African Americans and Latinos; neither enemies nor friends

This report comes to my mind reading the news in New York Times that a 14 year old black boy was shot by Latino gangs in the streets of Los Angles while chatting with his friends on January 17, 2007.
Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic group and in future the largest minority group in US overshadowing the Blacks who one day had the same situation as Latinos have today. From the days of Civil Right Movements in 1960s with the slogan of “Black and Brown together, forever?” there is always this question that whether this coalition helps American democracy or how does it work. There are two main controversies regarding Black- Latino coalition; some who believe that they have a lot in common and the other group saying that there are lots of barriers to their coalition. The discussion today deals with the commonalities and differences and the solution for this very important controversy in United States.
One of the people who greatly emphasized on the Black- Latino coalition was Jesse Jackson, once running for Presidency. He used the term rainbow for coalition of different ethnic and racial groups in US. These people talk of the relationship between Martin Luther King and Caesar Chavez. African Americans and Latinos share a lot and they can revive their long shared interests to gain their rights from the dominant group in United States. The issue that these two ethnic groups can fight in one front is affirmative action, immigration reform, voting Right Acts and bilateral trade. They cooperating can gain advantage in asking for more representatives in House and Senate. Blacks have fought long to have the voting right but there are unfinished movements that need Latinos and blacks pushing it forward like the health care, education and welfare system.
One the other hand, we have the idea of Black- Latino differences. According to Ken Cooper the most important obstacle in this way is that most Latinos in United States do not assume themselves as brown, they identify themselves as White according to Census data and also some of them do not like to be labeled as Hispanic or Latino. So they can not form a united political force as Blacks used to do and ask for their rights rather than alliance with Blacks. It is also important to mention that a large number of Latinos are immigrants, legal or illegal, who do not have the right to vote and it reduces their political power unless a new policy change the situation in favor of Latinos. Another obstacle that is not very tangible is the hatred and tension naturally existing among individual members of minority groups which may mostly be a reason that Blacks see Latinos as a threat to their low paid job as illegal immigrants are ready for any kind of job by very low wages so they occupy the Black opportunities. Both group have reasons of their own not be feel allied with other; Blacks see Latinos growing rapidly, becoming the most important minority groups once owned by blacks and asking for social rights and Latinos dissent Blacks as some of their political leaders did not help Latinos in Immigration policies and bilingual education. Moreover, the dominant debate of White- Black marginalized Latinos from the social debate of United States in the recent decades.
It is necessary to add that there are several attempts by Black and Latino leaders to bring these two groups together but it needs a hard work to be achieved. There should be workshops and conferences regarding this matter. Blacks should be taught Spanish and Latinos English. Children of both groups as Jackson proposed should be taught to avoid violence and gang warfare. Cultural exchange programs and religious programs can also help this coalition build easier.

References:
- www.nytimes.com
- www.newsweek.com

US Critical Issue: Immigration

United States of America is an immigrant society from the early days of its foundation from 15th Century by the immigration of groups of merchants from Europe. United States is called “Nation of Immigrants” or “State of Nation”. Every American today is either an immigrants himself or is a descendant of immigrants once brought to US from different places around the world. Immigrants are people who are legally admitted to the United States for resistance and are eligible for citizenship. According to 2001 census, 58 million people in US claim German ancestors, 33 million English, 24 million Africans, 18 million Mexican, 1.5 Chinese, 1 million Japanese and more interestingly 39 million people in US are from Irish ancestors while the population of Republic of Ireland is no more than 4 million people. There are lots of others with backgrounds in Italy, Greece, Poland, Russian and Sweden. It is also very interesting to know that there are 17 million people speaking Spanish.
Two main reasons in most cases force people to migrate to US; one is to escape from the persecution of their home country like what happened to Cuban exiles and the second reason is achieving the American dream of improving economic condition. They come to US to have a better economic life. During 1820 to 1898, 64.4 million immigrants entered US that had the same reasons. It is necessary to say that Asian, Mexican and Central American immigrants usually settle in established co-ethnic settlements rather than other immigrants such as Canadians and other migrant groups who disperse around the United States. Although US is called to be an “immigrant society” but the concept of immigration has never been a happy story in the history of United States. Irish and German Immigrants in 19th century were viewed as suspicious by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In late 19th century, there was a flow of Chinese and Japanese that worried Americans enormously thus in 1917 immigration from Asia was forbidden. Moreover, even the immigration of Eastern and Southern Europeans was opposed and congress put restrictions on it in 1920.

