Students Again

American Politics: Ethnic and Minority Politics

1. Explain why some groups have chosen a strategy of separation. Discuss the internal (group) and external (societal) factors that make such a choice rational. In addition, discuss which groups were successful in achieving separation and which were not. Explain the differences in success.

Some minority groups choose a strategy of separation. In such a strategy “the minority group desires to be left alone rather than to assimilate. It does not seek to impose its values and views on the majority society but wants majority society to respect its differing values and allow the group to hold its values, norms, and customs without suffering discrimination” (LeMay, 167). Achieving separation can be pursued in one of two ways: physical separation or psychological separation. The strategy of physical separation is based on isolation from majority society. The strategy of psychological separation is based on rejecting the norms, customs, and values of majority society. A strategy of physical separation has been attempted by the Amish and Mennonites, Mormons, Native Americans, and African American Black Nationalists following Marcus Garvey. Psychological separation has been the strategy of choice for groups such as the Black Muslims and the Hasidic Jews. All of these groups have attempted separation for a variety of internal and external reasons and to varying degrees of success.

There are several reasons why some groups seek to separate. In some cases it is purely to be left alone to pursue their own beliefs. This internal factor is best exemplified by the Amish and the Mennonites who clustered into rural enclaves to reduce interaction with majority culture. Some other groups did not necessarily seek to become separatists, but rather were forced by being treated by the majority in a manner that physically isolates them. An example of this external factor would be the Native Americans who were forced by the military on to reservations. (LeMay, 168) Other groups such as the Black Muslims and Hasidic Jews seek psychological separation due mostly to internal religious beliefs. This is often accomplished by millennial movements in which strong religious ideology allows an individual to form a psychological shell to isolate from the majority society even while living in the middle of majority society. (LeMay, 208) These examples provide three main reasons why groups decide to separate. First, separation is due to disenchantment of the dominant cultural and political system. Second, the reasoning is based on the group being extremely different from the majority. Finally, a group will seek separation if it experiences extreme levels of hostility for the public or the government or both. (Dr. Fernandez, Lecture 6)

In the myriad of reasons to attempt separation some groups are successful and some are unsuccessful. It seems as though physical separation is either unsuccessful or only successful to a certain degree as time passes. Groups that have attempted psychological separation appear to have a wider degree of success.

Physical separation has only been successful to a certain degree as time passes or unsuccessful. The Amish and Mennonites, Mormons, and Native Americans have only been successful to a certain degree. The Black Nationalists were unsuccessful. The Amish and Mennonites have remained successful in terms of physical separation. They have accomplished this in several ways including symbolization of core values through the Ordnung (expectations of Amish life), centralized leadership, social sanctions, comprehensive socialization, controlled interaction with outsiders, and limited education (Wisconsin v. Yoder). However, success can be mitigated by other factors. Some of the factors that lessen their success include member loss of older Amish sects to more liberal sects, economic changes leading to a reduction of farming as main employment, and integration in the laws and obligations of the dominant group including armed forces enlistment. The Mormons have been successful in that their religion was a way of life and this facilitated physical separation for some time. (Dr. Fernandez, Lecture 6) However, the main Mormon Church is becoming increasingly assimilated (LeMay, 184). The Native American’s are unique. They have been successful in the sense that the majority has remained physically separated by remaining on reservations. However, the unique part is that this was not originally by choice. This fact raises the question of who can claim success in physical separation, the U.S. government or the Native Americans. The physical separation has also led to some unsuccessful conditions including lowest income and education levels and the worst housing and health conditions of any minority group (Dr. Fernandez, Lecture 6). The Black Nationalists movement of Marcus Garvey can be noted as an unsuccessful attempt at physical separation. This was unsuccessful due to “Garvey badly disregard[ing] the sensibilities of the majority of American blacks [and] Liberian government changed its attitude and opposed the colonization plan” (Dr. Fernandez. Lecture 6).

Psychological separation can generally be characterized as being more successful than physical separation movements. Black Muslims were rather successful from its inception in the 1930s until Elijah Muhammad’s death in 1975. During this period their psychological separation created organizations of self-defense, education, political power within the system, economic power within the system, and unity (Dr. Fernandez, Lecture 6) in the midst of majority society. However, this movement has been marginalized with time due to the reduction in member base. The Hasidic Jews, on the other hand, “have been remarkably successful in their use of psychological separatism by maintaining a degree of involvement in the majority society while retaining their distinctive subculture to an amazing degree” (LeMay, 225).

Many groups have attempted separation for a variety of internal and external reasons and to varying degrees of success. The differences in success center on physical versus psychological separation. Groups that attempted physical separation have been successful to a degree or not successful at all. The degree of success is mitigated by time. Groups that have attempted psychological separation have a higher degree of success as a whole than physical separatists groups. This type of separation is mostly attempted by religious groups. In cases, like the Hasidic Jews, the psychological shell they were able to form around themselves has stood the test of time.

