In conventional usage, the term multiculturalism refers to an active attempt to maintain different cultures or cultural identities within a society by promoting cultural distinction. So, in critiquing multiculturalism, we are not necessarily criticizing immigrants or broadly criticizing their cultures, but we are criticizing a particular way of managing a diverse society.
Exactly.
In a liberal society there can indeed be room for many races (I know it's a social construct, etc) and many ethnicities, but there should not be room for many cultures.
And I guess my question is why not? And in a country like the US which culture do you suggest be forced down the throats of others? How do you define "American" culture? Where do you place Native Americans and African Americans who have had a presence since this country became constituted as the United States of America? What of certain regions in the southwest which were populated by Spanish speakers before the Anglos arrived? What of regions in Pennsylvania populated for decades (maybe even centuries) by groups likle the Amish?
Yes I agree that there is a need for a core set of values and behaviors. I suspect that this country has this and that most, native and foriegn born, adhere to these rules even while they maintain their ethnic identities. Some immigrant groups might even adhere to these rules more than the native born (poor East Asian immigrants vs working class native blacks and whites).
Last edited by caribj on Thu 05 Mar 2009 00:21; edited 1 time in total
I am curious as to why you believe that racism and bigotry is less of an issue in France.
I don't. I think that racism is a big problem in both the US and France. I do not know in which of those two countries it is worse. You make very good points in criticism of the situation in France.
So the point then is that the rhetoric about multiculturalism in the USA (and the UK and Canada) vs the rhetoric of we are all one without distinction of France seem to lead to the same outcome. However an upper middle class seems to be more prevalent among nonwhite immigrants (FIRST generation) in the USA than it is in France.
I have been made to understand that there are very few few nonwhite broadcasters on French TV despite their large North African and Antillean and African black populations. Yet daily even on CNBC (which focuses on the capital markets) blacks can be seen. Even on teh conservative FOX TV. CNN might even have a slight OVERrepresentation. We have a "black" President (as he is so considered by most in the USA) and the head of the GOP is also a black man. There is another thread on this forum discussing the increased popularity of multi cultural images even in high end advertising. Doesnt seem to be so in France. Maybe the "multiculturalism" of the USA allows this country to embrace (or at least pretend to) those who look different. France seems less tolerant preferring to present a more uniform image.
Something must be different in the USA, markedly so given that not too long ago this was one of the world's most bigotted societies.
Last edited by caribj on Thu 05 Mar 2009 00:29; edited 1 time in total
Yes I agree that there is a need for a core set of values and behaviors. I suspect that this country has this and that most, native and foriegn born, adhere to these rules even while they maintain their ethnic identities.
That is precisely the difference between culture and ethnicity: core values.
For two generations, Irish Americans prevented their children from learning to read and write because they thought literacy a Protestant plot. Well into the Civil war, they considered any Englishman fair game, in or out of hunting season. (Sort of the way that many muslims sincerely believe that a husband owns his wife and daughters and can do what he sees fit with them, including killing them for honor's sake, and that executing an apostate is not murder, indeed is mandatory.)
Today, Irishness is merely an ethnicity--a sense of identity with no substantive deviance from Western values.
The process of assimilation (or acculturation) into any culture means precisely people learing to accept the mores of that culture or suffer the consequences. Please do not equate real cultural differences (mandatory genital mutilation of female children by the Maasai, for example) with mere ethnic self-identity in the West. An ethnicity, by definition is part of the cultural hegemony of the society in which it exists. The U.S. has many ethnicities but only one culture (excluding those few immigrants who do not yet embrace Western culture, like the examples above).
Yes I agree that there is a need for a core set of values and behaviors. I suspect that this country has this and that most, native and foriegn born, adhere to these rules even while they maintain their ethnic identities.
That is precisely the difference between culture and ethnicity: core values.