By March 2004, The US had 34 million immigrants which constitute 12% of its population that is the highest percentage in the last 80 years. Among the immigrants in US, Hispanics are the most growing and most controversial. In the whole Hispanic population, Mexicans have the highest population with 60% and after that Puerto Ricans are the next with 11% of immigrants in Hispanic population. So when we talk of Hispanics we mean Mexicans. Besides is the issue of illegal immigration. Due to US immigration policies, legal immigration is decreasing but the number of undocumented immigration is an issue. Between 2000-2004, 46% of all immigrants to US were illegal. 57% of these immigrants came from Mexico with 85% of those illegal although there is a 3000 mile fence between Mexico and United States.

Above there are controversies if immigration in US should exist or government should restrict immigration. There are three discussions regarding this topic; Environmental debate, Economic debate and Cultural debate. In the environmentalist debate there is a theory saying that there is a relation between population growth and environment degradation and industrialization destroys ecosystem thus government should restrict immigration. They believe immigration increases consumption and reduces resources of soil, water and oil. On the other hand, there are Pro immigrants who believe this is a racist belief to control immigration because most immigrants are colored and United States is not overpopulated yet and US population density in 1998 was 73.5 person per Square mile. The most important claim of them is that immigration impact on environment is inconclusive and immigration increases the base of technical knowledge.

Economic debate is also very crucial as it is very complex. It is categorized in three subcategories as tax, job and wage. The heart of the matter is job opportunities that immigrants grab from native born Americans. Restrictionists believe unskilled immigrants are employed for low paid jobs and there will be a competition between immigrants and American workers, thus wages reduces and poor get poorer. Immigrants are unskilled and are living on welfare and native born should pay taxes instead of them. As a result, tax increase drives down the standards of living. The other problem that restrictionists stress upon is that some of these immigrants occupy high level positions. On the contrary are proponents that reject other opinions by saying that immigrants do what American themselves are not willing and for some high racks there is no professional among Americans that is why we see some immigrants in high levels. Low paid immigrants helps big US industries survive. Immigrants are in working age so they contribute more to tax paying. Moreover, they are rejuvenating force for cities, they pay taxes, spend money, provide labor and run business, and as a result they serve US society.

Many believe that cultural debate is the most vital debate regarding immigration to US. The key concept in this debate is the idea of assimilation. Recent immigrants are more difficulty assimilated with Americans. Restrictionists think that White Anglo- Saxon Protestants are the only people that are allowed to be American and they can learn and practice American values and ways. They also believe everyone with every kind of race, ethnicity and religion can enter US but should be acculturated. English language can help immigrants’ assimilation easier. Proponents think that there is actually no need for assimilation because new immigrants subscribe to American values and they have no threat for the dominant culture. Immigrants are family oriented and hard working to achieve their goals in US. To conclude this discussion there comes a question whether America as a nation-state has the right to control its people and borders.

