentiment was on the decline.
In the 1920s and 1930s in Texas Califonia and Arizona schools were segregated and laws
prevented Mexicans from serving on juries. Mexicans most pertinent Hispanic group of the time,
because of Mexico’s proximity. In 1954, Hernandez vs Texas ruled that Hispanics, while
considered white were excluded as a class.
In Perez vs. Sharp, Perez a Mexican women wanted to marry a black man, but as with most
Mexicans had been declared white, and was not issued a marriage license.
The idea that Hispanics can be of any race led to a distinction between race and ethnicity.
A class/race story. Poverty of black stems from miscegenation laws against black children. This
leads to the idea that race and class are the same in most cases. Latinos generally racialized as
white, but Asians and Indians, no consistency. Racializaiton of blacks strongest, because of
slavery and historical ties.
Debate whether race based policies should include all people who have been discriminated
against caused a decision to expand affirmative action. A movement towards unification of all
minorities. However in 1960s 1970s blacks held onto the sharp contrast of their different
racialization.
Theme: The racialization of blacks as the lowest has been reinforced throughout the centuries as
a measure of class division and property protection. Additionally, while Mexican, Asians etc
may be able to permeate racial boundaries, it seems that blacks cannot.
Rainier Spencer, “Census 2000: Assessments in Significance”
In October 1997 the office of Management and Budget allowed all respondents to Mark
all races/ ethnicities that applied (MATA).
MATA was used in census and considered to be the dawning of new era that went beyond the
black white binary. But some things remained the same, for instance black/whites were counted
as black for civil rights compliance monitoring. There are numerous ways for multiracial persons
to be counted. But the point of this is to determine racism; either covert or institutional. Most
Multiracial activism groups tended not to be anti-racism, and in some ways appeared to place
themselves in the middle, having blacks stay at the bottom of the binary. People like Charles
Byrd attempted to skew statistics, because of anger at the non-inclusion of a multiracial as a
separate quantity.
Essentially the two main groups were, multiracial advocacy groups and afro American
organizations that the establishment of such a category would have angered. The MATA was a
compromise that neither side liked. There was a sentiment of general distaste by African
American for multiracial groups who seemed to be accommodating self esteem at the expense of
civil rights compliance. They feared a loss of African American numbers by a defection of
mixed race Afro Americans.
Newt Gingrich and others like him agreed with a multiracial category because it would have
negative impacts on civil rights monitoring. Companies could mask racism.
The Federal government succeeded with the creation of MATA since it avoided the
establishment of multiracial category and thus the possibility of lessened civil rights compliance.
African American did not lose much, maybe pride, since not all African Americans will only
identify as black. Multiracial at the far rights lost because the category suggested would aid
racism.
Theme: Nothing has changed, race, racism and the need to be more vigilant remain the
same since the creation of MATA.
Charles W. Mills:
The Racial Contract
Charles Mills makes the case for a “racial contract” based partially on the previous philosophical
idea of a social contract. The racial contract involves two parties – “whites” (full persons) and
“nonwhites” (different and inferior moral status). The contract is that nonwhites have a
“subordinate civil status” in a white-rules politics. The rules that whites use in dealing with each
other do not apply when dealing with nonwhites. The purpose of the contract is the privileging
of whites with respect to nonwhites, exploitation of the nonwhites’ bodies, land, and resources,
and the “denial of equal socioeconomic opportunities.” All whites are beneficiaries of the
contract though not all are signatories. Nonwhites are not consenting party to the contract, they
are subjects rather than objects to the agreement.
Mill’s argument rests on three claims:
1. existential claim – white supremacy has existed for many years
2. conceptual claim – whites supremacy is itself a political system
3. methodological claim – white supremacy can be theorized as based on a contract between
whites: the racial contract
The racial contract establishes a racial polity, racial state, and racial judicial system; the purpose
of the state is to maintain this racial order, “securing the privileges and advantages of the full
white citizens and maintaining the subordination of nonwhites. White citizens consent explicitly
or tacitly to the racial order, or white supremacy, or Whiteness.
In mainstream contractarian tradition: all men are free and equal in the state of nature. (Locke in
the Second Treatise) Moral egalitarianism is retained in rights and liberties of civil society.
However, the “color-coded morality” of the racial contract restricts natural freedom and equality
to white men. Nonwhites are unfree and unequal – a universe divided between persons and
racial subpersons. The racial contract precedes the other social contracts – Lockian and Kantian
models are limited by its stipulations and consider only whites.
The racial contract is a historical actuality – European colonialism is his chief example. The
racial contract is global. The racial contract creates Europe as the dominating continent –
locally, in Europe and other continents, Europeans are the designated “privileged” race. The
racial contract is continually rewritten - All whites are not better off than all nonwhites, but the
“objective chances of whites are significantly better.” Ex. The disparity of wealth between blacks
and whites in the US is the direct outcome of American state policy and the “collusion with it of
the white citizenry.” – materially, “whites and blacks constitute two nations.”
Richard Alba and Victor Nee
Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration
Though literature has been critical of assimilation theory, Alba and Nee find that assimilation
theory has not lost its utility. On the subject of recent immigrant groups, Alba and Nee find that
although the record is mixed on socioeconomic and residential assimilation, “assimilation is
taking place, albeit unevenly.”
Robert Park, W.I. Thomas and the Chicago School – assimilation: “a process of interpretations
and fusion in which persons and groups acquire memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other
persons and groups and by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in
common cultural life.” – achieving a cultural solidarity sufficient at least to sustain a national
existence.
Park – assimilation is the end stage of the race relations cycle – “contact, competition,
accommodation, and eventual assimilation.”
Milton Gordon – acculturation: the minority group’s adoption of the cultural patterns of the host
society – comes first and is an evitable process. The catalyst for more complete assimilation is
structural assimilation – “entrance of the minority group into social cliques, clubs, and
institutions of the core society at the primary group level” – once structural assimilation occurs
all other forms of assimilation will follow.
Identificational assimilation – “development of a sense of peoplehood based exclusively on the
host society”
Gans and Sandberg – Straight-line assimilation – each generation represents a new stage of
adjustment to the host society, a “further step away from ethnic ground zero”, a step closer to
more complete assimilation. Generations are the motor for change, not on the time frame for
assimilation to take place. Gans modified to bumpy-line theory of ethnicity – there is a
generational dynamic that moves perhaps with tangents in the general direction of assimilation
Shitbutani and Kwan – Ecological analysis – humans place people in categories in order to deal
with strangers and acquaintances outside their primary groups – Ethnic Stratification: when
social distance is low, there is a feeling of common identity, closeness, shared experience. When
social distance is high, people perceive and treat others as belonging to a different category.
Economic assimilation has been more rapid for post-1965 immigrants than for earlier groups b/c
of technological transformation of the American economy.
Alba and Nee think that changing the language of assimilation is unwise – assimilation has a
central place in the American experience. Alba and Nee – Assimilation: the decline and at its
endpoint the disappearance of an ethnic/racial distinction and the cultural and social differences
that express it. Human capital immigrants – substantial economic and residential mobility, rapid
transition to suburban residence. Labor immigrants – slower mobility b/c of less education,
concentration in ethnic communities.
Alba and Nee
Remaking the American Mainstream
Assimilation remains a potent force affecting immigrant groups in the US. They focus on
intergenerational shift – plenty of signs here. 1. Learning English is nearly universal. 2,
Conversions to English monolingualism is widespread, even among Spanish-speaking groups.
Acculturation is not always benign – more American fatty foods and less physical activity leads
to worsening health status.
Ethnic cultures persist in some areas – religion protects cultural differences – but the scope of
ethnic difference will narrow, Alba and Nee predict.
Distinction between human capital immigrants and traditional labor immigrants is notable.
Human capital – education and position in labor force is as good as native whites, relatively high
social and economic resources encourages other assimilation like social mixing. Labor
immigrants – the assimilation pattern is more ambiguous – there is educational and occupational
upgrading b/t first and second generations. Mexican case – second generation experiences
stagnation of limited mobility. Third generation – stagnation, at least in terms of college
education.
Evidence for segmented assimilation – or assimilation not occurring equally for all groups –
black skin color reduces the likelihood of entry into a majority group area.
Residential assimilation and intermarriage – highest among Asians and then among lighter skin
Latinos – racial gradient is noticeable especially in the Latino case.
Founding Brothers Chap 3 by Ellis, Joseph J
On Feb 11, 1970 two Quakers submitted to the House a petition to end the African slave trade.
This angered many, including James Jackson of Georgia who thought this would lead to discussion about
ending slavery in general. The next day another petition arrived at the House. The Pennsylvania Abolition
society wanted to abolish slavery, because it was against revolutionary values and an inconsistent stain on
the character American people. It was signed by the patriotic Benjamin Franklin.
The house then had a PUBLIC debate about the petitions instead of ignoring them as James
Madison thought would happen. Southern representatives supported slavery by citing the bible and the
concept that the South would not have ratified the constitution if they thought slavery was not protected
by the various compromises.
Northern representatives spoke out against slavery. Slavery was called an “anomaly” (p.86) that
could be tolerated now because it was clear consensus that it would end in the long run. A Mass. Rep said
that the South was given a raw immoral deal by the first settlers and that they need help out of it. He said
a national fund paid for by sale of western lands would give the money needed. Virginian delegates were
on the fence. Madison said maybe regulations could be placed on introducing slaves to new western
states. It was voted that the issue would go to a committee that would have to report it’s findings. 43
voted yes. 11 voted no. It went to a committee, which brought a temporary end of the most public display
of the slavery debate.
Anti-slavery people had a tie to the egalitarian Declaration of Independence, while pro-slavery
people sided with the restrictions that the constitution put on the federal government from stopping the
slave trade before 1808.
The Declaration was very egalitarian and pretty anti slavery and started America on that tract.
Jefferson’s first draft had strong anti-slavery rhetoric that was taken out.
