You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Race and Ethnicity' category.
A Nigerian anthropology professor teaching in America has one of the most incisive analyses of American politics I’ve read this political season. “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as other see us!” wrote Bobby Burns. Much like overhearing gossip about yourself, it’s instructive, and often embarrassing, to learn how others perceive you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107110356.htm
ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — A new Brown University study reports that U.S. states that require voters to present identification before casting ballots have lower levels of political participation. The research also indicates that voter I.D. policies discourage legal immigrants from becoming citizens, particularly for blacks and Hispanics, reducing odds of naturalization by more than 15 percent.
Since 2000, and stimulated by new security concerns after 9/11, there has been an upsurge in state requirements for voter identification. By 2004, a total of 19 states required some form of documentation of a voter’s identity, sometimes in the form of photo I.D. Proponents of such requirements believe identification is a necessary tool to prevent voting fraud, such as voting by noncitizens or people who are otherwise ineligible to register. Others argue that whatever its intention, I.D. policies have the effect of suppressing electoral participation, particularly among minorities.
The report, co-authored by S4 Director John Logan and graduate student Jennifer Darrah, concludes that voter I.D. is one of many factors that negatively influence civic participation in the United States. The report states, “At a time when many public officials express regret that immigrants seem to lag in their participation in mainstream society, even small suppressive effects on naturalization — the formal step to becoming an American citizen — work in the wrong direction and should be taken into account as people evaluate the benefits and costs of more stringent identification requirements.”
The new study extends previous research on I.D. requirements by analyzing not only voter turnout, but also voter registration and — “the key prior step for immigrants” — the decision to become a citizen, across racial and ethnic groups.
Key findings include:
- in states with a voter I.D. policy in 2000, the odds of naturalization for foreign-born residents of the United States were reduced by more than 5 percent, with the strongest impact on Hispanics;
- in election years from 1996-2004, the odds of being a registered voter among citizens aged 18 and older were higher for whites by about 15 percent in states with voter I.D. requirements. But this effect was more than counterbalanced by a reduction in white voter turnout. In 2004 alone the net effect was to reduce white turnout in these states by about 400,000 votes;
- in this same period, voter I.D. policies reduced Asians’ registration and diminished voter turnout by blacks and Hispanics, by about 14 percent and 20 percent respectively. The net reduction in minority voting in these states in 2004 was more than 400,000 votes;
- the suppressive effect of voter I.D. disproportionately affected not only minorities, but also persons with less than a high school education and less than $15,000 income, tenants, and recent movers. While persons with these characteristics are substantially less likely to participate in civic affairs regardless of their state of residence, they experience an additional significant reduction in participation relative to others in voter I.D. states.
“It is incredibly clear how voter I.D. requirements disproportionately affect and suppress minorities,” said Logan, professor of sociology. “This data shows that if voter I.D. policies had not been in place in 2004, voter turnout would have increased by more than 1.6 million. That is a strong argument in itself for change.”
The constitutionality of voter I.D. provisions is now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court with oral argument scheduled for Jan. 9, 2008. The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, challenges the 2005 Indiana law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo I.D. issued by the United States or the State of Indiana.
The full study was published by the American Communities Project at Brown’s Initiative in Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences (S4). This study, supported by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation, is based on two more extended analyses of naturalization and political participation recently completed by Logan, Darrah, and Sookhee Oh, adjunct assistant professor of population studies.
Adapted from materials provided by Brown University.
Centre for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism (CRONEM)
Nationalism, Ethnicity and Citizenship:
Whose Citizens? Whose Rights?
30 June – 1 July, 2008
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
CRONEM’s 2008 conference will address issues bound up with nationalism, ethnicity and citizenship from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Multicultural societies raise crucial challenges for traditional conceptions of nations and citizenship. Ethnic diversity can mean that significant numbers of people are excluded from national projects, while the ‘melting pot’ metaphor belies the complexities of societies in which minority communities seek to protect their heritages and resist incorporation into the nation or state.
At the same time, conceptions of citizenship appear to be undergoing transformation. Civic engagement and participation is frequently viewed as being more effective in achieving social change than traditional forms of political representation. Levels of both civic and political participation vary significantly across ethnic communities, while political institutions are required to adjust to accommodate marginalised communities more effectively into democratic processes.