Naturalization or indifference; Iranian Americans

There has been vast discussions about the immigrants in United States; Hispanics; Mexicans, Cubans and Blacks. Here, Iranian Americans are under lens to see how they are responding to political affairs in United States. As everybody knows there are a lot of Iranian Americans living in the United States among them the majority are students doing their post graduate degree or the adults that left Iran after the revolution of 1979. There was a research done in the Iranian Association in the United states that here it is going to be discussed. Certainly the growing number of Iranians in US can be assumed as a source of power for the promotion of their political agenda which certainly meets the needs of Iranian community. Although there has not been organized research about the political participation of Iranians but there is a consensus that Iranians in US are more concerned to affect Iran's politics rather than contributing US politics.
It is important to notice that following the harsh immigrants laws implied in US, political participation can best confine the undesirable effects of the new laws in US. The second generations of immigrants that can easily neutralize with the host society better functions o influence the policies taken toward immigrants. The length of residence, language fluency and higher educational in a person are elements that play role in one's naturalization. There are several reasons for immigrants' lack of political participation like low assimilation, not identifying with the host culture and society and not understanding the importance of issues. Many immigrants see political participation in US as influencing US relations with their own original countries.
A survey was done to evaluate Iranians' political participation. There were variables that determine the respondents such as citizenship status, voting behavior, education and political affiliations. They were mainly among the immigrants or refugees going to US prior to Iran Revolution. If it is going to be assumed that length of stay and education determines political participation in US, the respondents should have been all active in US politics.
Fifty people were selected aged from 19 to 71, all being in US from 3 to 23 years. Actually half of them were in the BA level and the rest half were in post graduate level. Around 39 were US citizens and others have different kinds of visa. About two third of them identified themselves Iranian Americans and twelve said Iranians. (Iranian Association Council in United States) "The respondents who identified themselves as Iranian included: three citizens, four permanent residents, and four with current visas. The citizens had been in the U.S. 12, 13 and 17 years. Two voted, one did not, and all were willing to organize around foreign policy issues relating to Iran." Another data shows that "Of the 37 respondents who identified themselves as Iranian-American, 19 were willing to organize around foreign policy issues relating to Iran. Additionally, levels of identification as Iranian ethnics ranged among this group".
The need to meet the needs of ethnic communities and challenge the new immigration laws there is a need for collaboration between different minority groups like Hispanics or Asian Americans. Iranian Americans may not face the strict immigrants' laws but they are not naturalized as one may say. Their attitude to political participation is very weak or if there is any intention it considers the Iran- US relation as it has been long the world debate.

Drums along the Mohawk, A review
John Ford (1939)

By Azadeh Ghahghaei
24.09.1385

Having a review over the historical films in American cinema, one can see that several films have been made portraying the crucial periods in American history. American Civil War and American Revolution constitute important part of this history. Among the films that are historically important is Drums along the Mohawk directed by John Ford in 1939. John Ford directed three films in 1939; Stagecoach, Young Mr. Lincoln and Drums along the Mohawk and Drums along the Mohawk was one of the most successful ones as it was Ford's first color film. This film was written by Lamar Trotti, Sonya Levien based on a novel of its kind. It is categorized differently by different Movie data bases as Adventure, War, drama, Western and Action. It was nominated for two Academic awards including Best Supporting Actress and Best Cinematography.

John Ford's great depiction of American Revolution in the film starts with a scene of a newly-wed couple, Gilbert martin and Lana, being married in the church and saying goodbye to their families. They left the life and comfort in Albany and headed for Ohio where they would have been supposed to deal with a harsh life. They moved to their cabin in Mohawk valley while it was a great change for Lana as her surrounding in her own house was gentler and her new life with Gil needs a harsh physical work. Lana accustoms herself well with the situation and soon gives Gil a hand in their farming. Their cabin is located in a valley that is attacked by British, Tories and the Indians being seduced by Tories. Several raids by Indians burn their farmhouse in the first days of their life. Gil and Lana along with other happy settlers of the valley are forced to move to fort where they could see Indians waste their farms and cabins. Feeling anxious Lana lost a baby that she had on the way. A seeming angry but kind widow, Mrs. McKlennar, shelters Gil and Lana in return she uses Gil as a field hand. Hard life in frontier teaches Lana to be strong and adapt to any unpredictable situation, moreover, she gives birth to a baby that brings happiness for a while to their home. Gilbert joins the militia fighting with both Indians and British according to General Washington's order. He returns wounded and earns a good harvest in Mrs. McKlennar's farm but smooth life does not last long as Indians once again attack them but this time they raid the widow's cabin and burn her farm. A lot of savage war happen between two sides of the front and finally with the help of all force Americans win and declare their independence from Britain by rising the flag of he American Union.

As mentioned above, John Ford was the director of the Movie who is "one of the greatest American directors who made a name as director of Westerns". Out of 125 movies and TV shows that he directed 65 were Westerns. Among the characters of the movie, three are more dominant; namely Gilbert Martin by Henry Fonda, Lana Borst Martin by Claudette Colbert and last but not the least was Mrs. McKlennar played by Edna may Oliver. Oliver was nominated for an Oscar Award for Best Supporting Actress playing this role. The art of the artists enables Ford to "demonstrate heroism and the rugged individual". Gil and Lana greatly symbolize the warm supporting family environment in America at that time.