Right after the war there was a consensus that slavery was on “the road to extinction” with several
northern states banning it. However the reality of deep embedded slavery could not be defeated by
revolutionary rhetoric. No fast action could be taken, like with the removal of British officials, so slavery
would not end.
The constitution was left very ambiguous on the slavery issue so that it could be ratified. One
compromise was that the slave trade would be extended for 20 years (good for south) if regulation on
commerce was 50% wins instead of 2/3 wins (good for north).
Virginia was the only southern state that had enough revolutionary ideal left to kinda oppose the
slave trade, but they didn’t want the natl. govt. to control their property rights.
On March 16th, the committee had to give its report and southern reps gave their responses.
James Jackson (Georgia) said it was a “necessary evil” that existed before and during the revolution and
that there would be no where to put blacks afterwards. No one wanted intermixing. Due to the direct
challenge to slavery, this was the first time that the ever present racial presumptions had to surface
publicly.
Census showed that the slave pop was booming instead if fading and time was causing
revolutionary sentiment to decline. The Quakers were trying to get decisive action at the last plausible
moment. But no one offered any solutions to the problems of emancipation. Also, Georgia and SC said
they would succeed and no one called their bluff.
Emancipation proposals never went before congress, but all the issues were present in the debates
and plans were later published. SO, there was some strong anti-slavery sentiment and work happening.
Franklin wrote an anti slavery satire before he died which sparked new fervor, but leaders with an
antislavery lean did not carry the torch
Madison, from Virginia, took a stance to end the discussion. He felt that the southern reps. were
embarrassing in their speeches but that slavery couldn’t be removed as to preserve the union. He
maneuvered to gain some northern support and passed an amended report which would put the slavery
issue to rest for years to come.
This article relates to the section on Racial Hierarchy as an Accident because it is clear that there
were founding fathers and early American citizens opposed to and working against slavery. There may
have been reasonable opportunities to remove slavery so the fact that it remained does not prove
embeddeness.
Up From Slavery, Booker T. Washington
Chapter XIII – The Tuskegee Institute had to open a night school to accommodate students who
could not afford the regular school. These students had to do 10 hours of trade or industry work a
day and two hours of academics a night. The money they earned would pay for them to enter the
day school in 2 years. These students prove that they warrant further education by working so
hard.
Washington was asked to speak at a National Educational Association meeting which
was the start of his public speaking career. He spoke in Madison, WI, but people from Alabama
and Tuskegee were present. These whites liked his speech because he did not bash the south, but
gave it credit for what It had done right. This is a more effective way of converting people. The
main point of his speech was that the negro must make himself “through skill, intelligence, and
character” an “undeniable value to the community in which he lived”, then he will be respected.
Speeches to blacks stressed the importance of industrial and technical education, in
addition to academics and religion.
Washington delivered a speech at the opening of the Atlanta Cotton States and
International Exposition in ATL on Sept 18, 1895. This was a large convention with the backing
of Congress. There was a Negro Building at the convention that showed the progress of the
Negro. Southern whites were surprised and pleased by it’s contents. This was the first time a
black was to speak on the same platform as Southern whites on an important National occasion.
Washington was very nervous because he knew he had to appeal to Northern whites, Southern
whites, and blacks at the same time.
Chapter XIV: Washington’s speech at the convention: 1/3 of the Southern population is black
and for the south to be successful they can’t be ignored. To blacks “Cast down your bucket
where you are” to make friends with the whites around you. Cast it down in agriculture,
mechanics, professions etc. This south affords opportunities to blacks for economic growth. To
whites, “Cast down your bucket where you stand” to blacks who have been loyal to you in the
past. Help blacks and they will become contributing members of society instead of a burden.
This is good for mutual progress. Racial tension will decline as blacks become important
members of the economy.
His speech was very well received by whites and the media. Pres. Cleveland liked the
speech and met Washington at the Exposition. Some blacks felt the speech was not strong
enough on black rights, but eventually they started to agree with Washington, just as black
ministers whom he criticized in an article earlier eventually agreed that his criticisms were true
causing them to better their organization.
Washington was asked to be one of the Judges of Award in the Dept. of Education at
Atlanta. He accepted and was treated quite well by the other white judges. He was unanimously
selected as secretary of his division. He felt he was given this position not because he asked for it
but because of the respect his work earned him.
Washington feels that political rights for blacks will come when they prove themselves to
be contributing citizens to white southerners instead of aliens forcing a new way of life on the
South. Blacks should be modest in political claims because they will eventually come with
respect. He believes in universal suffrage but thinks that right now in the south, for awhile at
least, ignorance (white and black) should be blocked from the polls by an education or property
test.
Chapter XVIII: Washington was given an honorary degree, Master of Arts, from Harvard in
June of 1896. This was the first time a New England school gave an honorary degree to a black
man. He was cheered by the crowd when his name was announced. He praised Harvard and
spoke about how his race would continue to work hard to measure up to the “American
Standard”. Newspapers viewed all of this favorably.
Washington wanted a president to someday visit his Tuskegee Institute. President
McKinley agreed to visit, especially because of heightened racial tension due to race riots in the
South. The whites in Tuskegee offered their help to properly welcome the President and much of
his cabinet. The President and his colleagues praised Washington for the work he was doing for
the nation’s race problem.
Tuskegee had gone from one class room to a large campus with 1,400 students that are all
employed by whites and blacks when they graduate. They have a very rigorous schedule that
instills skill, character, and love for labor. Graduates add to the quality of their communities.
Washington also helped establish conferences and negro business leagues.
“Despite superficial and temporary signs which might lead one to entertain a contrary
opinion, there was never a time when I felt more hopeful for the race than I do at the present.”
Racial Hierarchy is an Accident: A black man believes that he is making change in race
relations and he is also being acknowledged by whites as doing so. Seems that hierarchy can be
defeated.
An American Dilemma, Gunnar Myrdal
Americans are generally moral conscious and rational. The black presence in America is
an anomaly to the structure of American society that causes individual or collective guilt and is
trouble for all. Most struggle to suppress this challenge to their morals that this problem causes,
and this leads to general uneasiness with the Negro problem.
The negro problem is in the heart of Americans. It is a tension between the American
Creed and personal considerations and biases.
Most Americans have most valuations in common. To rid of conflict people will focus on
one valuation over another and “manipulate their beliefs of how social reality actually is”. This
creates beliefs about the Negro that are false and opportunistic.
Little about the race issue could be scientifically explained by studying the differences
and practices of negroes because most of the power is held by whites. The negro problem is part
of the larger social problems of America and it exists and changes because of forces in the larger
society. Blacks do impact society as well. As an outsider viewing US society Myrdal believes he
is less susceptible to American preconceptions.
Examining Larger Society: Each of America’s three major wars, fought for liberty and
equality, have led to advances for negroes. The current war (WWII) will probably lead to
advances for the negro if one looks at trends up to the war.
Trends Up To WWII: In the south the negro was getting closer to enfranchisement and
more blacks were moving to and voting in the north. Public services improved for blacks.
Employment was decreasing, but this may have turned around. Racial prejudice is now shameful
instead of supported by scientists and preachers. Educated people know that prejudice is
irrational. Negroes do not have inner struggles with morals so they can really fight for what they
want.
Issues Involved with WWII: Negroes want to fight and be accepted as Americans with all
the talk of preserving democracy, but they are not really given the chance. This hindrance
conflicts with the American Creed that America is claiming to defend. Whites are more quickly
recognizing this contradiction and caste is now shunned, and cannot be recognized, especially
legally. The north is beginning to see that it is not treating negroes appropriately in private
sectors like business, and with increased government control, especially at the end of the war,
there is more responsibility on the white govt. to act democratically. The south has a deep moral
conflict as they hold onto prejudice and tension will arise between blacks and whites causing the
irrationality of the issue to surface. The North will also not be as tolerable to the South’s racism
after the war.
American isolation is ending and the US needs to treat blacks better to be viewed
favorable by the rest of the world, especially colored nations. The world is becoming more
colored and some colored nations are becoming industrialized so relations with colored people
are becoming more and more important.
Americans want to realize the American Creed and it has been happening gradually
through its history. America can demonstrate equality between races and that is what the world
needs now. This is the time for change and social engineering will occur with personal
adjustments being more determined by political decisions.
Racial Hierarchy is an Accident: Racial hierarchy is inconsistent with the American Creed and
people realize that. Race relations are improving as people are prompted by various happenings
to acknowledge the inconsistency.
John Skrentny, “Inventing Race”
Skrentny examines the question of which groups should be included in affirmative action, and
documents how the current groups got to be included. He believes that the illogical inclusion of
many groups, considered “official minorities”, has undermined affirmative action’s purpose and
threatens its future.














No official threshold ever established to determine a group’s worthiness for affirmative
action
Immigration has resulted in conflicts among groups that benefit from affirmative action
Courts have begun to show a willingness to doubt the criteria for affirmative action
policies
First example of affirmative action: President Franklin Roosevelt’s Fair Employment
Practices Commission (FEPC), created after protest from blacks to ensure their inclusion
in wartime employment by the government and defense industries. Driven entirely by
complaints: “colorblind”. Dismantled by Congress after the war.
Successor Truman created President’s Committee on Civil Rights through executive
order. Committee produced a report recommending protections based on how different a
minority group looks.