At the international level, the sovereignty of the nation state has been increasingly challenged in the name of protecting or asserting universal human rights. Regimes, deemed oppressive by powerful external actors, have been subjected to sanctions or military intervention. The question of national citizenship, with its attendant rights and obligations, is being reframed in the light of new expectations. The implications of this process for the future of states and their citizens remain unclear, but they appear to encourage the erosion of national sovereignty in favour of participation at both sub-national and international levels.
Themes: · Conceptualising citizenship in ethnically diverse societies · Comparisons of old and new forms of citizenship · Political versus civic engagement and participation · Incorporating marginalised groups into democratic processes · The concepts of intercultural, multicultural and cosmopolitan citizenship · Citizenship and religion · Citizenship and migrants · The role of civic/citizenship education in multicultural societies · National citizenship and universal human rights · Ethnic conflict regulation and the roles of international actors Confirmed speakers:
- Hans van Amersfoort, Emeritus Professor, Cultural Geography and Population Geography, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Michael Byram, Professor of Education, Durham University
- Nick Emler, Professor of Social Psychology, University of Surrey
- Jonathan Friedman, Professor of Social Anthropology, Lund University, Sweden
- Montserrat Guibernau, Professor of Politics, University of London
- Lord Bhikhu Parekh, Labour Member of the House of Lords and Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Westminster
- Oren Yiftachel, Associate Professor of Political Geography, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Please send your submissions to Mirela Dumic (m.dumic@surrey.ac.uk). Deadline for submissions: 1st February 2008. Notification of acceptance will be sent to presenters by 3rd March 2008.
Registration and venue details http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Arts/CRONEM/registration08.htm
The Tampa Tribune ran a special report Sunday on people of more than one race.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it echoes much of what I’ve been reading in a book titled “Fade.” The book is written by a professional colleague and friend, Elliott Lewis, who is himself biracial. I’m not finished with the book, but I’ve been struck by Elliott’s ability to bring both sense and humor to the topic. I was particularly struck by the last paragraph on page 52:
“Such borders, while not naturally occurring, are nonetheless real.
Biologists, looking down from on high through the lens of science, may
not see them. But down here on the ground, we know they exist.”
I appreciate how much Elliott exposes his soul in “Fade.” But because he does, Elliott is able to point out how ridiculous are our concepts of race. I got to comtemplating what constitutes a “race,” and if a “pure race” exists. My first wife, for instance, is part Native American (although a very, very small part. You can’t tell. The Irish part is what shows). But her ancestors came here so long ago that she’s eligible to join the Daughters of the American Colonists (Talk about being able to
cover both sides of an issue!) On my mother’s side, one of my great great great (I don’t know how many greats) grandmothers was (according to family tradition) Jewish. That might explain my grandfather’s kinky hair. But given that both sides of my family have been in the South for generations, there might be another explanation too!
The more I try to understand the psychology of race, the less I understand it. Why is a person “black” if three generations back one of their forebears was African? At what point would that person “become” white? And why do we care so much? Ultimately, what does it even matter? And why do descendants of Japan/China/Palestine/Argentina/YouNameIt not face these same issues?
What is it about “blackness?”
So much in this country seems to be invested in race. I think I notice it most when I’m outside of the country. The “attitude” that I observe in many African Americans doesn’t seem to exist among, say, Nigerians. If “white entitlement” shapes inter-racial relationships here, then “black entitlement” does the same thing there. Because of African-Americans former status as slaves, they’ve had to, in a sense, wedge themselves into American society. This action has left a residue of resentment among both blacks and white here. In Nigeria and other African countries. blacks are “the man.” They possess an attitude, carry themselves, in a manner that mirrors any “entitled” white American. There’s a lack of certain cultural baggage. Obviously, the entirety of Africa was oppressed by Westerners for centuries, so while I get to put down some bags, I acquire a whole new set of luggage. Some of that may be self-imposed, as I try not to be an “ugly American.”
I continue to gain such insights as I read each new chapter of Elliott’s book. I know I have come to resent the word “race,” as it is used to separate people into categories that have no meaning. If I have to make such designations, I prefer “ethnic group.” Even that phrase fails to convey the full complexity of human evolution. I see only one “race” — the human race.