2. Latinos and African-Americans predominately self-identify as Democrats. Elaborate on what factors are associated with higher levels of support for the Democratic Party? Discuss the factors that are associated with a higher probability of supporting the GOP? Does the evidence provided by the readings suggest that there might be a slight shift in support from one party to another? Explain why or why not.

In the United States the majority of African Americans and Latinos identify with the Democratic Party. This is due to many different factors unique to each of these two minority groups. The likelihood of either group crossing party lines is minimal. African Americans and Latinos are firmly Democrats and are unlikely to change in the future unless there is a marked change within the group culture.

Latino support for the Democratic Party is mainly due to socioeconomic status. Their socially conservative beliefs are in sync with the Grand Old Party (GOP). This shared belief is unlikely to be a strong enough factor to warrant a party shift within the Latino group. The main factor that drives Latino partisanship is single issue politics (Nicholson and Segura, 67); In other words, “issues eclipse ideology in determining how Latinos identify with political parties” (Nicholson and Segura, 53). The single issue that Latinos are most concerned with is their low socioeconomic status and the Democratic Party is said to own this issue. It can be argued that some factors would tend to move Latinos to the GOP. One factor suggest the notion that as Latinos move towards middle class ranks this shift could also create a shift in party identification (Nicholson and Segura, 52). However, with current data this claim is unfounded (Nicholson and Segura, 66). Another factor is the argued belief that the Latino population has a social issues stance in line with the GOP agenda. While this may be true, “Latinos continue to perceive the Democratic Party as more credible and supportive of their preferences and interests” (Nicholson and Segura, 53). Movement to the middle class and social issues may have been a relevant indicator of Latino partisan shifts to the GOP, but upon further investigation it is realized that these claims are unfounded.

African Americans tend to identify with the Democratic Party due to social engagements (Nicholson and Segura, 114). African Americans work, worship, and live with other African Americans; this dichotomy furthers the progression of Democratic leanings. As a majority of African Americans identify as Democrats, their social situations continually reinforces Democratic stimuli. This factor explains the perpetual support of the Democratic Party by African Americans. However, there are some factors that indicate the possibility of African Americans crossing party lines to identify with the GOP. Interestingly, the factor that helps explain this phenomenon is also centered on social engagements with the added twist of increased socioeconomic status. It is hypothesized by Nicholson and Segura that as African Americans move up the socioeconomic ladder and live, work, and worship among white neighbors Democratic leanings will become weakened (108). This would provide evidence to support the shift of African Americans to the GOP. As residential segregation decreases an era of class voting, rather than social race based voting, may endure. This would allow the GOP to make inroads with the African American community. (Nicholson and Segura, 115 – 16)

African Americans and Latinos are firmly Democrats and are unlikely to change in the future unless there is a marked change within the group culture. This stance by both ethnic groups is centered on socioeconomic status. Latinos are in line to support the GOP’s social agenda, but they do not trust the party. As Latinos move into middle class economic status data negates the notion that this will drive a party shift. African Americans identify with the Democratic Party due to social engagements. As African Americans move up the socioeconomic ladder and establish new social engagements and inroad for the GOP may be created. In either case, a tremendous change in either ethnic group would be required to create a shift in political identity.

3. Several of the readings have discussed the role the media plays in the public's knowledge, attitudes, and opinions. Elaborate on how the media approaches racial topics and how the media and media images affect attitudes, beliefs, and behavior.

The media plays a significant role in the public’s knowledge, attitude, and opinions. The way the media approaches racial topics have an affect on these attributes. Due to the media, minority group knowledge has been limited and majority group attitudes and opinions have been shaped.

The lack of political knowledge among minority groups can be attributed to three factors known as Luskin’s triad model: 1) ability, opportunity, and motive. (Pantoja, 35) In relation to the media, the opportunity leg of the triad is of most importance. This focuses on the availability and regular use of television, newspapers, and magazines. These predictors of political knowledge indicate that the most important media source for gaining political knowledge tends to be print media. The only exception to this was Mexican Americans in which television mattered most (Pantoja, 44). It is argued that the criterion for the lack of minority political knowledge was the insufficient opportunity to collect political information (Pantoja, 46). So, the media plays a significant role in the political knowledge of minority groups, but unfortunately they lack the opportunity to gain such knowledge.

White Americans tend to have more opportunity in gaining political knowledge through the opportunity of access to media outlets. Aside from political knowledge the media shapes White Americans attitudes and opinions. This is accomplished through the impersonal influences of the media: “Lacking such firsthand information, whites must base their responses on whatever information they may have at their disposal.” (Gilliam et al., 757) Although White Americans are more informed media-wise it can clearly be argued that they not necessarily being informed well. This can lead to misinformed attitudes and opinions.