President Eisenhower’s President’s Committee on Government Contracts (PCGC)
followed these recommendations, recognized “official minorities” but put blacks in a
separate category from all others
Groups lobbied: succeeded in creating separate, equal categories for “SpanishAmericans” and “Orientals” on forms submitted to the agency by businesses contracted
by the government
Director of the group under Kennedy added American Indians due to personal sympathy
for “woeful economic state”, took Jews as a category away (no protest or lobbying)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by Civil Rights Act of
1964, began by concentrating on blacks, then shifted to investigating underemployment
of other minorities
Nixon’s “Philadelphia Plan” did same, focusing on bringing blacks, then other minorities
into the construction industry—efforts to encourage minority business ownership
followed this pattern as well, with no stated rationale
In 1968, 62% of (new) university affirmative action policies targeted only blacks; by
1974, only 6% targeted only blacks, due mostly to urging from academics
Traditional “official minorities” targeted for university admission, mirroring government
programs: blacks, Latinos, American Indians, Asian Americans except when
overrepresented (not overrepresented in government programs)
Italian-American, Polish-American groups upset by exclusion from affirmative action
Courts willing to strike down arbitrary inclusion of groups except when compelling
interest is “diversity”, not rectifying past discrimination
In conclusion: the current system makes permanent victims out of the groups included,
immigration is rapidly changing the country and bringing affirmative action far from its original
goals, and the ill-planned inclusion of other groups has undermined the future of affirmative
action for blacks, who probably need it the most.
Paul Frymer, Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America
Frymer argues that African Americans have acquired the status of “captured group” in American
politics. They have little choice but to vote almost completely consistenly for one political party,
in this case the Democrats, yet their interests are consistenly ignored by the party. Furthermore,
there is no reliable course of action to remedy the situation and give African Americans a greater
influence in politics.












Democratic Party revitalized with 1992 election of Bill Clinton, after Clinton condemned
an obscure rap artist, Sister Soulja, for advocating black-on-white violence
Clinton also oversaw the prominent execution of a mentally impaired black man during
the campaign, advocated drastic welfare reform, and did not focus heavily on urban or
minority issues during the campaign
The two-party system, since its inception, has been designed to ignore the interests of
blacks
Several factors determine whether a party tends to a group’s interests: group size, group
involvement in party leadership, ability of the group to provide financial support for
candidates, and whether the group is located in strategic electoral locations
In most of these areas, African Americans score low: poor financial value, located largely
in urban areas in safe Democratic states, not large enough to change outcome in states
that do not go Democratic
Blacks are moderate to conservative on many “family values” issues and largely
religious, yet not appealed to by Republicans
Each party, due to the extremely negative perception of blacks by the electorally crucial
white majority, considers it more damaging to reach out to blacks than to ignore them
Blacks have made most progress in the United States at times of low competition among
the two parties
During Reconstruction following the Civil War, Democratic Party in shambles—
Republicans could force through civil rights amendments and legislation without fear of
backlash
In 1960s, Democrats had such a large congressional majority that they could pass civil
rights bills without suffering immediate damage
Neglect of African-American interests influences perception of African Americans
negatively, perpetuates their lower status in society
This trend will continue in the foreseeable future, since most persuadable voters, on
whom campaigns are focused, are not African Americans
In conclusion: blacks have no choice, if they wish to act in their own interests, but to vote for
Democratic candidates, yet meanwhile, neither party appeals to them, and their interests are
consistently ignored by those in power. The group is of such a low status that it is considered
harmful to appeal to them in any significant way.
Miner’s Canary – Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres
Using the example of the changing of unfair admissions practices at the University of
Texas, the authors show how race can be a lens through which to focus on the way the university
was admitting everyone, including the poor and disadvantaged of every race. The exclusion of
minority races was the “miner’s canary” to help people see the real issue, which was class
discrimination that effected people of every race. White people saw that they too were effected
and a coalition was formed that eventually moved beyond race to help create change, creating the
Texas 10% plan in which the top 10% of every high school’s class was admitted to U of Texas
regardless of SAT scores. This is an example of political race, or how race consciousness can
evolve to embrace social justice for other minorities and then other classes.
The authors stress that race is an important reason for people to be activists and get
involved individually and at the community level. Because of the way people are put into a
racial hierarchy, the authors say that people who are in the same situation understand each other
better and can mobilize easier, having a shared common experience and shared goals or interests.
African Americans have tended to join unions in larger numbers and also vote at a higher rate
than whites when you control for class. Cultural bonds like shared religion creates bonds and
form a group’s political consciousness. Cultural and historical consciousness can lay the
foundation for democratic participation that transcends class differences. Black people tend to
have a “weak-we” identity, in which solidarity to other blacks is more important than
individualistic concerns. They do point out though that there can be conflict within races, where
people who are afraid of being on the bottom relegate members of their same race to a position
below themselves. Using race, and not class, to make groups is better because they say that class
doesn’t affect identity like race does – class is often unnoticeable or unnamed and being poor
isn’t something that people are proud of.
SUM UP: They argue that race consciousness is an important way for democratic
participation to occur, so that people feel that they are part of a greater collective, part of a larger
rac ial hierarchy or linked fate, and this commitment to social justice then can extend to address
larger causes to issues, like looking at how people of different classes are effected.
Miner’s canary – a problem affecting one group or canary gets attention and can be used to see
if that problem affects other groups as well, moving beyond the original group affected to
something more universal.
“Interpellation” (87) – act of defining someone’s identity for him or her, including naming
someone as being so insignificant that what they call themselves no longer matters. The way
people respond to the “hey you” of a police officer – running even though they’re innocent or
stopping - shows how the power of others has constructed their sense of who they are.
“weak-we individuals” (88) – people who get their identity through their relationship to a group
consciousness; different from a “strong-we” person who gets his or her identity from a notion of
an autonomous self.
“token effect” – being for example the only black person at your school. To become invisible or
fit in, the token black feels the loss of her identity.
Linked fate – the sense that community fate is bound up in public decision making (page 92)
and the idea that people who bond with others in their group feel like they are all struggling
together.
Political Race (95) – a lens through which to see and address injustices to people of color and
beyond them, injustices to other oppressed group
The Prospects of a Latino-Jewish Coalition in Los Angeles – Raphael Sonenshein
By looking at the divergent interests but shared ideology of minorities like Latinos and
Jews, the author shows that voters can make seemingly unlikely decisions because of liberal
ideology, but ultimately, self-interestedness (like crime protection and money) will ultimately
dictate how voters vote, making coalitions short-lived compromises between self-centered
groups. He also argues that leaders are important in bringing groups together.
Jews support broad civil rights gains more than other whites but are ambivalent about
sensitive local issues. Latinos and Jews vote Democratically, but are less liberal voters than
African Americans, like on issues of crime. With Jews, there is no connection between high
income and Republican voting, like with non-Jewish whites. Jewish voting combines broad
liberalism with selective conservatism. Jews are highly secular and strongly supportive of a
woman’s right to choose, but Latinos are far more traditional and oriented toward religious
values in public life. **Two groups with sometimes opposite ideologies and different economic
status end up in the same general area politically. This can partly be explained by the appeal of
the Democratic Party to disadvantaged groups
Barriers to a Latino-Jewish Coalition: With the famous Black-Jewish Coalition that got
African American Tom Bradley elected as Mayor of Los Angeles, Blacks and Jews lived in the
same neighborhoods and participated in liberal political groups or worked together. With
Latinos and Jews now, though, the education and income gap is larger than with Blacks and Jews
and the two do not live in the same areas or meet as peers at work or in clubs. Unions may be
important in coalition building, so that despite different roles in the job market, Jews’ historic
ties to the labor movement may align them with Latino workers in unions. In the Bradley
coalition, the Jews and Blacks were two outsider groups looking to force out the white
conservative majority. Now, Jews have become more of an “in” group, making their coalition
with “out” group Latinos harder. Some Latinos may also want to form a group solely of Latinos
or a group of minorities pitted against whites, with Jews included as whites.
The Mayoral election of 2001 had Latino Villaraigosa, the most liberal candidate,
running against the white Hahn, who had extremely strong support from African Americans. In
the end, Hahn was able to portray Villaraigosa as too soft on crime, so that, while he would be
the predicted choice for liberal Jews, they voted based on self-interest, and Hahn was elected.
Conclusion: Jews and Latinos are not always predictably liberal, and vote based on selfinterests and sometimes based on ethnic loyalties (which is a problem when only one person can
be elected). To make coalitions work the author says that peer relationships need to be formed
and shared interests need to be discovered through the exploration of shared beliefs.
Ideology – political beliefs like being liberal or commited to broad ideas of equality and civil
rights
Interests – threats to self-preservation or economic status
New York City’s Chinatown and Redistricting, 1990-1991 – Leland Saito
Most Asian American urban concentrations are too small to form a majority of voters
within electoral districts and elect their own candidates without crossover votes. The
demographic change of some areas from mostly white to “majority-minority” districts allows for
multiracial coalitions to give power to disenfranchised minorities, but whites continue to be the
major political force in these areas. Using the case study of the redistricting that faced NYC’s
Chinatown in 1990-1, we see two scenarios for creating multicultural alliances – 1. linking
Chinatown with middle class whites who had previously supported Asian candidates because of
a shared ideology of social justice or 2.joining working-class Latinos and African Americans in a
movement based on shared histories of subjugation and racialization.
The NYC City Council increased its number of districts from 35 to 51, to allow
minorities the opportunity for representation. Previously, the Chinese vote had been diluted
because Chinatown was split between two districts, but with the plan for redistricting, Asian
American activists hoped to create a majority-Asian, cohesive area that would be able to elect an
Asian official to the City Council. But based on the Census, which may have undercounted
some Asians, the Asian population in Chinatown was not large enough to support its being
labeled its own district, so the community had to decide which other areas to include as part of
Chinatown and still get “Asian issues” addressed. The two plans were:
1. Having “descriptive representation” so that an Asian American who supported Asian interests
would be elected. To create a majority of voters to elect her, this plan called for Asians to align
with white liberals in one district of shared ideology. They wanted Margaret Chin, of the AAFE
2. Creating a district of different minorities who were united, not by race, but by the interests of
low-income and working-class residents (including Asians, Latinos, and Blacks), by “issues of
common concern.” This side wanted Asians and Latinos on the Council, but not just minority
faces who actually just represented white middle and upper class interests, like in Plan 1. Rather
than mere “descriptive representation,” this group wanted “community empowerment” of
Latinos and Asians.