For two generations, Irish Americans prevented their children from learning to read and write because they thought literacy a Protestant plot. An ethnicity, by definition is part of the cultural hegemony of the society in which it exists. The U.S. has many ethnicities but only one culture (excluding those immigrants who do not yet embrace Western culture).
Is the desire to educate one's children, learn the language of upward mobility, equip oneself with the social skills needed to excel American (or French) culture or does it not represent a more universal set of values? Compare many immigrants with the poor natives (black or white). Given that the former have often just arrived and are still trying to make sense of what they see, and the latter have lived here often for centuries.
I also do not think that an immigrant from Mexico or Guyana is any more supportive of genital mutilation, honor killings or other practices alien to "Western" culture than are Americans? Yet both will consider themselves and will be considered to be culturally distinct from Americans. And is "Western" culture the same as "American"? I suspect people in Greece consider themselves to be culturally distinct from Americans.
What will be interesting will be a comparison of certain American groups (poor whites from Appalachia and inner city African Americans) with many new immigrant groups. Which group possesses the values that some consider to be American? One would think that the former who have lived in this country much longer will but is that so? It might be hard to dispute the fact that both the whites of the Appalachia and inner city African Americans do not represent American subcultures.
I also do not think that an immigrant from Mexico or Guyana is any more supportive of genital mutilation, honor killings or other practises alien to "Western" culture than are Americans? Yet both will consider themselves and will be considered to be culturally distinct from Americans.
Please do not use passive voice ("will be considered") to cloak your lack of familiarity with the topic--the difference between culture and ethnicity. Mexicans today are thoroughly Western. If you want to discuss this topic seriously, I recommend either Werner Sollors, The Invention of Ethnicity (New York: Oxford University, 1989) or Werner Sollors, Theories of Ethnicity: A Classical Reader (Washington Square NY: New York University, 1996) for a basic introduction to the topic.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 417 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Thu 05 Mar 2009 05:29 Post subject:
Quote:
Apparently such conflict seems today to be more violent in scope in France (Muslim attacks on Jews, and white supremacist attacks in immigrants or those deemed to be "foreign") than in the USA.
Not even close. The levels of violence in all sectors of society in France is significantly lower than in the US. The U.S. homicide rate is more than double that of France. I have not seen a single person here who has the stereotypical appearance of a "skinhead," and I have heard of zero "white supremacist attacks" (I read and watch the news every day). There have been a couple well reported cases of racist graffiti in a country of 64 million people. A total of two jewish kids have been beaten by muslim kids in the 18th arrondissment (generally considered the toughest part of Paris), but always when israeli-palestinian conflict is flaring up. In my opinion, French teens (irregardless of the ethnic origin of their parents) seem on average to be much more polite and better behaved than their U.S. counterparts, with the exception of that annoying cigarette smoking. Teenage gangs in the US are drastically more violent than any youth phenomenon you will find here.
In my opinion, part of the reason the riots even occurred here in 2005 is because the police are extremely non-assertive and gentle. They seem to be afraid or otherwise hesitant to intervene in any potentially threatening situation. With all the coverage they received, it is perhaps surprising to learn that a total of 1 person died as a result of the 2005 riots.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 05 Mar 2009 12:03 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
caribj wrote:
Yes I agree that there is a need for a core set of values and behaviors. I suspect that this country has this and that most, native and foriegn born, adhere to these rules even while they maintain their ethnic identities.
That is precisely the difference between culture and ethnicity: core values.
For two generations, Irish Americans prevented their children from learning to read and write because they thought literacy a Protestant plot. Well into the Civil war, they considered any Englishman fair game, in or out of hunting season. (Sort of the way that many muslims sincerely believe that a husband owns his wife and daughters and can do what he sees fit with them, including killing them for honor's sake, and that executing an apostate is not murder, indeed is mandatory.)
Today, Irishness is merely an ethnicity--a sense of identity with no substantive deviance from Western values.