The media’s treatment of racial topics shape attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. An example is local television news. Local television news relies on a crime news script. Crime reporting focuses on violent crime and that the perpetrator is nonwhite. (Gilliam et al. 758) A majority of America remains segregated, although no longer de jure, the lack of racial interaction is fulfilled by media. Given this statement, the very nature of the crime news script shapes negative attitudes and beliefs of minority groups. This affects the behavior of the majority population. Some of the major behaviors that are cultivated include negative stereotypes and support of punitive crime policies such as the death penalty and “three strikes” legislation (Gilliam et al., 758).

Due to the media, minority group knowledge has been limited and majority group attitudes and opinions have been shaped. Minority group knowledge has been limited because of a lack of opportunity. This is unfortunate because a “democracy functions best when [all] of its citizens are politically informed” (Pantoja, 45). On the other side, White Americans do have the opportunity to be informed. This seems to be unfortunate as well due to the manner in which they are informed. The lack of firsthand interaction between majority and minority groups creates skewed attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors on the media’s command.

4) Ethnic conflict, identity politics, and minority issues are not just issues confined to the United States. These issues are global issues. Discuss the issues covered in the material dealing with other nations and the international setting.

Ethnic conflict, identity politics, and minority issues are global issues. There are a number of theories that have been promulgated regarding the reasoning behind ethnic conflict and identity politics. In addition there are countless issues around the world that are minority related.

Ethnic conflict is a major issue the world over – “Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Sierra Leone, Indonesia, Kashmir, and Afghanistan” (Taras & Ganguly, 25). After the Cold War a “period of countervailing tendencies that instilled both hope and fear about world order appeared in international politics” (Taras & Ganguly, 1). This period showed hope due to the many regional conflicts that were coming to an end. Fear was present due to a number of other challenges that posed a threat to global peace: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the delivery systems of such weapons, drug trafficking, terrorist and criminal networks, arms dealers, and instability in the former Soviet Union. (Taras & Ganguly, 1- 2) However, “the most serious challenge to the post-Cold War international order has come from the outbreak of inter- and intra-state ethnic conflict” (Taras & Ganguly, 2). There are a number of theories to explain the result of the ethnic conflict: 1) Ethnic conflict as a result of ancient hatred. This theory states that ethnic groups that engage in combat have a long history of conflictual intergroup relations. 2) Ethnic conflict as a fallout of international conflict. This theory states that ethnic conflict was the result of the different views (irredentist/revisionists versus anti-irredentists/status quo) among those in close proximity of each other. 3) Ethnic conflict as a consequence of the security dilemma and collective fears of the future. This theory states that a security dilemma exist due to the fight among successor entities for power over a collapsed state and as a result of those fights ethnic groups begin to fear for their safety; therefore evolving into ethnic conflict. 4) Ethnic conflict as a result of elite manipulation of mass sentiment. This theory states that violent ethnic conflicts are usually provoked by elites to mobilizes and fend off domestic political challengers. (Taras & Ganguly, 25 - 31)

The formation of ethnic identity and its persistence has a spill-over effect into ethnic political mobilization. This melding of ethnic identity and ethnic political mobilization is the culmination of identity politics. Currently, there are three schools of thought as to how ethnic identity is formed and why it persists: 1) primordialist, 2) instrumentalists, and 3) constructivists. (Taras & Ganguly, 4) The primordialist school believes ethnic identity is given or natural; for example, through language or cultural differences. The instrumentalist school posits that ethnic identity is a tool used by individuals, groups, or elites to obtain some larger, typically material end. In other words, ethnic identity is a tool used for manipulation by political elites. The constructivist school states that ethnic identities are enduring social constructions. They are a product of human actions and choices rather than biology, but not simply a manipulation by political elites. (Dr. Fernandez, Lecture 20) There are many theories about reasons for political mobilization, split by both indirect and direct theories: 1) Modernization –results in an increased likelihood of assimilation, 2) The plural society approach – as a result of the failed modernization paradigm this theory argues that a plural society can be created by incorporating members of different ethnic groups into a multiethnic state, 3) The theory of consociationalism & theory of hegemonic exchange – advocates the reallocation of power and wealth as a means of establishing a power balance. 4) Relative deprivation – when people of a society believe that they are receiving less than they feel that they deserve. 5) The primordialist approach – a preference of governing by people of the same ethnic traits. 6) Internal colonialism approach – being exploited. 7) The communalist approach – a focus on modernization, scarcity of resources, and elite competition. (Taras & Ganguly, 9 - 19)