The Districting Commission created a district that separated the Latinos and Asians, and
put the Asians together with wealthier but liberal whites, because they didn’t believe in the
likelihood of an Asian-Latino alliance. Opponents of the white-Asian alliance argued that poor
Asians didn’t have the same interests as wealthy but liberal whites and their interests would not
be represented by Chin. Chin argued back that many whites send their kids to Chinatown
schools and they care about issues like sanitation and traffic, which affect both rich and poor.
Chin couldn’t create a successful white-Asian alliance that was based on convergent
interests. Asians and other minorities united about the issue of police brutality, affordable
housing and employment, when whites saw their interests as separate from Chinatown’s. Whites
had supported Asian candidates in the past for smaller positions, but this time, Chin’s campaign
for a more significant position in government failed to create compelling issues that would win
the support of the mostly white voters. Saito says that coalitions need to transcend race or
neighborhood politics, to the larger issues of class interests. He also says that people view
minority candidates as linked to their race and minority issues, so that it would be very difficult
for whites or other minorities to elect an Asian official over a candidate who would represent the
majority of the district. In conclusion, using Chinatown as a way to look at what forms the
foundation for political alliances with other racial minorities, whites, or both, common interests
and not just ideology are needed if a multiracial coalition is going to work.
TERMS:
“Majority-minority” cities or districts – an area where the majority of people are not white, but
are a minority. (383)
“descriptive representation” (390) – having elected officials be of the same race as the
constituency (arguments against this are that this may just be symbolic if the candidate does not
actually share the interests of the people along with their race)
Leonard, Karen Isaksen. Muslims in the United States: The State of the Research.
This reading is from the conteporary arguments for racialization section and supports the
hypothesis of racialization with evidence of the Muslim group adamantly retaining an identity
very separate from that of Americans (In many points, like gender relations, they see American
culture as a threat to their way of life.). A predominant theme of this reading is that there is not
yet enough research on Muslims as a group.
Key terms: Islamophobia (fear of Islam, started way before, but drastically increased
after 9-11), Imam (Islamic religious leader)
Chapter 2: Converging Histories in the Late Twentieth Century
Citizenship & Participation: This section analyzes the converging Muslim histories in the
United States. Focusing on the organization of Muslims into political groups in the first few
pages, the important points are probably that in the1980s immigrant Muslim leaders and
organizations began abandoning the stance of favored temporary U.S. residence and began
advocating citizenship and participation in mainstream politics; since 1990-1 Gulf War and
rising Islamophobia in the U.S., American Muslims have been minimizing foreign funding and
“outside interference;” and that both the Republican and Democratic national conventions
offered Islamic prayers for the first time in 2000, broadening the symbolic boundaries of our
national religious culture. The section then moves into the characteristics and views of the
leaders, which are increasingly professionals rather than religious conservatives (imams)—
presenting Islamic doctrine in vernacular terms and with seemingly less familiarity. Pre-9-11
leaders of American Islam were overwhelmingly optimistic and envisioned Muslims with a
major role in the U.S.
After September 11, 2001: Directions of American Muslim political organizations changed
dramatically to heavily emphasize foreign policy, which are also strongly shaped by non-Muslim
politicians and the media. Muslims have been drawn more closely into national political life.
However, it is the religious liberals (of outsider or marginal status with respect to American
Muslim coalition politics) that are given the most media time, and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, called
Bush’s “pet Muslim,” holds an Americanized view contended by many Muslims.
Chapter 4: Contemporary American Muslim Identities
National Origins, Languages, and Sectarian Movements: This section outlines strong sectarian
or national-origin differences among Muslims in the United States, while noting scarcity of
studies that would elaborate on the conflicts within the Muslim community that may have
resulted. It mentions DuBois’s dualism as also applicable to the African American Islam in a
“diasporic” versus “claiming America” struggle, and notes language as an important difference
between these Muslims and immigrant Muslims.
Race and Class: African American Muslims seem split from immigrant Muslims in their history
as a religion developing to escape both the Christian and the traditional Islamic acceptance of
slavery, and though not well researched, racial tensions between these two groups exist as well
as class tensions between African American Muslims. Also, Muslims as a whole are targeted in
ways that confound traditional racism, especially after 9-11. The last part of this section gives
some limited demographic data of American Muslims (here again more research is required).
Generation, Gender, and Sexuality: Many immigrant Muslims retain patriarchy and gender
complementarity (differing male and female roles), viewing American values as a threat to
Muslim ordered social life. There seem to be considerable generational differences between the
first and third Muslim generations, the third moving towards liberalism. It is much more
acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a Christian or Jew than for a Muslim woman, and it is also
easier for him to divorce (One study indicates that 33% U.S. Muslim marriages end in divorce.).
The differences between Muslim and American marriage laws leads to some confusion, as does
the existence of mut’a marriages (temporary marriages to legitimate sexual relations) within a
small Muslim sect in the U.S. Marriage traditions vary among Muslim sects.
W.E.B. DuBois. The Souls of Black Folk.
Keyword: double-consciousness (seeing self from within and through the eyes of others;
presents Americanism and Negroism as “two warring ideals” that cannot be resolved in our
society)
This reading is in the historical arguments for anomaly section, and supports this
hypothesis weakly with an account of the prevalence of racism and oppression beyond the
demise of slavery followed by a calling for the beneficial cooperation between blacks and
whites. In lecture, she classified DuBois as either weak embeddedness or weak anomaly, so both
sides could be argued for this reading. She also said that DuBois was at times a racial nationalist
(formed protective groups for blacks). In this reading, his examples of “the Ku-Klux Klan, the
carpet-baggers, the disorganization of industry, and the contradictory advice of friends and foes”
support embeddedness. In this manner, he sets up the bitter irony of the desperate hopes of
slaves for liberty, and the disappointment they were met with in the racist world. A main point is
the double-consciousness that African Americans are faced with as they attempt to be members
of two incompatible societies. The piece is passionate and personal; it describes the author’s
own experience of racism as well as the discouragement of the black community to attempt
participation in white society. DuBois is in opposition with Booker T. Washington in that he is
not satisfied with the promise of small steps toward equality but contends that all progress
(political, economic, social) is linked. He ends with an argument of how the two differing
cultures of blacks and whites could complement each other with acceptance and equality.
C. Vann Woodward. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. (Ch. 1 (Sec. 3), 2, 3)
This reading is from the Racial Hierarchy is an Accident, Historical Arguments section.
Woodward supports the anomaly theory by arguing that the racist policies of proscription,
segregation, and disenfranchisement were not products of the Reconstruction time, but originated
later with Jim Crow-ism. He therefore finds that they are neither immutable nor unchangeable.
Key Terms: Southern conservative philosophy, Southern Radicals, liberal philosophy (all
defined in summary)
Chapter 1, Section 3: This section describes the racial relations during the Reconstruction.
Woodward finds it to be a time “too exceptional” to equate with racial relations of either slavery
or Jim Crow. He recounts some rare instances of integration in the South (juries, steamboats,
public accommodations, working relations), after also touching on the withdrawal of both races
from the former enforced intimacy (ex. Leaving the white protestant church) and the segregation
in first class train cars and public schools. He also says that blacks weren’t aggressive in
pressing their rights and publicly disavowed aspirations of “social equality” for a goal of “public
equality” (civil and political rights).
Chapter 2: Forgotten Alternatives: Distinguishing factor of racial relations after Redemption and
before Jim Crow was inconsistency, as from 1870-1900 “there was no generally accepted code
of racial mores.” Section 1: Accounts of Northern visitors to the South who were impressed by
the integration of the South during this time period and on some points even find Southernors
more than Northernors be more hospitable to and less afraid of contact with blacks; includes the
experience of a Northern black man. Section 2: Outlines the three Southern alternative
philosophies of race relations:
conservative philosophy (Hampton: “The better class of whites certainly want to conserve the
negro.” Assigned subordinate role to Negro, but see themselves as his custodians. Here class
distinctions sometimes took priority over race distinctions; racism assigned to lower-class
whites. Supported black suffrage. This philosophy was adopted by the Southern Democrats.),
Southern radicals (populist, limited success), and liberal philosophy (Blair and Cable: argue
for total integration; about completely rejected in practice). Section 3: Description of Southern
Radical (i.e. Populist) philosophy: “They are in the ditch just like we are.” It attempted to unite
lower-class whites and blacks; ultimately failed, but made heroic headway.
Chapter 3: Capitulation to Racism: This long chapter basically describes the decline in
effectiveness of Northern liberalism, Southern conservatism, and Southern radicalism
(“restraining forces” against black mistreatment) as the factor that allowed for the South’s
adoption of extreme racism via Jim Crow-ism. Factors that led to this outcome include the
Compromise of 1877, the idea of the White Man’s Burden in U.S. imperialistic endeavors
(1898), and the use of the “Negro domination” cry by the Southern conservatives to crush the
Populist party.
Luis Fraga and Ricardo Ramirez: Latino Political Incorporation in California,
1990-2000
Background: As of 2000, Latinos make up 32% of California population and will
keep growing as %; substantially underregistered as compared to blacks and
non-Latino whites. They tend to vote Democratic in increasing numbers.
Latinos were 14% of Californians voting in 2000 election (twice that of
blacks); though only half of eligible Latino voters are registered, Latinos
constitute 16% of registered voters in CA; constitute 25 percent of state
Assembly and 18 percent of state Senate.
Political Incorporation: the “extent to which self-identified group
interests are articulated, represented, and met in public policymaking”
(304). Fraga and Ramirez give it 3 descriptive/analytical dimensions.