The process of assimilation (or acculturation) into any culture means precisely people learing to accept the mores of that culture or suffer the consequences. Please do not equate real cultural differences (mandatory genital mutilation of female children by the Maasai, for example) with mere ethnic self-identity in the West. An ethnicity, by definition is part of the cultural hegemony of the society in which it exists. The U.S. has many ethnicities but only one culture (excluding those few immigrants who do not yet embrace Western culture, like the examples above).
East Asians are not Western, about half of them are born outside the U.S. and they do quite well here even first generation immigrants.
I know more than a few immigrants from China, Taiwan, and Japan (less so Korea) and I have lived or been in those nations and the people here don't act much differently from how they do in Asia. It is more than "self identity" it is cultural practice. Over time they do assimilate, usually the kids, which is a typical pattern for immigrants here (but as you pointed out Irish took a lot longer than the norm) but keeping their cultural value (speaking of the parents) has not seem to hurt them economically in the U.S.
I think the examples you gave...at least I'm guessing, is more an issue of how well the native culture overlaps with Western culture. There are few East Asian cultural practices that cause major conflict or issue in Western nations, unlike honor killings or female genital mutilation. In fact I might say this is the reason East Asians tend to assimilate fairly quickly.
Frank made some pretty striking examples of cultural differences, but I think this is normative behavior. Killing infidels, I would argue is not a cultural norm among Arabs, Persians, etc. although there is a sub-population that behaves in this way. Female genital mutilation is a cultural norm for many Africans (North and Sub-Saharan Africans).
In any case, that doesn't matter as much as expressing this behavior in any Western nation is considered disgusting and barbaric.
Obviously holding on to such traditions will prevent assimilation into a Western nation.
That being said...using the examples above, I would argue that the average Mexican immigrant to America is "Western" but there is cultural distance between Latin American cultures and the Anglo-American culture. For example, for example Hofstede has shown that there is less cultural distance between the Dutch, Brits, and Americans than between Italians and Americans, yet they are all Western...some Westerns will assimilate faster than others.
With Asians and Mexicans, the former I am around about 24 hours a day (at work and at home) and the latter I have spent significant time with when living in Houston...many Mexican cultural norms (OF THE COMMON IMMIGRANT who is from a lower class background in Mexico)...like cat-calling women on the street, practically worshiping the Virgin Mary, attitudes toward education, machismo, etc are not acceptable or found to be quite odd in Middle Class Anglo-culture, also the fact many of these people have poor to no competence in English all hurt assimilation.
East Asians and Indians (especially the former) seem to assimilate much better. I would argue strongly that East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese) and I Filipinos have normative behavioral differences but not the type that would tend to alienate them from Anglo-American society. My measure for this is the fact that about 50% of Asians in America are foreign born but their out marriage rate is the higher than Hispanics.
The biggest barrier I have seen to Asian assimilation (besides "race") would be cultural distance. It is not what they do, but how they think. I am currently reading:
"The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently - and Why"
by Richard E. Nisbet
I've been testing some of his conclusions on my co-workers and my wife and they are pretty damn accurate...the cultural distance between Asians and Westerns is quite large, but as I said, it is not a major barrier to assimilation because their normative behaviors are not bizarre or barbaric to the average Western. Asians, also come here at a higher class status (on average) than Hispanics and tend to live more with middle class Anglo-Americans in their communities than poor Hispanics do in most of the country. More exposure to Middle class Anglo-American cultural norms will likely speed assimilation, especially since most East Asians have a culture which demands conformity, even if the parents do not conform to the norms of the West, they often make sure their children do.
Specifically for Mexicans, I wonder how many of the ones who immigrate to America are Indio or heavily influenced by indio culture?
East Asians are not Western, about half of them are born outside the U.S. and they do quite well here even first generation immigrants. ... etc.
I agree, but ...
Let me preface what I am about to say with two qualifiers:
First, all classification schemes are in our heads. Nature is messy. The difference between culture and ethnicity resembles the difference between species and variety in biology, but is even muddier.