There are various themes that can be discussed here about the movies but the leading theme of the movie was the force of religion. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant emigrating from Britain carries a religious prophecy; they have Christianized Indians, tamed them and taught then how to behave. Through the film, in many occasions Americans call each other Christians, that means they are more identified with their religion rather that their ethnicity or family background. In one scene when Gil and Lana for the first time entered their cabin, the only Indian living with them called Gil "Good Christian". Church as a symbol of religiosity plays a very important role in the film. People love to attend church and pray. More interestingly is that even the political issues like war and general Washington orders are all announced by the priest.

One of the issues that come along this religious responsibility by Americans is the depiction of Indians as savage, unskilled and Lunatics. During the fights and war scenes, one could see just Indians fighting, killing, burning and murdering. Lana entering her cabin is unusually frightened by the sight of an Indian. Indians treat an old lady wildly and burn her house, Indians think one could tame his husband by a stick, Indians can be bribed easily, Indians can not acquire Language well and finally Indians are half-naked, all of these generate a meaning toward Indians. There is no information represented about Indians except their involvement with British. "To be fair to Ford, his interest in the film is not in the particulars of history, especially cultural history. He's interested in the character of the people he saw as those who engendered the United States as a country. Still, I think this aspect is a failing in the film. It’s a little too one-sided." Through this film, a moral humanity has been labeled to Whites. Interestingly enough in the movie no White, whether British or American, were dealt with crime, murder or savagery. Another racial group that can be discussed are Blacks with their very minor role in the movies. There are few places that Blacks can be observed; as a soldier, slave and a maiden in Mrs. McKlennar's house working as a servant.

Self- sacrifice and heroism were bolded in the deep layers of the movie. Lana's character reminds every viewers of Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind; the happy, well-born girl in a well-off family that struggles in life and work and sacrifices herself. Lana along the story learns to adapt herself to the difficult new environment. Lana gradually get pride and enjoyment in harvesting crops, she asks her husband to go to war, she cure her husband's wound kindly when he is back from the battle. Generally, the role women play in this movie was great, especially Lana and Mrs. McKlennar. Women fight with Indians along with their husbands and help them to prepare farms.


Beyond major issues that are discussed, there come minor elements of American identity in the movie. Americans will not tolerate being oppressed by other countries specifically by British and if it happens again like the Fascism or Nazism in Europe, Americans will once again stand up and claim their freedom. The American character of optimism was injected in to the movie, even its setting. Most of the scenes were bright and it conveys a sense of hope to future; once Gil asks Lana not to look back and be hopeful to tomorrow. The concept of flag as an important element of American identity was the ending message of the film; the love and respect they give to their flag is shown properly. It is necessary to mention that American flag was raised in the height and not on the ground.

To conclude the discussion of these movies, I have to mention that American sense of exceptionalism as the superior being in well presented in the film both in terms of religion and morality. Misrepresentation or less-representation of other minority groups proves this claim.

Hispanics turn their back to Republicans

November 7 election of US congress passed and the discussions following it is spreading everyday. Different statistics came out of this mid-term election dealing with people of different districts and ethnic groups. Of various ethnic groups that had a great influence over the election result are Hispanics that are the biggest minority group in US. Historically speaking as it has been stated in the other posts as well Hispanics used to support Republicans. Republicans defeated among Hispanics this year. From George Bush's 40% share in 2004, the Republicans managed only to gain only 30% this year. The explosive growth of Hispanics in the Southeastern Hispanics works well for Democrats.

White voters were split to vote for Democrats and Republicans; they had stuck by Republicans in the last midterm election. Three-fourths of Hispanics backed Democrats despite Republican efforts specifically led by Bush to attract more of them over the last few years. Hispanics 70 percent to Democrats and some believe this shift decided the election. It is interesting to mention that Blacks supported Democrats. “In a national poll last month, 34 percent of Hispanics called themselves conservative, 29 percent moderate and only 24 percent liberal.” In a State like Texas, approximately 25 percent voted for Democrats according to preliminary turnout results by the William C. Velasquez Institute, a nonpartisan Latino-oriented research group with offices in San Antonio and Los Angeles. Neel Pender, the executive director of the Democratic Party of Oregon said it’s "difficult to determine for which party Hispanics voted, but we believe they yielded more votes for the Democrats." Although it is crucial to mention that some individual Republicans fared better among Hispanics.