1) Electoral: presence and potential influence of Latino voters (as a bloc
vote, for example); Latinos have increased this influence from 1990-2000
(a)
Increased Access—driven by population growth and
naturalization
(b)
High Opportunity—% eligible to register is high,
registration rates grow
(i)
Still below those of whites, but magnitude of
difference is decreasing
(c)
Institutionalization—voting as a sizeable bloc for
successful candidates/positions
(i)
Latino bloc increasingly critical to Democratic
margins of victory (important component in elections of
Gov. Gray Davis, Senator Barbara Boxer)
(ii)
Consistent white bloc vote against Latino preferences
limits political influence of Latino bloc (in approval of
Proposition 187 in 1994, for example, limiting access of
undocumented workers to public services, health care,
education)
2) Representational: presence of Latinos in elected positions and positions
of formal policy making
(a)
Increased Access—based on # of open government seats that
Latino candidates can win
(i)
Enhanced through drawing majority Latino districts
after 1990 census, directly led to increase in Latino
representatives
(b)
High Opportunity—Latinos win office in substantial %,
despite most of these districts not having majority of Latino
registered voters
(c)
Greatest gains in Institutionalization—Latinos constitute
substantial portion of legislature/majority party in Assembly
and Senate
(i)
Latino Speaker of Assembly for two terms; lieutenant
Governor Cruz Bustamente
(ii)
Much less is known about cities, county level
government
3) Policy: extent to which Latinos receive benefits from public policy (like
gains in SES); no existing study of policy accomplishment by Latino
legislators
(a)
Access—Latino issues are addressed more frequently,
consistently in legislative arena
(i)
Fraga suggests that policy gains would be based on
ability to link interests of Latino communities to the
broader public interest: informed public interest
(ii)
Many CA Latino legislators limit the extent to which
they are known primarily as advocates for Latino interests
(b)
Opportunity—laws enacted that seriously apply to needs of
Latinos, but do not have to be targeted specifically to
Latinos (like “Healthy Families Initiative” for uninsured
children)
(c)
Institutionalization—policies bring improvement in Latino
material well-being
Conclusion: Future influence rests in high voter turnout and consistent bloc
voting. Paradox of block voting, however: Latinos risk being taken for
granted within Dem. party, but not voting as bloc diminishes influence in
elections. Coalition building with diverse interests may be key to making
policy gains.
Matthew Jacobson: Whiteness of a Different Color—European immigrants and the
alchemy of race (ch. 2, 3, ep.)
(Nationality Act of) 1790 Naturalization law: naturalized citizenship
is available to all “free white persons”; this shapes the history of AsianAmericans, denying Chinese and Japanese immigrants the power to combat the
racism they encountered in 1870s/1880s California, 1940s internment…but it
had unforeseen positive consequences for a variety of European ethnics,
thanks to its “unexamined inclusivity”—Jacobson says that legislators were
too busy worrying about race in terms of the American black/white divide and
issues of slavery to worry about other ethnic groups; before the 1840s,
whiteness was defined against non-whiteness. The fracturing of this identity
comes with a) huge numbers of migrants coming and taking advantage of
industrialism b) nativist fears of political threat of newcomers (“unfit for
self-government”) as influx grows c) the science of race meets nativist
fears, justifying them with pseudoscience…we need them as laborers, but they
are “ill-equipped citizens”
Irish and German first come in largest numbers (neither particularly
wanted). German are seen as least dangerous, because they settle in the west
(where divisions between white and non-white are apparent), do not see
themselves as unified race, and relationship of anglo-saxon tradition with
tuetonic one. irish were “papists” unfit for democracy because their
religious system is inseparable from their race.
The biggest concern was keeping Asians out (pagans, see themselves as
too distinct a group/perpetually foreign, come from slave labor tradition not
compatible with free labor system); in 1870 they extend citizenship to
persons of African race/descent. This is contradiction between immigration
policy (which focuses on a hierarchy of white races, and sees some as sorely
unfit) and naturalization policy (which points to fundamental differences
between whites and Hindus, Turkish, Japanese, and focuses on “whites” as a
more inclusive group).
Dictionary of Races or Peoples (part of 1911 Dillingham Commission
Report on Immigration) gives each ethnic group a physical description,
“hierarchical scale of human development and worth”; Madison Grant’s Passing
of the Great Race (1916, becomes popular in 1920s) laments the effect of
“immutable racial traits” and the decline born of miscegenation between
ethnics as bad for the republic.
Johnson Act (1924) 2 % of each group’s population according to the 1890
census, based on Report of Eugenics Committee of US Committee on Selective
Immigration (chaired by Grant)—in order to get the stock of people who
originally settled US, north and west Europeans, the ones that would be “good
citizens.” Jacobson argues that the idea of exclusion on basis of fitness
for self-government was an old idea, and this was merely a new “refinement on
how the races would be defined” to achieve that goal…that was how the
eugenicists won, by taking an old idea and adding some “science” and
“research” to it. Eugenics itself was based on pre-existing notions of
difference among peoples, and the act itself did not invent the hierarchy of
whites, it merely acted upon it.
1840-1920s: Anglo-Saxon exclusivity dominates, giving way in the 1920s
to beginning of Caucasian unity, a focus on the “major divisions” (Negroid,
Mongoloid, Caucasian)—race becomes color. Why?
(1) Johnson Act: Once we cut down on all of these desirables, political and
social conflict also died down
(2) Great migration: blacks come from S to N/W, and civil rights issues put
Jim Crow first in racial discourse; differences within whites lose salience
in face of whiteness as privilege…
(3) Nazis: show us the dangers of race thinking, and we start thinking in
terms of ethnicity, not race, and we start stressing “tolerance” (UNESCOs
1950/1952 The Race Concept statement about underlying unity of humans,
environment and heredity determine traits, no connection between culture and
race, intelligence and psychology do not coincide with race)
Revision of race concept gives way to studies of the social/political
aspects of race: race relations (not a new field, but a different approach,
where previously races were to blame for their situations/way they are
perceived, now more the idea that consciousness of racial differences leads
to certain social relations)
There has been some disavowal of whiteness recently (in affirmative
action arguments, for example): the idea that certain white ethnics do not
“feel” white, as compared to their perceived public power as members of this
“white” elite which they see as only applying to WASPs (1971’sThe Rise of
Unmeltable Ethnics by Michael Novak).
Tomas Almaguer…Racial Fault Lines: The historical origins of white supremacy
in California (Intro, ch. 2, 6, 7)
After the US-Mexico War, the 1853 Gadsen Purchase, US acquires 1/3 of Mexico.
The result: race relations in California are not merely binary or
symmetrical. Racial formation: social, economic, political forces determine
importance of racial categories. Racialization: extension of racial meaning
to groups or relationships that were previously unclassified. EuropeanAmerican men achieved supremacy in a series of racialized struggles with
other ethnic groups over land ownership, labor-market positions.
European-Americans: though diverse population, ethnic differences within
group are overshadowed by collective designation as “white” due to
competition with so many nonwhite populations (white supremacist practices
strengthen “white” identity); racial divisions of white v. nonwhite cut
across class lines.
Mexicans: Spanish ancestry made them white, semicivilized, familiar culture
(romance language, Christian, ruling elite “Rancheros); property owning
Ranchero class worthy of partial assimilation into society (not same
miscegenation laws, for example)
Working class does not come into direct competition with whites at
first, because they are small population, concentrated away from urban
centers; Rancheros could resist some legal, political encroachment
because of suffrage granted by treaties (like Guadalupe-Hidalgo in
1846, can hold public office, own land, offer testimony). Working
class, seen as more impure, could not put up same fight. Rancheros
(families monopolizing huge tracts of land thanks to land-tenure system
put in place by Mexican gov after 1821 independence, like 1824
Colonization Act) had own system of slavery on cattle farms (with
Indians); criticized by whites for lack of industriousness, economic
initiative; central conflict between whites, Mexicans was one of higher
classes over best farm lands. Demise of this class and widespread
immigration at turn of 20th century, however, makes labor conflict more
salient form of racial antagonism.
Blacks: association with slave system seen as antithetical to free labor
society being created in CA, threat to CA becoming free state; segregated
into lower classes, seek autonomy in all-black towns, but at least partially
assimilated to European or American customs, religion, and language.
Chinese: nonwhite; though (along with Japanese) principle source of cheap
manpower to develop state infrastructure, seen as directly competing with
white workers in urban industries; also seen as pagan, peculiar customs and
attire, non-European features, sexual threat to white women, leading to
Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 (Chinese arriving in 1860s first immigrant
group to be specifically banned from the US due to race).
First come in 1850s, as indentured servants; some come w/$ and become
merchants (import-export) and shopkeepers in Chinatowns, ruling elite
on good terms with public officials; mostly male population.
Capitalists want them, because they are easy, cheap, reliable labor;
white laborers feel class position/white privilege threatened (focus on
race instead of combining to fight capitalism). After Chinese
Exclusion Act, Japanese come to fill void as farm laborers; opposition
leads to Alien Land Laws of 1913,1920 (aliens ineligible for
citizenship can’t own private property or lease land for over 3 yrs);
negative sentiment largely extension of earlier view of Chinese.
Indians: nonwhite “uncivilized savages” marginalized b/c of alien culture and
rituals; disenfranchised; seen as part of wilderness Anglos needed to
transform, put on reservations, decimated from disease or genocide
Manifest Destiny and the “white man’s burden”: mission to extend white
dominion (civilization, Christianity) over all uncivilized heathens, destiny
to expand to Pacific coast and bring democracy, economic and social
institutions
Free labor ideology: idea of expanding capitalist society based on free wage
labor, the right to private property and economic individualism; belief in
economic (and consequently social) mobility, that is, white men are entitled
to this privileged mobility, which is only attainable in societies untainted
by degrading nonwhite labor systems.