Nevertheless, most scholars of the topic agree to use culture for differences (usually national differences) in language, religion, costume, food preferences, and in the gut-feel of what behaviors are "right" or "wrong." Ethnicity, on the other hand, denotes an invented group identity (usually within a nation) that rhetorically points to a culture of origin but, in fact, is virtually indistinguishable from the mainstream culture in which it is embedded. Again, the difference can be fuzzy. There is no doubt that Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans are the same culture. And there is no doubt that the Maasai are a different culture from Brits. Whether modern Greeks are the same culture as modern Japanese is arguable, depending on which traits you look at.
Second, my field of interest is the pre-20th-century United States. My knowledge of patterns of ethnic assimilation comes from studying the vast waves of immigrants before the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 ended immigration. I rely heavily on data collected in early-to-mid-20th-century studies, primarily by the Chicago school. I already posted two introductory texts. For whatever reason, those studies focused mainly on Europeans, Africans, West Indians, East Indians, and Latin Americans, and seldom addressed east Asians. (Although Kitano, Loewen, Xie, Takaki, and others have addressed east Asian immigrants in the late 20th-century.)
The consistent three-stage pattern that has been reported by virtually all studies is:
Stage 1 (just off the boat) – Deviant cultural norms: language, religion, costume, food preferences, and the sense of "right" or "wrong" are repugnant to the mainstream, spawning intense prejudice usually articulated with the "not White" label.
Stage 2 (usually in the children of immigrants) – Abandonment of deviant cultural norms: fluency in English, tolerance of other religions, dress in prevailing fashions, eat mainstream foods. Parents' and grandparents' deviant beliefs (honor killing, etc.) are forgotten or ridiculed.
Stage 3 (usually in the grandchildren of immigrants) – Invention of a quaint, sanitized "ethnicity" that rhetorically points to an alien culture but, in fact, is culturally indistinguishable from the mainstream.
How U.S. immigrant communities moved from stage 1 to stage 2 is interesting. They had to embrace three specific traits. Doing so guaranteed acceptance into Whiteness. Rejecting even one kept them non-White indefinitely.
(1) Obey the state, not the priesthood. For example, you must accept that killing, torture, and the mutilation of children are acceptable only when sanctioned by the state.
(2) Embrace the myth of upward mobility. For example, you may not prevent your children from learning the three Rs, nor claim that each person is born into his/her permanent involuntary "place" in society.
(3) Distance yourself from African Americans. Minimal social contact, no intermarriage. The most effective strategy was to express open contempt for A-As.
Three further qualifiers should be obvious.
First, African Americans do not (cannot) fit the above pattern because they are the U.S. social antithesis of Whiteness. They are the fulcrum against which immigrants to the U.S. must leverage themselves into Whiteness. (Native Americans, Hispanics, and perhaps West Indians do fit the pattern).
Second, starting in the last few centuries, cultural differences around the world have been evaporating with astonishing speed—as are languages. It is hard to give examples of non-Western cultures (people whose most profound beliefs are repugnant to Westerners and vice-versa) precisely because they are vanishing. To Dragon Horse's specific example, I would see today's Chinese as non-Western only to the extent that foot-binding and exposure-killing of female babies is demanded or encouraged as "right" by their society
Finally, although stage-1 and stage-2 exist everywhere and have existed throughout history (driven by immigration, slavery, migrations, or conquest), stage-3 exists only where political voting blocs are advantageous. Assimilated grand-children of immigrants do not invent synthetic ethnicities under monarchies, totalitarian regimes, or oligarchies where only the elite vote.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 05 Mar 2009 15:38 Post subject:
Quote:
Assimilated grand-children of immigrants do not invent ethnicities under monarchies, totalitarian regimes, or oligarchies where only the elite vote.
This is an interesting observation, one I have not thought about.