The reasons that are mainly argued as the cause for this decline of Hispanic support for Republicans are discussed below. One of the reasons is that Democrat politicians have not strongly expressed concern over homeland security, American language- while there is a debate over the unique national language of America- and culture, thus the ethnic group with the greatest number of illegal immigrants favored them in the United States. The most important issue in this case can be the Republican’s taking a tough approach on illegal immigration, ordering the fence in US-Mexico border line- after Hispanics gave the GOP their support in the 2004 presidential election for Bush. Hispanics favored Democrats because they are much nearer to the issues like education and health care. That effort was working pretty well. Between 1996 and 2004, Bush’s effort to woo Hispanics had a result that the percentage of Hispanics voting Republican in 2004 presidential elections grew up from 21 percent to 44 percent for Bush two years ago. The issue isn’t just immigration laws by Bush administration but Republican hard-liners’ status was so annoying for Hispanics even for the Hispanics that agree and help government on safe borders. Hispanics are dealing with a debate that whether they are considered as “us” or “them” meaning with US or against US. Some Republicans call newcomers as terrorists and criminals. Many Hispanics are identified with terrorist; even some say they help terrorists in India and Bangladesh. "With respect to immigration, the Republican Party handed the Democratic Party a gift," said Democratic activist Andrea LaRue, co-chairwoman of Immigration2006.org. "The GOP's mishandling of this issue has alienated the fastest-growing group of new voters in the nation.” Although, it is clear that war in Iraq and the recent congressional scandals hurt Republican candidates in the midterm elections.

Several intrepretations is on the table about the 2008 presidential campaign in US among hispanics. “Hispanics were 5% of 95 million voters in 1996, 6% of 105 million voters in 2000, and 8.5% of 122 million voters in 2004. With a highly competitive election in 2008 and a heavy voter registration drive, we could be looking at an electorate that includes a Hispanic component amounting to 10% of 130 million voters in 2008,” Democratic strategist reported. If this decline continues to 2008, it means a decline of 1.3 million Hispanic Republican votes in elections. Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado, all of which include large Hispanic populations will play significant roles in the election result. In the next presidential campaign competition between the two parties to make policy that helps Hispanics determines the successful party. It is a difficult task on the shoulder of Republicans to heal the wound they left on Hispanics if they are viewing toward future.

References:
- http://www.democraticstrategic.com/
- http://www.cfp.com/
- http://www.sfgate.com/
- http://www.theconservativevoice.com/
- http://www.statesmanjournal.com/
- http://www.progressiveu.org/
- http://www.dfw.com/

The Rebuilt New Orleans: With Blacks or Without Blacks? “New Orleans was once a center of world culture, a place where people could come and see old fashioned living and experience good food. Now a trip to New Orleans will show how disaster can change the social structure in even the most powerful of nations.” Adrian Avila, Jun 14, 2006

New Orleans is located in Louisiana in the south east of the United States. It is the major port city of US and is historically called the largest and oldest city in United States. New Orleans has always had a multicultural society and is well –known for its music and special cuisine. Jazz music was born in New Orleans. Tourism is said to be an important factor in New Orleans economy. About 14 million people each year visit New Orleans. Unlikely to what many people would think, New Orleans has a high rate of homicide and is ranked among the top five cities with a high crime rate since 1980 along with Detroit, St. Louis and Atlanta. Blacks make up about two third (70%) of New Orleans population and its current mayor Ray Nigon is as well a black. New Orleans once being famous for its tourism, now is known by the Katrina Hurricanes that destructed the whole city on August 29, 2005. New Orleans population was approximately 1.4 million people prior to the Katrina Hurricane and with city limits it was 484,674 people (according to the 2000 U.S. census) and after Hurricane it estimated to something between 187,525 and 287,000. in january 2006, around 200,000 people were back living in their homes, a number even less than half of the population before the storm.