Legislation in 1800s made sure nonwhites were in unfree labor systems
(indentured servitude, contract labor) and excluded them from certain
skilled occupations, opportunities for self-employment; social mobility
therefore constricted to only whites
Multiracial Identity: From Personal Problem to Public Issue, by Kimbery DaCosta
How did multiracials form a group? Why did they choose to emerge when they did, and
bring multiracialism up for public discussion? How did this new phenomena challenge the
existing racial classifications? More specifically DaCosta will concentrate on the challenges to
this new identity. Two misconceptions about multiracials is that they form a solid group with a
unified conscience or that they are not a group and are completely unaware of itself and don’t
deserve recognition. She explains that though the members of the exiting multiracial groups are
few and that alliances between them are formed on account of friendships between leaders, they
still managed, in very short period of time, to change the classification codes on the 2000
Census, and now individuals can mark as many nationalities/ethnicities as they want. They argue
that multiracial identification is on par with our liberal democratic principals and thus people of
mixed backgrounds have the right to mark/choose any categories they want, because unlike in
the 60s, racial classification today is more of an identity issue rather than a mere classification.
Though these groups mobilized quickly, they had way to join forces and compromise their
philosophies. One criticism is that the majority of the members of these organizations doesn’t
really participate in the decision making, and often don’t know what is going on. Who are the
leaders really representing? (This echoes back to minority group representation, i.e. MALDEF).
Multiracial groups are also accused by minority groups of wanting to be ‘less’ of one race or
ethnicity. Yet some multiracials think they are a double minority, not half-white, and thus not
able to access privileges.
During the initial stages of these groups, they talked about ‘cosmic questions’, trying to
“understand what experiences and troubles one shares with others and lead to the politicizing of
those concerns”. These groups allow people to gather with others like themselves, who they
previously didn’t know existed. Close contact with others enabled organizations to form and
eventually led to political litigation, spurring the origins of a multiracial community, not fully
organized, but well on its way.
Why did they form when they did? Because the post 60s generation was coming of age,
encountering new experiences, i.e. higher education, where they confronted racial hierarchy.
They were not helped by demography, such as some minority groups, but rather by
contemporary changes in racial policy and classification. From 1960 until recently, one could
choose one category on the census, but the categories were archaic and narrow, those of mixed
decent grapple with which box to mark, because these question kinship, heritage, beliefs, culture.
According to DaCosta, multiracials, those who don’t identify with as a monoracial/ethnic group,
have no ‘ethnic honor’, no label that explains who they are. Having an identity is tantamount to
exiting as a social being in the U.S. if one has no identity one doesn’t exist, or have a niche. Thus
she argues the multiracial category must be created so people can regain social honor and
express who they are. The rise in social activity around the importance of race and ethnicity
facilitated the emergence of the multiracial community, which drew on previous movements to
learn how to mobilize and gain ground. Multiracial groups’ goal is to make the public aware of
their existence, and since their 2000 census achievement, there has been more emphasis, media
and celebration of mixed race individuals, such as Tiger Woods and Maria Carey. Yet will they
exist in the future? They will if they can cement their beliefs, create a culture, etc. a lot will
depend on the interpretations given to the new census data by the media, the individuals
themselves, etc. Multiracialism has ceased to be an individual identity and is now out in the
public. What will the next generation do with it remains to be seen.
The Latino Vote: Shaping America’s Electoral Future
Malcolm Coffin
This article examines what determines the Latino vote, their perception of parties, their policy
preferences and the socio-economic forces working on them. It also seeks to answer why the
Republican Party is having trouble attracting the Latino vote.
Coffin states that the Latino population and vote will become increasingly important in the
coming century, as this population rises. Yet both parties will have to compete to gain their vote.
Though this population usually identifies with the Democratic Party, which typically reaches out
to minority population, and proposes a larger government, more social and public spending in
education, health, welfare, etc, the Latino population is socially conservative. One would think
this would bode well for the Republican Party. Yet Latino’s perceive the party as one of
entrenched white-males and furthermore, they value short-term economic benefits, rather than
long-term policies, i.e. they value getting food stamps over making abortion and gay marriage
illegal.
Thus far, parties, in order to gain the Latino vote, have had to worry about how they are
perceived and the policies they adopt. However, Latinos do not block vote, and their policy
preferences vary by subgroup, for instance the Cuban population vis-à-vis policy with Cuba.
However, as time goes by, the Cuba issue is becoming less salient among the newer generations.
Another important trend noted by Coffin is that contrary to blacks, Latinos who move up the
socio-economic ladder don’t necessarily identify with the Republican Party. Thought they see
themselves as less dependant, and associate less with the democrats, they don’t switch over.
The Republican Party isn’t winning over the Latino vote because this is not a shared priority
among all the party members. Though Bush and other individuals have proposed policies to gain
the Latino vote, other prominent members such as Tancredo, don’t share the same ideology
regarding immigration, health policies, welfare, etc. There is a rift in the Republican Party and
some members fear that reaching out to minority-Latino populations will alienate the party base.
Despite some gains for the party in the 2002 midterm elections such as Gov. Pataki in NY, it has
failed to enlarge its base.
Coffin believes that the survival of the Republican Party depends on how well they improve their
outreach to the Latino Community. If there continues to be a rift among party members, it may
have rocky times ahead.
The Republican Party is failing to capitalize on the growth of the Latino voter population.
Latinos remain loyal to the Democratic Party not because of the Democrats continued outreach
but because the Republicans fail to cater to their needs. Since the Latino vote is based on short
term needs, which are easily met, such as increased distribution of government monies and
subsidies, the Republican Party has ground to gain, but rifts within the party prevent this from
happening
Multiple Racial Identifiers in 2000 Census, and then what? By Jennifer L. Hochschild
Prof. Hochschild starts out by making a couple of confessions. First off, she states that racial
identifiers are very fluid and they vary from generation to generation. Also they are very
complex and are interpreted by different people in different ways. She then poses, how will this
new Census identification system impact our political and social lives? What do we hope to
achieve by adding this option? Are we attempting to move towards the ‘melting pot’ and erase
the saliency of race and ethnicity or are we trying to further cover up the existence of racial
hierarchy?
Her article is basically a series of questions that she doesn’t have answers for, but she is worried
about how these new statistics will affect the political and economic outcomes of existing
minorities. How will the Census Bureau and government interpret the statistics? How will they
classify the mixed minorities, to which minority will they group them with? She presents a
series of hypothetical, mainly illustrating how these new statistics may harm exiting minorities.
For example, if one uses the ‘one drop of blood’ theory then the American Indian population
will expand. Statistics have shown that those of mixed blood usually have a higher economic
status than the full blooded. Hence, by including the mixed blood in the current population, they
will bring SES up statistically but not in reality. Hence resources might be taken away because
statistically they are no longer needed, such as federal support, majority-minority districts, etc.
She also asks, who should decide how these new categories are counted? If advocates are
responsible, then they may skew the results, or tip them in their favor. If experts are in charge,
they may try to interpret them practically, as pure numbers, since they are not really emotionally
involved. Should the legislators decide? They are accountable to their constituents and therefore
may act in their political interest, succumbing to political pressure. Should the juridical system
decide? They are trained to think in the long run, how decisions will affect the constitution, set
precedents, etc. She believes that advocacy groups will play a huge role in the decision making.
Yet what should they seek in the decisions? How will they affect resource distribution, jobs, etc?
She also brings up the dichotomy between race and ethnicity vis-à-vis Latinos. Hispanics often
tend not to racialize themselves. Maybe this tendency points to the fact that race is a social
construction and that we should aim for the ‘melting pot’ society. She considers how these new
categories will affect the party system and believes it will be harder to be a Democrat because
they are the ones most involved and with most to lose over the issue, since they are seen as the
‘minority party’.
She conducts a thought experiment and asks if this new classification system will eventually lead
to ignoring race and ethnicity in society? And if so, is this a good or bad thing? Though these
new categories on the 2000 census are still unsatisfactory, there still needs to be a way of
determining who should get a greater chunk of gov’t resources. Also, by having so many subgroups, they will lack strength and have a weaker position when fighting against the existing
racial hierarchy. There still needs to be a way to identify job discrimination, “voting dilution,
school segregation”.
In her closing statements she concludes that “race may be a social construction, but no one can
deny that “race matters”. Minorities or members of different races would be hurt if we eliminate
the ‘race’ identity. Thus she seems to think that the 2000 census initiative of multiple identifiers
is the lesser of evils, because it will get the U.S. to think about race in new light. We must find
how to use the new statistics and categories “to promote the general Welfare” of all.
The Racialization of Immigration Policy
By Peter Skerry






Skerry’s perspective is that politics is critical and can shape social, economic, and cultural
processes in important ways, not to mention how we perceive them
Skerry argues that the racial lens we have adopted distorts our understanding of the past and
the present; it distorts policies and stymies efforts to achieve control of the immigrant stream
Immigrants today define themselves as a discriminated-against racial minority and consider
immigration policy to be racialized
Scrutiny of the racialization of immigration leads to scrutiny of established political interests
and institutions
“Compared with a century ago, immigration levels are slightly higher; emigration is
considerably lower; and net immigration is substantially greater.”
The integration of immigrants into contemporary America has a critical political dimension-however, contemporary immigrant communities lack political organizational life










Affirmative action programs have filled the institutional void
Paradox of Immigration Politics: they tend to advantage resources that immigrant
communities lack (money, expertise) while disadvantaging resources these communities have
in abundance (social capital).