Foot binding was band in China in 1912, with the Qing Dynasty's collapse. Infanticide, especially of females or second born males is still common on the mainland in rural areas (not in Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc), and not common in cities and not in the rest of East Asia (as they are more affluent and don't have a one-child policy). From an Anthro perspective...they had no issue doing this because historically in China (like ancient Greece or Rome) very young children (babies) had no individual rights and so killing them was like a "late term abortion"...you didn't kill first born sons because they are supposed to lead the family and take care of the elderly parents...other kids were expendable if they were a strain on the rest of the family. East Asians tend not to adopt children from outside their family so the kids often would just be an added burden on resources. I'm not excusing this, I find it horrible, but that is how it was explained to me by a Chinese man (who also does not condone the behavior).
The only behavior I have heard Anglo-Americans complain of regarding Asians is that they drive poorly, do not line up properly, Chinatown is often dirty, people often spit or pick their nose in public, they don't express their opinion enough, study TOO much, not into American sports enough...do not speak proper English.
This is very minor issues though and I think this changes the more generations they are here.
Another trend of assimilation I have noticed is for them to drop traditional religious beliefs and either be agnostic, atheist, or convert to Christianity. It is rare to find a 2nd or 3rd generation Asian American being a practicing Buddhist, Shintoist, D(T)aoist, general ancestor whorship, etc. Most Asian Americans (1st generation born here) don't practice any religion, but for Filipinos who tend to be Catholic.
As far as "showing contempt for blacks", I can compare this to Italian and Irish Americans I have known in the Chicago area, I would say compared to them and their relationship with blacks...on a day to day basis they are indifferent...but I have met many Asians who would ban their children (particularly daughters) from marrying blacks and if they have to marry out it is best to marry a white person (even better than marrying an Asian of another ethnicity most of the time). I find this last piece odd. My wife is not Asian-American in that she grew up in Asia, however, her grandparents were not excited about her marrying me, that being said, they told her "At least he is not Korean"...their contempt for Koreans, who are much more culturally similar...is that strong and I have seen this same thing in Asian Americans, although, I have heard in California there is a "Asian - American" "racial movement" among many 2nd or 3rd generation children born here...it is usually based around the idea that white people discriminate against Asians by depicting Asian men as weak, objectifying Asian women as submissive slaves, etc. IN my experience with various Asian American communities this is not wide spread though, it seems mostly among young Asian American men who feel white males take all the datable women for them. Some even complain about black males taking the remainder (which usually causes even more outrage, I think because they feel blacks are less than them, so why would someone pick a black male over them...)
The outmarriage rate is high, but mostly for females, I don't think the male outmarriage rate is higher than Hispanic and the out-dating rate might not be higher than black males, but those numbers get sketchy...
It is interesting that women are being assimilated much faster than males in this community.
I'm not sure if this was the case for Irish or Jews, it does not appear to be the case for Hispanics.
Foot binding was banned in China in 1912, with the Qing Dynasty's collapse. Infanticide, especially of females or second born males is still common on the mainland in rural areas (not in Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc), and not common in cities and not in the rest of East Asia (as they are more affluent and don't have a one-child policy).
Precisely. China's Westernization, if anything, has accelerated since then. (Incidentally, infanticide by exposure was the most common method of family planning in the United States before the 19th century.) But my Westernization yardstick is not whether ignorant peasants in isolated villages retain customs repugnant to the West. It is whether their society as a whole has repudiated those customs and considers them backwards. Compare China, India, and Iran regarding such customs.
China has officially westernized and neither the state nor the society as a whole condone foot-binding today.
India has officially banned the Hindu caste system, but those laws are routinely ignored. Although the state repudiates the notion that each person is born into his/her permanent involuntary "place" in society, the great majority of the populace fully supports the idea.
Finally, both the state and the populace in Iran mandate honor killings by individuals, especially of females and of apostates.
Hence, I would say that China is Western, India less so, and Iran not at all.
Regarding outmarriage, A-As are the exception. All other U.S. ethnicities have more female than male outmarriage. I am not sure why. But a situation like yours (Asian wife, A-A husband) is not all that unusual. The reverse (Asian husband, A-A wife) is rare.