Katrina Hurricane was one of the most horrific, deadliest and costliest natural disasters even happened in the history of the United States. Although there have been late warnings, many people, around 80%, evacuated but the rest remained. Most of the attention of the authorities was to rescue people and control the violence and lootings. There was great economic loss due to the hurricane as this year’s $105 billion budget to reconstruct and repair do not compensate for the whole depth of destruction. Days after the Katrina the debate over the mismanagement and irresponsibility of local, state and federal government’s role arouse. The event generated criticism on the notion of racism that was revealed through the international press. UK Mirror quoted that “"Many things about the United States are wonderful, but it has a vile underbelly which is usually kept well out of sight. Now in New Orleans it has been exposed to the world." It is interesting that natural disaster magnified the practiced inequality in US. The New Orleans tragedy created a debate over the underlying causes of black suffering and oppression. Emergency grioups are accuesd of assisting whites in rich neighborhoods neglecting blacks in impoverished residencies. The percentage of black victims among storm-related deaths (49%) was below their proportion in the area's population (approx. 60%). It is reported that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive. One African American said after Bush 2006 trip to New Orleans:” I am a sixty-four year old African-American. New Orleans marks the end of the America I strove for. I am hopeless. I am sad. I am angry against my country for doing nothing when it mattered.” Among the discriminations done to the blacks in New Orleans was that FEMA’s assistance was allotted for middle- income white households and it was difficult for low-income blacks of Katrina to access the government’s assistance. SBA also refused the request of loans by black as it is said that “Well-off neighborhoods like Lakeview have received 47 percent of the loan approvals, while poverty-stricken neighborhoods have gotten 7 percent. Middle-class black neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city have lower loan rates.”

One of the issues related to the Katrina Hurricane was the cooperation of other ethnic groups mainly Latino with blacks in the reconstruction of New Orleans. Latino immigrants, legal or illegal, flowed to New Orleans to help rebuild the city forsaken by government. Although, there were sayings about the tensions between blacks and Latinos, it was a symbol of unity and many African Americans were thankful to Latinos.
What is once again striking about the New Orleans is the recent social conflict confronting New Orleans. There is traditional Sunday parading for blacks in new Orleans that is sponsored by clubs and is held every year under the control of police as it sometimes end in violence. The “second line” clubs of New Orleans say they feel threatened by new police fees and assume this increase in fee as the latest sign of conflict between old customs here and the altered social landscape left by Hurricane Katrina. The Police Department counters by saying that given the thousands of people who gather, it had no choice but to increase the number of escorting officers, to 20 from 6. “Second lines are noted for the violence of the crowd afterwards — shootings, stabbings and fights,” said John Bryson, deputy police superintendent. “There are too many people for six officers.” Some protester groups believe that the officials here attempt to exclude blacks while rebuilding New Orleans. There club owners are middle class black families who desire to come back to the city and reunite their friends all around. “The second lines have been even more important after the storm,” said Helen A. Regis, an associate professor of anthropology at Louisiana State University, who has written about the tradition. “If you go to a parade, you’ll see people exchanging phone numbers. It’s a really important way to reconnect with people.” The second- liners strongly believe their celebration will not draw criminals. “It’s a culture thing, bringing back a lot of spirit,” said Corey Woods, one of the plaintiffs challenging the fee increase. “It brings everybody together. It’s like a reunion. We get to see everybody we haven’t seen in a long time. And it’s just a lot of fun.”

After controversial talks on the US government failure to serve blacks and the US institutionalized discrimination aftermath of the storm, this new claim to ban the blacks tradition in New Orleans assumed as a way to come back to life provokes blacks once again. Now as the multi-billion dollar rebuilding effort goes on, there are accusations that whites are again getting preferential treatment. Resentment to Bush and his administration is increasing day by day Vis-a vis his pursuit of war in Iraq. There is a consensus in US that Bush is indifferent to black Americans in general. Bush's claim to export freedom to the Middle East was questioned by his inability to serve its people Middle America. Bush administration in its last two years should act more tactfully in order not to fuel the flames of the hidden angers of minorities in US.

References:
- www.nola.com
- www.huffingtonpost.com
- www.newyorktimes.com
- www.wikipedia.com
- http://www.thenation.com
- www.worldnetdaily.com

Social Construction of Race and Ethnicity
Institutionalized Discrimination in US

Istructors: Dr.Slocum and Dr.Ameli

Race and Ethnicity are among those concepts that bear very deep and complex meanings and also have very various dimensions that can be viewed and debated. Race is defined as “any groups into which humans can be divided according to their physical characteristics, e.g. color of skin, color and type of hair and also eyes” and ethnicity as “involving a nation, race or tribe that has common cultural tradition”. In most countries around the world different racial and ethnic groups are minority groups which compromise to their conditions in their society. Among the countries in the world that has a very great number of racial and ethnic groups living there is the United States. Historically United States is assumed as an immigrant society with the first arrival of Europeans to the New Land. There is a crucial debate recently on the condition of different racial and ethnic groups in US. Samuel Huntington is the most important figure stressing concerns over the spread of ethnic groups in US in 2004.