Difficult to mobilize immigrant communities, however some organizations have made some
real gains (MALDEF and VRA)
Society has become more concerned with WHO gets represented rather than HOW they are
represented
Immigrants experience racial discrimination and are in competition with black Americans-they need to provide evidence that they are not so disadvantaged as to be beyond hope
Hispanics not viewed as racial minorities because they do not fit this mold and are
considered to be “white” yet still face significant challenges
Different individuals of Mexican decent would respond differently to a common past
Contemporary political institutions encourage children of today’s immigrants to define their
problems in racial terms
Our political and policy elites are reluctant to address immigration because it is highly
volatile and hazardous to the realm of symbolic politics
Many support high levels of immigration for affirmative action policies to take place and the
goal of immigrant leaders is to dominate the political agenda
American Slavery, American Freedom (Chp 1 and Bk 4)
By: Edmund Morgan











It seemed inconsistent that slaveholders were devoting themselves to freedom, and ironically,
the rise of liberty and equality in America had been accompanied by the rise of slavery
Americans relied on slave labor in its struggle for a separate and equal station among the
nations of the earth. Americans bought their independence with slave labor which produced
tobacco
Slavery was a mode of compulsion that prevailed where land was abundant, but was not as
advantageous as indentured labor in the first half of the century (a slave cost twice as much);
more advantageous to buy slaves around 1660--increased productivity and profitability
Labor was composed of white servants until shift from tobacco to cotton and sugar proved to
be strenuous labor
VA had developed her plantation system without slaves, and slavery introduced no novelties
to methods of production--the freedmen were VA’s dangerous men, not the slaves
Slaves couldn’t be made to work for fear of losing liberty, so they had to fear for lives
Race was an ingredient of slavery--the new social order that VA created after it changed to
slave labor was determined as much by race as by slavery
Englishmen described the poor in the exact way that the Virginians described slaves
Class and color divisions tend to be confounded and it is difficult to distinguish between race
prejudice and class prejudice
Indians also considered outlanders because non-Christian--Christianity and slavery
incompatible
Sexual relations separated races--extensive punishment for miscegenation



Virginians were strong Republicans--Republicanism has always been associated with men
who worked in the ground
Slavery occupied a critical and ambiguous position: it was the primary evil that men sought
to avoid for society as a whole by curbing monarchs and establishing republics. But it was
also the solution to one of society’s most serious problems, the problem of the poor (most of
the poor were enslaved)
Zeal for liberty/equality could go hand in hand w/ contempt for the poor and plans to enslave
them--able bodied poor spelled danger to liberty and society
Mae Ngai, “The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of
the Immigration Act of 1924.” Journal of American History, June 1999.
Key Terms:
Immigration Act of 1924: restricted immigration to 150,000 a year based on quotas allotted by
country. The size of the quota for each country depended on the proportion of Americans who traced
their ancestry back to that country (national origin). Its overall intention and effect was to limit
immigration from “undesirable” European countries (IE, not Western) and by undesirable non-White
races.
Census of 1790: Nation’s first census. Had no information about national origin or ancestry.
Nationality Act of 1790: granted the right of naturalized citizenship to “free white persons”. This is
the origin of racially excluding Asians and others from being able to obtain citizenship and
assimilating.
Nationality Act of 1870: Extended the original Nationality Act so that Blacks could technically get
citizenship.
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882: declared Chinese ineligible to citizenship and kept them from
immigrating to the US (California, essentially).
Ozawa v United States (1922): Supreme Ct decided that color on the basis of race was insufficient,
but Japanese ppl weren’t Caucasian because they weren’t white.
United States v Thind (1923): Supreme Ct decided that “free white persons” meant whatever it was
commonly understood to be, by the layperson—meaning that it excludes Indian people even if they
are technically “Caucasian”. Admitted the socially constructed nature of race.
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Specified the terms of Mexico’s defeat in 1848, ceded half of
Mexico’s territory to the United States, but more importantly for our purposes, gave Mexican citizens
the ability to become US citizens if they wished to do so.
In re Rodriguez : Trying to ascertain Rodriguez’s race, acknowledged that figuring out someone’s
race (particularly if he’s Mexican) is quite subjective.
Summary:
This article talks about the invention of “national origins” as a concept and method of classification,
and Asians and Blacks. Basically, through determining the quotas for the Immigration Act of 1924,
experts had to come up with a system of determining national origins and classifying people into
them, which was a practical and logical nightmare. She argues that through this whole process, race
and nationality were separated and redefined in new ways. The law split the world into Whites and
other races—so it constructed the white American race, while racialization and excluding as
unassimilable the Asians and Mexicans. Simultaneously, the law carefully separated the European
immigrants along lines defined by nationality—which were equally socially constructed as race. The
Quota Board considered race and national origin as immutable, unchangeable, even through
interracial marriage or generations of descent.
Asians: 1922-23 series of Supreme Ct rulings (above) were definitely at the same time as
immigration debates in Congress, and they racialized people of Asian descent into a distinct group,
merging their national origins.
Mexicans: in the 1920s, Congress more strictly delineated the difference between legal and illegal
immigration, primarily as applied to Mexicans. Congress lifted statute of limitations on deportation,
formed Border patrol, made illegal entrya felony, deported more Mexicans, and launched a massive
repatriation campaign. Mexicans came to be defined as “illegals” and Anglos distanced themselves
from the Mexicans, relegating them as “other” and viewing them as a separate race even though their
racial identity was legally ambiguous (In re Rodriguez).
Claire Kim, “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.”
Key Terms
Field of Racial Positions: The graph that illustrates racial dynamics, where the Y axis goes from
Inferior to Superior status while the X axis goes from Foreigner to Insider status.
Relative Valorization: Process by which dominant group (Whites) valorizes subordinate group
(Asians) in relation to another subordinate group (Blacks) in order to maintain control of both. Which
is to say, Whites say that Asians are better than Blacks by some standard (cultural, racial) in order to
maintain their own dominance.
Civic Ostracism: Dominant group (Whites) constructs subordinate group (Asians) as perpetually
foreign and unassimilable in order to exclude them from political or civic participation.
Racial Triangulation : how Kim describes what’s happened to Asians—they are superior to Blacks
but outsiders. If you look at the graph on pg 108, the racial positions of Whites Asians and Blacks
form a triangle.
People vs George Hal I (1854): Chinese man’s testimony was inadmissible, so the murder conviction
was reversed. Landmark case that paved the way to even more anti-Chinese legislation.
Summary
1850-1950: A period where there was overt racial triangulation of Asian Americans.
There was clearly relative valorization: Though Blacks and Chinese were alike discriminated
against, Chinese were still preferred as workers because they were perceived to be smarter, more
hardworking and more disciplined than Blacks. Furthermore, because they were unable to obtain
citizenship, they had no political power and therefore were less of a threat to Whites. But, Asians
were the only group in history to legally denied the ability to naturalize (evidence of “civic
ostracism”). She argues that a series of Supreme Ct case decisions used whatever contorted logic was
necessary to police the boundary between White and Asian. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed
after politicians exaggeratingly painted the Chinese as a massive horde threatening to take over the
West Coast. The Japanese internment during WWII was another prime example of civic ostracism,
because they were painted as immutable bearers of a foreign and rather hostile race/culture, no matter
if they were born in the US and spoke English. They were seen as possible agents of economic or
military takeover.
1965-today: racial triangulation is not as obvious as before, clearly because of the civil rights
movement and so forth, but it still takes place with “coded” language.
Discussion of races now hinges on discussion of “cultural”—talking about how one culture is
superior to another, or certain cultures are more conducive to success. For example, Asian American
cultural values are more conducive to success than Black cultural values; however, she argues that
views of culture activate deeply entrenched racism. Thus, today’s relative valorization is mostly
captured by the “model minority” myth, claiming that Asian Americans have cultural values that
have propelled them to success. Because Asians are painted as having moved ahead on their own
steam without much government help, the model minority myth is used to discredit or question the
usefulness of special aid programs like affirmative action (thus maintaining white dominance).
Moreover, the myth lumps all different Asian groups together, whether of different nationalities or
immigrant status. Blacks on the other hand suffer from the “underclass” myth, which paints them as
ghetto-bound, etc; by this token, Blacks should abandon their political leanings and follow Asian
Americans to become a model minority (again reifying White dominance). Asians Americans, on the
other hand, continue to suffer from “civic ostracism”; the message is that they should continue their
politically quiet lives. Kim argues that White opinionmakers continue to attribute permanent
foreignness to Asian Americans, and there is skepticism about their participation in public life; they
are too readily seen as agents of a hostile foreign power.
Brian Barry, Culture and Equaitiy: an Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism.
Key Terms
“The Politics of Difference”: what multiculturalists tend to advocate—the government treating
different groups differently in order to ensure some sort equality. “Group-specific” public policies.
civic nationality: citizens of a country feeling like they share the same fate, are willing to make
sacrifices for the common good (requires them to recognize a common good). Interests of everyone
must count equally, and “no groups whose members’ view as to be automatically discounted.” You
feel like you belong to the polity (assimilation) + you feel like others accept you as belonging to that
polity (ratification).
Summary:
Barry clearly opposes the politics of difference. He does not believe that cultures in and of
themselves have any special standing in society or intrinsic value, or that some practice has value by
virtue of being central to a culture. It is the individuals who ultimately have rights and choices.
Individuals must be free to choose to maintain culture or to opt out of it, and the government should
have no say either.
He rejects the notion that each culture is its own moral universe, and that cultural values
cannot be compared to each other. He believes that it is absurd and meaningless to recognize the socalled equal worth of every culture and defer to it, just as it is meaningless to recognize the equal
worth of anything in a particular category of things (e.g., all paintings are equally valuable means
that all paintings are equally not valuable).
Moreover, it is impossible to enforce that everyone should “recognize” that every culture is
equal. Just because one has citizenship in a country is not enough to accord one equal concern and
respect from members of other groups, nor does it assume one will equally respect members of other
groups. He argues that common institutions are necessary to foster the sense that all people are
connected and share the same fate (civic nationality). This feeling is broken down when these
common institutions make all sorts of exceptions for particular cultural groups, allowing people to
opt-out of the common institution by virtue of his/her birth. Everyone should share in decisionmaking equally, or else the trust between citizens that is vital to political cooperation is broken down.
Moreover, Democratic decision making does not preclude special needs and interests, it merely
ensures that such special needs and interests are justified in terms of equity and efficiency, rather
than justified by virtue of belonging to a special cultural minority. Thus, appeals to do something a
certain way should not rest on “this is my culture and this is how we do it here” but rather on appeals
to universal human justice, which he believes is not dependent on culture. He believes that there are
certain basic human needs and values that transcend culture. At the same time, having these values
does not proscribe the government from enforcing conventional local norms when compliance
creates a public good (like quiet neighborhoods after dark or something).
