6:00 - Attendance, collect Daily Top 5 lists
Chapter 5 group confers
6:10 - Discuss Chapter 5: Ethnicity
Facilitators: ( April, Sarah, Kelley, and Valerie )
7:10 - Break
7:20 - Instructor-lead discussion...
Connotations of "ethnic" vs. denotation.
The subject in the story (p.66) is left feeling "devalued - different and less than." Why? What does this mean?
Objective vs. subjective ethnic status?
Last time we talked about how elements of our identity can be chosen by others and sort of projected on to us. Is what constitutes an ethnic group "chosen" by the group? (p.67)
Can members of an ethnic group incorporate into the American elite without adopting mainstream American values and behavioral practices?
What about the "double-closet"? Binationalism? The transnational community?
On p.68, the text says that ethnicity "no longer" implies lower class or inferior social status. Did it before? Why? Why doesn't it now?
What does the middle-class professional immigrant mean by saying, "We can afford to be ethnic!"?
What about Barth's 1969 definition, that ethnicity only exists when people CLAIM an ethnic identity AND are defined by others as having that identity?
Can it exist without one or the other, or both?
Does this relate to the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren? Warren claims Native American ancestry, how can we tell?
Social identity as something that is constantly negotiated - we wear "different hats" in different situations... (p.69)
"Minorities" does not necessarily refer to numbers, but to power/position in a hierarchy (p.70)
Check out the income distribution in 2007 (pre-recession) by race on p. 70,
then check out this updated Census data on wealth distribution in 2010 (in the midst of the recession)
Status shifting and "conversion" experiences
Nations, states, nation-states, nationalities
Assimilation as a political ideology
"Plural Society" as a descriptive (not prescriptive like Pluralism) view
Multiculturalism as a political ideology
Demographic shifts
Attitudinal Prejudice vs. Individual Discrimination vs. Institutional Discrimination
-last time we discussed how racist thoughts or statements can sometimes slip out, even if it is not deliberate or intentional. But there is another kind of racism that also can occur without any one having deliberate intentions to treat another race differently...
- White flight (a.k.a. "Capitol flight" more generally)
example from American history:
Here's an example of what I mean: the story of our legal history:
1935 – Social Security – if you work, you pay into the system, and this guarantees you income after you retire. BUT the law originally excluded agricultural workers and domestic servants, who (guess what) were mostly African-American, Mexican, and Asian. These low-power groups were also least able to save or have pension plans.
1935 Wagner Act – established the right to unionize, but American Federation of Labor fought for the right of unions to exclude non-whites. So minorities were locked out of higher-paying union jobs, and denied benefits such as healthcare and job security. Legally lasted through the 1950's, but it wasn't until the 70's that many unions really did start admitting minorities.
1930's-'40's: Coming out the Great Depression and into WWII, the federal government began programs to subsidize low-cost loans for millions of working class americans. Government underwriters used a "national appraisal system" tying property value and loan eligibility to race –all white communities got the highest ratings and loans with the best terms. Minority neighborhoods got low ratings and bad loan terms, or were denied. Less than 2% of these loans went to non-whites. So minorities were locked out of home ownership.
1948 – US Supreme Court finally outlawed "Restrictive Covenants" REQUIRING homeowners not to sell or lease to non-whites. Private developers and real estate agents could still choose to. Lenders continued to base property appraisals and loan terms on race (higher fees and interest to cover the "risk" – THIS SYSTEMATIC DEVALUING OF NON-WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOMEBUYERS BY MEANS OF FEDERAL INTERVENTION DISGUISED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND ENABLED MANY TO CLAIM THAT SEGREGATION WAS "MARKET DRIVEN"
1949 – National Housing Act passed. Most non-whites were renting, and so government stepped in and developed "Urban Housing Projects," destroying many taxable properties. So the tax burden was shifted onto fewer and fewer residents. Encouraged "white flight."
1950's-60's: Economic/Housing Boom. Fed/State subsidies to development of suburbs. Construction of many freeways connecting residential areas to business centers in cities, often right through urban "neighborhoods." Many whites moved to suburbs. In the 1960's, many businesses began moving to the suburbs, depriving urban areas of jobs and taking even more tax dollars out of the cities.
1968 – Kennedy's Fair Housing Act, meant to reduce this discrimination, but in practice many appraisers continued to factor in race, use racial steering and predatory lending. In 1988 this law was expanded to make it more enforceable.
1970's, 80's, 90's – housing prices rose dramatically, increasing wealth for homeowners who, as we have seen, were mostly white for the aforementioned reasons. This also increased the cost of entry into the housing market for renters.
FOR NEXT TIME:
Read Chapter 6: Religion, and read the hand-out "An American Tragedy," and prepare your Daily Top 5 List
ONLY: Melanie, Mandy, Thelma - prepare to facilitate a discussion on Chapter 6
Reminder - Ethnic Heritage Presentations due 1 week from today!
No comments:
Post a Comment