There is conflict and controversy within nations undergoing Westernization, as their ideas of "right" and "wrong" change. I recall a political speech in India (quoted in one of the post-colonial tracts). The would-be congressman promised, if elected, to do two things: (1) he promised to improve infrastructure with broad-band networks, cell-phone towers, more and better airports, etc. And (2) he promised eliminate all trace of hated Western influence in holy mother India.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 06 Mar 2009 01:53 Post subject:
Going back to the discussion about France and Muslims...Razib on gene expression (who I had a like-hate relationship with)...did say something interesting about why Muslims are better integrated in America than most places in Europe.
Quote:
1) Fewer numbers of Muslims proportionately
2) A more diverse population of Muslims, so reducing synergy between ethnicity and religion
3) An immigration policy which has resulted in a foreign-born population with higher educational qualifications than the native population, ergo, lack of synergy between socioeconomic deprivation and religion
4) America's more receptive attitude toward immigrants
5) America's economic system which has a "fluid" labor market, allowing newcomers to break into higher wage sectors more easily
It turns out, like indigenous Western Europeans, Muslim immigrants are less religious than American Muslims (and likely Americans in general). This seems to show that the issue in Europe is not about "Islam" per se but "us vs them".
It turns out, like indigenous Western Europeans, Muslim immigrants are less religious than American Muslims (and likely Americans in general). This seems to show that the issue in Europe is not about "Islam" per se but "us vs them".
It appears to me that, on that chart, Muslim religiosity in the US lies somewhere between that of Germany and England (also above France), whilst the religiosity of Muslims in all four countries is higher then the general religiosity of the US. Am I reading that chart wrong?
I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw from all that, apart from the points that Americans tend to be quite a bit more religious then Europeans (at least in those three countries) in general, that Muslims tend to be quite religious in both Europe and the US, and that there is a greater rift between Muslim religiosity and secularism in Europe than in the US.
It appears to me that, on that chart, Muslim religiosity in the US lies somewhere between that of Germany and England (also above France), whilst the religiosity of Muslims in all four countries is higher then the general religiosity of the US.
That is the way I read it also. Muslim religiosity is about the same on boths sides of the pond, while non-Muslim religiosity is much stronger in the U.S. than Europe.
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 {Posts: 219 } Location: Southern California
Posted: Fri 06 Mar 2009 06:10 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
It turns out, like indigenous Western Europeans, Muslim immigrants are less religious than American Muslims (and likely Americans in general). This seems to show that the issue in Europe is not about "Islam" per se but "us vs them".
I'm just wondering about the percentage of American Muslims who are actually converts to Islam from another religion. Just curious, but could it be that some who convert to a religion on their own terms become quite deeply involved with it and thus appear more religious than those who were brought up with it from the cradle?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 06 Mar 2009 11:44 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
It appears to me that, on that chart, Muslim religiosity in the US lies somewhere between that of Germany and England (also above France), whilst the religiosity of Muslims in all four countries is higher then the general religiosity of the US.
That is the way I read it also. Muslim religiosity is about the same on boths sides of the pond, while non-Muslim religiosity is much stronger in the U.S. than Europe.
Sorry, you both are right, I looked at it wrong as I threw it up real quick after glancing at it. Still after Germany, the most religious Muslim population is in the U.S. however we do not see the same reaction that many attribute to religiosity among Muslims in America and Europe, I think that was the person's point (in hindsight)...it is quite clear that Muslims in Europe are far more religious than Muslims in Europe but about as religious in America as other Americans...
Hence Razib's explanations as to why we have a high rate of Muslims religiosity in America but very little in the way of negative externalities...
It is true that Muslims, show less variance in religiosity...and unlike Western people (and East Asians) affluence/education level is not an indicator of religiosity. Generally (and I'm not getting this from the article) the more religious people are the less affluent, this is not just true internally in America (by religion or ethnicity) but also in the world in general. Muslims in America are quite more affluent than Muslims in Europe.