Barry says that equality of opportunity and cultural diversity will necessarily lead to different
outcomes among different groups, but that this result in itself does not constitute discrimination or
unfairness as long as the criteria for achieving some outcome (say, getting employment) is defensible
on those universal terms of justice. He raises a good example of how he thinks the government
should work: for example, the tax system applies to everybody equally, but not everyone pays the
same taxes. There is room for individualism in a system that applies to everyone.
Minorities can oppress members of their own group too, particularly if one accepts that a
minority group should make decisions for its own group without “interference” from outside groups.
Governments have a responsibility to protect its own citizens, whether or not that is “interference.”
Finally, multiculturalism assumes that group distinctions are based mostly on distinctive
cultural attributes; thus, alternative causes for disadvantage are neglected. Moreover, it politicizes
culture and can make it into a problem by turning it into a form of pork-barrel politics.
Study Guide: Lectures 1-13
1. Introduction- Anomaly v. embeddedness thesis: is slavery an accident in liberal democratic
society that can be eliminated? Or is slavery permanently built into American society?
Complications: class, national origin, gender, etc. 2. Anomaly Hist. I- Argument: Liberal
democratic values clearly contradict slavery (e.g. liberalism emphasizes universal value and
equality; democracy emphasizes equal political freedom). Slavery is bad economically
(Tocqueville). Abolitionists all cite American values and institutions, but whites tend to be
gradualists and blacks immediatists. 3. Anomaly Hist. II- Was Reconstruction successful? Led
to: increase in education, 14th (equal protection, citizenship for freedmen) and 15th (black male
suffrage) Amendments, Civil Rights Law of 1875 (guaranteed equal treatment to all in public
places), and increase in black elected officials. Redemption- formal end of Reconstruction; leads
to oppressive sharecropping system, de facto loss of vote to blacks, and (by 1900) Jim Crow—
system of physical segregation. Woodward- important: the Jim Crow system was not inevitable:
politics could have been handled differently. Booker T Washington- tokenism is a step to
eventual equality. Counter argument: WEB DuBois- equality must be sought across, not within,
races. 4. Embed. Hist. I- Patterson- the compensating principle insures a homeostatic
equilibrium in race relations. Bell- progress is cyclical, dependent on white interests, and
achieved by sacrificing black rights. *Morgan- slavery led to principles of freedom and
democracy in VA. Democracy depends on the exclusion of large groups of potential voters, or
the system becomes dangerous. Slavery is economically embedded- agriculture, slave trade,
funding for revolution, purchased raw materials for Industrial Revlution. 5. Embed. Hist. IIExclusion of some groups is crucial to nation building in the absence of historical precedent or
divine king. Examples of embeddedness: black disenfranchisement, Fugitive Slave Law (1850,
Anthony Burns case was a rallying point), racism behinds women’s movement. 6,7. Anomaly
Contemp. I, II- Myrdal- Negro problem is actually white conflict between ideals and actions.
Electoral incentives and civil rights movement (Myrdal). - Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)- “separate
but equal” but then Brown v. Board of Education (1954) repudiated Plessy. *Huntington’s
“ideological cycles” of creedal passion/cynicism/complacency/hypocracy. Allport- prejudice
breaks down after contact. 8. Embed. Contemp. I- Racism in politics: slogans, issues, party
divisions, nature of majority rule. Evidence of discrimination in unemployment, wages, housing,
and levels of incarceration. Also racial stereotyping. 9. Embed. Contemp. II- Racial Contractwhites agree to view nonwhites as inferior (Mills); based on social contract theory. Strong
embed: need total, impossible transformation. Weak embed: change unlikely but possible. Weak
anomaly: changes rare, but occur. Strong anomaly: racial blockage eliminated. 10. Hist. of
Assimilation- Straight line- quick movement from ethnic to mainstream (Dahl, Alba/Nee).
Segmented- skin color determines mobility (Waters). Racialization- categorization of group as
nonwhite and inferior (Ngai, Almaguer). 1790-1840: “free white persons” could naturalize.
1840s-1924: influx from rest of Europe; race and skin color separated. Immigration Act of 1924
cuts off immigration levels from outside Northern Europe. 11. Hist of Assimilation II- Idea of
race as a social construction- Jacobson. Why could whites assimilate? 1) black migration north
2)Nazism 3)civil rights concept of race. Assimilation can be two way, according to Park and
Burgess. 12. Racialization in Hist.- Assimilation: move into mainstream society as full citizens.
Racialization: kept out of mainstream as, at best, 2nd class citizens. Abundant, serial Asian
immigration led to labor anxiety, political anxiety. Policy results: laws limiting Asian
immigration, refusal of assimilated status, internment in WWII. 13. Racialization in Hist. IIRace: understood to mean biology, visible traits. Ethnicity: understood to mean cultural
community; socially inherited. Hispanics (ethnic group, not racial)- are they US founders or
immigrants? High levels of Mexican immigration from 1900-1950s; called braceros, “wetbacks”.
Lectures 14 on
Contemporary Assimilation 1: 4 relationships of assimilation to racialization-1. opposites
(whites assimilated in, others racialized out) 2. racialized into whiteness, thus assimilated 3.
deracializing (assimilated w/out being racialized) 4. assimilation into “American” is ideal, but
racialization is in practice
1965 Immigration/Naturalization Act: Removed quotas for family members; opened
doors to much more Asian immigration; Asians now 25% of immigrants
Model Minority: Asians looked at as most positive immigrants because of educational
and economic success. All immigrants should strive to be like them.
BUT Asians lack political clout!! (Language difficulties, no clear political profile)
Contemporary Assimilation 2:
Melting pot: no racial designations; everyone assimilated into American society
Political Pluralism: Hispanics have electoral representation but split along votes, blacks
have 1-party democratic voting, Asians are very split
Identity fragmentation: Assimilate by rejecting ethnic identities-have identities that cut
across race and ethnicity instead
Study race? No-distorts our views, use ethnicity instead. Yes-not studying it won’t stop
racism and will overlook important trends
Contemporary Racialization 1: Racialization now more subtle-since 1960’s there has been a
policy of inclusion (Affirmative action, majority/minority districts)
Claire Kim: Superior/Inferior vs. Insider/Outsider dimensions; can be on the outside and
still superior (like Asians) or can be inside and inferior (blacks)
Asian Foreignness: Perceived as outsiders by whites and other minorities; always thought
of as coming from another country, still somewhat mistrusted (Wen Ho Lee was Taiwanese and
accused of spying for China)
Particularism: One idea that we should strive to recognize and celebrate racialization
instead of rejecting it.
Universalism: Opposite to particularism; move beyond race and ethnicity in general; in
politics move into already established non-racial groups
Contemporary Racialization 2:
Braceros-Mexicans entered America in 1942-1964 under a large scale labor \
ntract program
Operation “Wetback”-INS militarized border to deport undocumented Mexicans
Brown Power Movement-Mexicans made race the centerpiece of their defense against
discrimination and mistreatment; embraced brown identity over being white
Political Coalitions:
Class-based coalitions-based on “contact hypothesis”, avoids divisive racial issues
Race-based Transformative Coalitions-political race is needed to bring racial tensions to
surface and engage with them; then you can transcend race
Horsetrading: purely based on interest-no attention paid to ideology; short term coalition
based on the issue at hand
Political Coalitions II: Panethnicity
Experiential Panethnicity-interactions across national origin boundaries
Identificational Panethnicity-identifying as “Asian-American”, for example
Panethnic Organizing/Coalition Building-across national boundaries and for united
interests
Electoral Politics:
15th Amendment-Black male suffrage granted
1965 Voting Rights Act-prohibits tests or devices to disenfranchise minorities;
preclearance provision (any jurisdiction w/very low voter turnout had to get federal approval to
adapt laws)
Minority-Majority Districts: racial gerrymandering in an effort to elect minorities to
congress
Descriptive vs. Substantive-while the numbers for minority representation might be
higher, it might not actually turn into policies directly affecting/helping minorities
Public Policies and Electoral Politics:
Affirmative Action Views: 1.) Needed to eliminate racism; beneficiaries will help own
community 2.) violates American core values of equality, respect for individual
Majority-Minority Districting Views: 1.) racial hierarchies embedded in electoral arena,
descriptive representation essential to overcome this 2.) racial hierarchy ended/on its way to endjudicial oversight is harmful and disrespects individual views
Immigration Views: If we owe jobs, cultural continuity, and liberal values to immigrants
then we should restrict immigration; if not then we should allow/increase immigration
Interracialism:
Loving V. Virginia, 1967-deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional; public views
of intermarriage changing during this time period
Multiracialism-A new racial identity; the 1st step to eliminating racial distinctions; next
step in civil rights revolution (they are discriminated against too and this must change)
The Future of Racial Construction: Plausible Futures
Black Exceptionalisim-everyone the same except for blacks
White exceptionalism-everyone of color the same and whites are distinct
South-African style-3 part hierarchy of black, all other colors, and whites
Brazilian Style-fine gradations by skin color; darker=lower social standing, but racial
names disappear
Some other Division-categories of region, religion, class, etc. Race will no longer be a
possible category
Multiracials vs. monoracials-celebrate complexity vs. purity
Multiculturalism:
B. Parekh-equal respect of cultures, but not identical treatment
Liberal inclusiveness-teach multiculturalism because cultural diversity is a fact of life in
American society and a valuable resource as well
Identity-Based Education-using one’s identity or cultural core to shape the nature of their
education (because children from different cultures or races have different learning styles)
Liberalism: Fairness to Individuals
Alternatives to MulticulturalismMonism-Given a theory of human nature, there is one true or rational way of
understanding man and the world and leading the good life
Liberalism-Respect for the individual, not for groups; individual should have
autonomous choices
Monism: forbid or require
Multiculturalism: encourage or protect
Liberalism: permit