Around the world there are a number of other minority issues. For example, the attitude towards Muslim communities in Europe in which “some sectors of both majority and minority societies actively maintain an oppositional dichotomy and prefer to concentrate on stereotypical, essentialized notions of ‘the other’, ‘the Muslim’ and ‘the West’, as well as of ‘their culture’ versus ‘our culture’, instead of sharing the path of negotiation, transformation and adaptation which would enrich all communities, both religious and secular” [sic] (Husain & O’Brien, 12). Another example is the widespread homophobia, racism and sexism in Britain which is rampant in overt, cover and institutionalized forms (Beckett & Macey, 309). A final example takes place in Beijing, China[1]. In Beijing, the practice of female genital mutilation is a salient issue. This practiced is in the midst of an argument between tradition and female rights. (Kalev, 347)

Ethnic conflict, identity politics, and minority issues are global issues. Ethnic conflict became a serious post-Cold War issue in viewing world order. Identity politics is the melding of ethnic identity and ethnic political mobilization. There are three schools of thought as to why ethnic identities form and persist; furthermore, there are a number of theories are to why these ethnic groups politically mobilize. Minority issues are prevalent around the world from Europe to Asia and so on. These issues range far-and-wide from gender issues to racial issues, to religious issues.

5) Racial minorities are disproportionately represented in the lower socio-economic classes. Some have argued that discrimination in the education and employment sectors have caused or exacerbated this. Discuss this issue of inequality and the effectiveness of Affirmative Action as a potential solution.

There are several issues of inequality that remain prevalent in education and employment. America’s past is steeped in de jure educational discrimination against African Americans. Now, educational discrimination is much more subtle and has moved on to be of more concern in relation to Hispanics. Employment inequalities are another issue that has persevered through time. A policy, Affirmative Action, has been implemented to bring equality to education and employment. However, is it a solution to these discriminatory practices?

There is a bevy of study regarding the inequalities endured by African American and Hispanic students. A pioneering issue was segregation as established with the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessey v. Ferguson until the ban on segregation with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. (LeMay, 319 – 20) It still remains a salient issue as to weather non-imposed segregation still exist. In fact, there are a number of criteria that have been studied to explain poor performance by African Americans in high school. Some of those criteria included family and peer structure, the educational institutional structure, segregation, teacher expectation, academic track, socioeconomic status, and single parent families. (Dr. Fernandez, Lecture 26) Research has suggested that “the institution of education… reproduces the inequalities with which children walk into school” (Roscigno, 1051). Regarding African Americans “blacks have [generally] closed the gap in formal educational levels that existed relative to whites since the 1960s” (LeMay, 324). However, Hispanic students have come to bare the brunt of educational inequality. Fraga, et al. has posited that the major areas of concern for Hispanic students involve ability grouping, suspensions, tracking, and educational attainment which have led to higher dropout rates, higher likelihood of being assigned to EMR classes, high student to teacher ratios, and a small representation in advanced classes. In addition, there are fewer Hispanic members of school boards due to at-large elections.

Employment is another sector with a long history of inequality. Job discrimination has been a mainstay of American business since the days of “No Irish Need Apply,” “Christians Only,” and “Gentiles Only.” Of course, African Americans were enslaved which was the most extreme for of racism; however, after emancipation, African Americans were limited by Jim Crow laws regarding employment. The Chinese and Japanese endured job discrimination in America through the California Alien Land Act of 1913. In addition, reservation policies in the past have limited the occupational mobility of Native Americans. Much of the job discrimination has been informally enforced and still continues to be. Some of these informal practices include: 1) restrictions in job training conducted by labor unions, 2) educational barriers denying education need for certain jobs, 3) hiring practices of majority employers. (LeMay, 326 - 7) These practices have led to income disparities and occupational niches (Dr. Fernandez, Lecture 21).

Is Affirmative Action a potential solution to these educational and employment injustices? Affirmative Action is “a policy that gives preference to individuals based upon their belonging to designated groups who are underrepresented not only in the most desirable occupational classes, but in school admissions and government contracts” (Boylan, 117). There are many positive arguments for Affirmative Action as a policy. In employment it is warranted due to inefficient markets, wage gaps, and occupational steering. In education it can be argued to be a benefit because there is evidence that minority in primary and secondary schools receive fewer resources. (Dr. Feernandez, Lecture 23) However, the difficulty with Affirmative Action is the possibility of awarding an advantaged individual from a disadvantaged group (Boylan, 124). In other words, Affirmative Action, if made to achieve its intended purpose, needs to involve a more individual approach rather than a group approach. This is a question of implementation of a policy in its most complicated form. Affirmative Action could definitely be a positive policy, but not necessarily in its current form of implementation.

There are several issues of inequality that remain prevalent in education and employment. America’s past is rife with both educational and employment discrimination. Educational discrimination has been levied by law and now by institutional practices. Employment inequalities are another issue that has persisted through time by way of informal practices. Affirmative Action policy has been implemented to bring equality to education and employment. This policy has the potential to provide the benefit as it was intended; however, the policy needs be implemented using an individual approach rather than a group approach to avoid unintended consequences