To talk about ethnicities and race in US, it is necessary to mention major ethnicities residing in US such as whites, Indian Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans or Hispanics. The predominant discourse on ethnicities in US is the idea of discrimination or better to say an institutionalized discrimination among ethnicities. Dominance of any group to others is an initiator for a kind of discrimination. Dominant groups in any society know themselves equipped with privileges that encourage them to rule and feel superior to others. Dominant groups enjoy privileges at the expense of “others”; these privileges are often overlooked at the expense that “others” are humiliated and mistreated. In US, Whiteness- being White- carries privileges that is a much greater extent to what white people realize themselves. It has also been historically proven when some slave holder would claim that slave were very well treated and well fed while working in their lands. As Peter Kolchin states that “Historian john W. Blassingame has suggested that far from regarding house servants and drivers as slave aristocrats, most slaves placed them near the bottom of the social hierarchy. Viewing those who served whites as members of the elite represented the perspective of the masters”.

The social construction of race and ethnicity occurs throughout the world. The way society sees and understands them is important even for the description and definition of their race and ethnicity. A dominant or majority group has power to define itself legally and define even society’s value by which they can evaluate others. Dominant group shapes a stereotype which is an unreliable generalization about all members of a group that do not mind the individual differences within the group. What is believed, done, practiced and seen by whites is the measure for evaluation.

Minority groups are divided mainly to “racial groups”- who are set apart from others because of obvious physical differences- and “ethnic groups”- who are set apart from others primarily because of its national origin or distinctive cultural pattern. Members of minority groups have significantly less control or power than members of the dominant or majority group; both social and political control. Whites constituting almost 75% of all US population are considered to be majority thus they are the measures for all deeds. What minority groups all share distinctive cultural characteristics, involuntary membership in societies and communities that are disliked, solidarity, unequal treatment and marriage inside their own group, although there are few exceptions that are benefiting their own rights although belonging to a minority group, like the Black or Muslims that are now politically active and influential in US. Biological significance of race should also be taken into consideration; many factors like migration, exploration and even invasions and wars led to intermingling of races so it can be said that there is not a “pure race”. Below are tables demonstrating US racial and ethnic groups in 2000:


The point that should not be ignored in this essay is that present American white ethnic ancestors once were entering America as a minority group and could be viewed as ethnic groups. Europeans had migrated to US in the last hundred years. Immigration is one of the important elements spreading the existence of ethnic and racial groups in US. US has always been an immigrant society that’s why the question of America being a “melting pot” or “salad bowl” raised and this leads to the formation of various minority groups. Among ethnic groups mainly instead of deep concerns over their ties to their ethnic and cultural heritage, members of ethnic groups mostly stress upon symbolic ethnicity like their ethnic food, music and even political issue. Some may think that immigration producing minority ethnic groups result in US cultural and identity problems but it provides some valuable functions for example they can alleviate labor shortage as it does in US in health care or even technology. However, sending nation also relieves economics unable to support large numbers of people. As long as immigration benefits US, it sometimes can be dysfunctional especially when arrivals are of different racial and ethnic backgrounds from the host population.

As it was indicated above, minority groups suffer inequality. When inequality is practiced in a society, dominant group tries to justify the maintenance of that unequal society in different ways, discourage subordinate groups from questioning their rights and tries to keep the existing order in society. But on the contrary there are facts that societies that practice discrimination fail to use resources of all individuals. Discrimination aggravates the existing problems; moreover, racial prejudice undercuts good will and diplomatic relations between nations. With an exploitative approach, it is easy to judge that racism keeps minorities in low-paying jobs and supplies the dominant group with cheaper labor. By forcing minorities to accept low wages, capitalists can restrict wages of all workers and workers from the dominant groups wanting higher wages can be replaced by minorities who must accept lower wages. Interracial contacts between people of equal status will cause them to become less prejudiced and to abandon old stereotypes.