America is somewhat an outlier, but I my thoughts are that Americans is far more religious but unlike other developed nations we have a very high rate of poverty and income inequality...
Gini Coefficient...
Look at the UN column...America being more capitalist than most European countries is way down there near developing nations, the only nation considered developed that are close are the UK and Singapore. America is right above Senegal.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 417 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Fri 06 Mar 2009 12:05 Post subject:
I would be interested in seeing where the data from the first graph came from. I assume the muslim label was based on self identification, which makes the fact that high levels of people who define themselves as a certain religion "consider religion to be an important part of daily life" not at all surprising. I would suspect that the big difference that is implicitly but not explicitly shown on this graph is between the percentage of people in US and Europe who would identify themselves as christian as opposed to agnostic or atheist. Another thing that isn't shown by that graph, and that i would find very interesting, is the percentage of people with traditionally muslim ethnic origins who no longer identify themselves as muslims in the respective countries.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 06 Mar 2009 13:35 Post subject:
MisterLawyer wrote:
I would be interested in seeing where the data from the first graph came from. I assume the muslim label was based on self identification, which makes the fact that high levels of people who define themselves as a certain religion "consider religion to be an important part of daily life" not at all surprising. I would suspect that the big difference that is implicitly but not explicitly shown on this graph is between the percentage of people in US and Europe who would identify themselves as christian as opposed to agnostic or atheist. Another thing that isn't shown by that graph, and that i would find very interesting, is the percentage of people with traditionally muslim ethnic origins who no longer identify themselves as muslims in the respective countries.
You made me think about the fact that many Muslims in the US are not immigrants, but African American converts, maybe a about half of the total Muslim population.
Gini Coefficient ... way down there near developing nations, the only nation considered developed that are close are the UK and Singapore. America is right above Senegal.
Normally, I would not accept any data from Wikipedia because it is so easily and so often falsified. But the U.S. is notorious for its level of inequality. Not only is U.S. inequality worse than most 3rd world nations, it approaches the level at which, historically, nations are plunged into bloody revolution.
One of the mysteries that U.S. historians discuss is how the nation survives despite its inequality level. Why are Americans so uniquely complacent about the large number of poor and the overwhelming fraction of wealth concentrated in so few individuals?
Every historian has his own hypothesis as to why (I can personally come up with three or four). The most common explanation, as I am sure everyone reading these words already knows, is that the U.S. "racial" dichotomy pitting Black against White distracts everyone from their victimization by the rich. The only serious debate is whether this tactic was deliberately planned to that end (Roediger), or just fortuitous but exploited nonetheless (Du Bois).
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 06 Mar 2009 17:41 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Gini Coefficient ... way down there near developing nations, the only nation considered developed that are close are the UK and Singapore. America is right above Senegal.
Normally, I would not accept any data from Wikipedia because it is so easily and so often falsified. But the U.S. is notorious for its level of inequality. Not only is U.S. inequality worse than most 3rd world nations, it approaches the level at which, historically, nations are plunged into bloody revolution.
One of the mysteries that U.S. historians discuss is how the nation survives despite its inequality level. Why are Americans so uniquely complacent about the large number of poor and the overwhelming fraction of wealth concentrated in so few individuals?
Every historian has his own hypothesis as to why (I can personally come up with three or four). The most common explanation, as I am sure everyone reading these words already knows, is that the U.S. "racial" dichotomy pitting Black against White distracts everyone from their victimization by the rich. The only serious debate is whether this tactic was deliberately planned to that end (Roediger), or just fortuitous but exploited nonetheless (Du Bois).
You might be on to something in your last paragraph...as it has been a mystifying thing to many Democrats, but poor white Southerns continue to vote Republican in large numbers and believe that America has the most upward mobility in the world (false: http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf) and that all you have to do is work hard and you can live well, however, they remain in multi-generational poverty.