Following the discussion of prejudice and discrimination, “prejudice”, “ethnocentrism” and “racism” should be defined. Prejudice is a negative attitude toward an entire category of people, often an ethnic or racial minority, and ethnocentrism is a tendency to assume that one’s culture and way of life are superior to all others, and racism is a belief that one race is supreme and all others are innately inferior. Denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups based on some type of arbitrary bias is perceived as discrimination. Discrimination persists even for educated and qualified minority members. Sometimes this discrimination is not visible but it blocks the promotion of individuals that are sometimes qualified because of their race or ethnicity. Sometimes discrimination process can be as the denial of opportunities and equal rights that result from normal operations of a society, then it can be said that discrimination is institutionalized. It consistently affects some racial and ethnic groups more than others like Blacks in US. Commission on Civil Rights identified forms of institutional discrimination in US like requiring English only to be spoken at work, some admission policies by colleges and universities and employment- leave policies in US. However, it is unfair to ignore some activities being done in US such as Affirmative Action that positively attempts to recruit minorities for jobs, promotion, and educational opportunities.

To conduct a conclusion for this discussion, it seems inevitable to measure discrimination in US and then observe to what extent US has lost benefits by marginalization of minority groups especially African Americans but it need first to believe that there is a prejudice. There can be some understanding by just having a comparison between income of African Americans and Whites in US. There were different and sometimes contrasting views on racial and ethnic status but there is going to be a consensus among world countries that the discrimination existing in US which its obvious presentation was observed during the hurricanes in US will harm US both socially and even politically in long term especially with the rapid growth of Hispanics in US, thus encouraging the interracial relations can reduce hostility and help the evolution of multicultural societies.

References:
- Kolchin, Peter(2004) American Slavery, Hill and wang Publication, New York
- Barker, Chris(2004) Cultural studies, Sage Publications, UK.
- www.wikipedia.com

American Miami or Cuban Miami?

To continue the discussion on Hispanics, today our focus is on the American city of Miami. Miami is the city that has the greatest number of Hispanics among the 50 states of the United States. It has been for thirty years that Cubans dominated city and changed all aspects of life in Miami like politics, ethnicity, culture and more important the language.

The wave of Cuban immigration goes back to 60s where Cubans who opposed Fidel Castro migrated to US, Miami. After that the number of Cuban migrants decreased slowly as in 70s there were 265000 migrants, in 80s were 140000 and in 90s there were 170000 migrants to Miami. It is interesting that on the contrary to immigrants of 60s who were mainly educated and wealthy, there were a huge number of immigrants to Miami in 1980 that mainly consist of poor and less educated Cuban who were encouraged by Castro, and were ideologically close to him.

In 2000, 96 percent of Miami population was who were born outside Latin America but they used to speak Spanish. Two third of the Miami population are Hispanics and one half of them consist of Cubans. A shift from a traditional touristy place to an international touristy place was from the most important consequences of immigrations that were caused by the flow of wealth and capital by Cubans to Miami. In 1960, many Cuban refugees brought their wealth to Miami, developed industry and invested excessively there. Miami changed to an international center of economic activities that will promote commerce and investment. Due to this fundamental progress, many American companies and industries move to Miami.

To a great extent, Miami’s economic development owes Cubans’ relationship with countries of Latin America like Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Venezuela. In 2000, Spanish was the language of politics and even commerce; even media shifted its focus from English to Spanish.

Cubans made their own city of culture and economic in Miami so they feel no reason for assimilation to American identity and even sometimes Americanization seems unpleasant. They made their own bank, commerce and ballot box; they have members in Congress and legislature. Nowadays, the directors of biggest companies in Miami are Cubans or of Cuban ancestors. It is surprising to know that in this condition Blacks and English speaking people are among minorities, they have no way to escape; they have to assimilate with Cubans or leave Miami as 140 thousand English speakers left Miami in 1993.

Cubans had so a vast influence in Miami whether economically or culturally that Miami is called the capital of Latin America. Some believe that they are having their own method of foreign policy view that is conducted by the legislators. They are so dominantly living in Miami in US that they acquire others to accept and assimilate to their own culture. Here, there is a question? Do we assume Miami an American Miami or a Cuban Miami? If an American Miami for now, but not certainly a Cuban Miami for near future.