As far as France and Western Europe in general, I also thought about the fact that unions are much stronger than in America. If you are a low skill worker looking to make a living wage a union can be a barrier for an "outsider", keeping them out of good paying blue collar work.
This was a problem for many black workers in the North East even as late as the 1970's...unions finally opened up though and integrated pretty well by the mid-70's...I wonder what this is like in places like France??
Posted: Fri 06 Mar 2009 21:09 Post subject: U.S. stratification
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Gini Coefficient ... way down there near developing nations, the only nation considered developed that are close are the UK and Singapore. America is right above Senegal.
Normally, I would not accept any data from Wikipedia because it is so easily and so often falsified. But the U.S. is notorious for its level of inequality. Not only is U.S. inequality worse than most 3rd world nations, it approaches the level at which, historically, nations are plunged into bloody revolution.
One of the mysteries that U.S. historians discuss is how the nation survives despite its inequality level. Why are Americans so uniquely complacent about the large number of poor and the overwhelming fraction of wealth concentrated in so few individuals?
Every historian has his own hypothesis as to why (I can personally come up with three or four). The most common explanation, as I am sure everyone reading these words already knows, is that the U.S. "racial" dichotomy pitting Black against White distracts everyone from their victimization by the rich. The only serious debate is whether this tactic was deliberately planned to that end (Roediger), or just fortuitous but exploited nonetheless (Du Bois).
According to Matthew Frye Jacobson, it was deliberate:
"FREE WHITE PERSONS" IN THE REPUBLIC, 1790-1840
OR
WE NEED SOMEBODY TO FIGHT OFF THOSE SLAVES AND INDIANS.
The Third Charter of Virginia (1611-1612) dedicates the colony to "the propagation of the Christian Religion, and Reclaiming of People barbarous, to Civility and Humanity." The Declaration of Proposals of the Lord Proprietor of Carolina (1663), the Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (1663) all defined the mission of their colonies as the taking of land from "barbarous" natives and their conversion to Christianity and a European (specifically English) way of life.
These colonial documents do not use the word "white," Jacobson says, but between the charters of the early seventeenth century and the naturalization law of the late eighteenth, the word "white" did attain wide usage in New World political discourse, and it was written into an immense body of statutory law. In the colonies the designation "white" appeared in laws governing who could marry whom, who could participate in the militia; who could vote or hold office; and in laws governing contracts, indenture and enslavement. The term "white" was used to confer rights and freedoms (except limiting one's right to marry). Citizenship became inseparable from the idea of whiteness and maleness because a citizen's primary duty was to help put down slave rebellions and participate in wars against the Indians. In other words, colonial British elites first created "white people" as a social and political category to create a sense of European solidarity against slaves and Indian nations. The colonial European population, divided by class, religion and national origin, had to be united. People who had little land and no slaves themselves had to be made to feel a certain brotherhood with large landowners and slave holders. It is no accident that Congress established a Uniform Militia (1792) defined as "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states." In return for this military obligation, "white" men received the franchise (with property qualifications), the right to hold office and other rights superior to women and non-white males.
Another important component of political whiteness was Republican ideology. If the Crown of England was no longer the ruler, and the Revolution had been fought in the name of self-rule or rule by "the people" - the majority - then who were these citizens and what determined their fitness to rule? Furthermore, the Revolution's ideals meant different things to different classes. A planter aristocrat like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson did not necessarily want the kind of political equality favored by a New England farmer or a small merchant or artisan. The new American ruling class was thus presented with a dilemma - how to rule without overtly appearing to do so. In the Enlightenment's model of race and politics, the ideal republic was ruled by men who were logical, balanced and not given to irrational passions. Non-white "races" were, by definition, the opposite of this ideal, and most European "races" were judged inferior to the English - the standard by which all other "races" would be judged. The polity should be "a homogenous body" whose interests were, when thoughtfully considered, one and the same. The ideal American citizen's concept of "the public good" should be, essentially, the good of wealthy planters and merchants.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
