Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The goal of this tutorial is to help you objectively analyze the phenomena of
race and ethnicity as well as some of the world wide patterns of
discrimination based on them. In doing this, it is important to suspend our
own biases as much as possible and to take a cultural relativity approach.
That is to say, we must not let our own cultural biases get in the way of
understanding the lives of other people. This is a very difficult task given the
emotionally charged feelings and deep beliefs that most people have
concerning race and ethnicity. However, suspending these attitudinal barriers
in order to gain a better understanding of the phenomena is worth the effort.
Have you ever asked yourself what are the defining characteristics of being
"white" or "black" in America today? Is it solely a matter of skin color? Are
other factors as important or even more important? What makes someone
"Hispanic " or "Latino ." Is it language? Country of origin? Cultural
traditions? Family values? Religion? Skin color? Can you be "white" or
"black" and Hispanic at the same time? Can you be a non-Spanish speaking
member of one of Mexico's Indian communities and be Hispanic? Are people
from Spain and Portuguese speaking Brazilians Hispanic? The answers to
these questions probably are not entirely clear to you nor are they to most
Americans. It addition, the answers very likely will differ depending on the
region of America in which you live.
Test yourself.
Which of these people do you think
is Hispanic? Look at them carefully...
The ways in which we personally acquire our own group identities are often
complex. Similarly, the way we assign group identity to others is not always
straight forward. Race and ethnic group labels in America are not clearly
1
based on criteria that everyone understand, agree with, and can easily use.
As a result, someone else may label you in a way that you consider
inaccurate and very offensive. This can instantly create a barrier to open
communication even if the slight was unintended.
To comprehend the human diversity of the United States or any other country,
it is important to first understand the criteria commonly used for making group
distinctions. These generally are based on cultural and/or biological factors.
Americans tend to see each other in terms of age, economic class,
religion, gender , ethnicity, and race. We are usually a member of a
particular group for each of these criteria. Which of our group identities is
most important varies with the social situation. In America today, gender,
ethnicity, and race often have the most far ranging impacts on us as
individuals.
It is important not to confuse the term minority with ethnic group. Ethnic
groups may be either a minority or a majority in a population. Whether a
group is a minority or a majority also is not an absolute fact but depends on
the perspective. For instance, in some towns along the southern border of the
U.S., people of Mexican ancestry are the overwhelming majority population
and control most of the important social and political institutions but are still
defined by state and national governments as a minority. In
small homogenous societies, such as those of hunters and
gatherers and pastoralists , there is essentially only one ethnic group and
no minorities.
2
For many people, ethnic categorization implies a connection African American
between biological inheritance and culture. They believe
that biological inheritance determines much of cultural
identity. If this were true, for instance, African American
cultural traits, such as "black English", would stem from
genetic inheritance. We now know that this is not true--
biological race and culture are not the same thing. The
pioneering English anthropologist Edward Tylormay have
been the first scientist to understand this fact and to state it Senagalese
in print. In 1871, he wrote that cultural traits are entirely
learned. Subsequently, a baby can be placed into another culture shortly after
birth and can be thoroughly enculturated to that culture, regardless of their
skin color, body shape, and other presumed racial features. For example,
both women in the photographs on the right are genetically African, but they
do not speak the same language nor do they share any other significant
cultural patterns due to the fact that they were brought up in very different
societies. The African American woman is far more similar culturally to her
European American neighbors than to the West African woman from Senegal.
It is now clear that our human "races" are primarily cultural creations, not
biological realities. The commonly held belief in the existence of human
biological races is based on the false assumption that anatomical traits, such
as skin color and specific facial characteristics, cluster together in single
distinct groups of people. They do not. There are no clearly distinct "black",
"white", or other races.
The popularly held view of human races ignores the fact that anatomical traits
supposedly identifying a particular race are often found extensively in other
populations as well. This is due to the fact that similar natural selection
factors in different parts of the world often result in the evolution of similar
3
adaptations. For instance, intense sunlight in tropical latitudes has selected
for darker skin color as a protection from intense ultraviolet radiation. As a
result, the dark brown skin color characteristic of sub-Saharan Africans is also
found among unrelated populations in the Indian subcontinent, Australia, New
Guinea, and elsewhere in the Southwest Pacific.
Historically in the Western World, human "races" have been defined on the
basis of a small number of superficial anatomical characteristics that can be
readily identified at a distance, thereby making discrimination easier.
Focusing on such deceptive distinguishing traits as skin color, body shape,
and hair texture causes us to magnify differences and ignore similarities
4
between people. It is also important to remember that these traits are no
more accurate in making distinctions between human groups than any other
genetically inherited characteristics. All such attempts to scientifically divide
humanity into biological races have proven fruitless.
In the final analysis, it is clear that people, not nature, create our
identities. Ethnicity and supposed "racial" groups are largely cultural
and historical constructs. They are primarily social rather than biological
phenomena. This does not mean that they do not exist. To the contrary,
"races" are very real in the world today. In order to understand them,
however, we must look into culture and social interaction rather than biology.
Nature of Ethnicity
All around the world, members of ethnic and so-called
"racial" groups commonly use ethnic symbols as
badges of identity to emphasize their distinctness from
other groups. Language, religion, and style of dress are
common ethnic symbols. In addition to such cultural
traits, biological characteristics may be important at times
as well. The Canadian women shown on the right are
using their clothing to strongly communicate their Greek
identity on a special occasion.
5
maintenance, or defense, between ethnic groups. Ethnic symbols are
convenient markers for making "we-they" distinctions and are the focal points
for racism and other unpleasant manifestations of ethnocentrism . They
also mask in-group differences. In the United States. for instance, they help
propagate the myth that there is a single, coherent AmericanIndian ethnic
group. The same goes for Hispanics, European Americans, African
Americans, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.
6
African Americans have had a relatively low frequency of
intermarriage, though this is beginning to change also. In
1970, only 2.6% of their marriages were with European
Americans. By 1993, the rate had increased to 12.1%.
The number of intermarriages by African American men
has been 3½ times higher than those by African
American women. However, the intermarriage rate for
African American women is now growing at a relatively "Interracial" marriage
faster rate.
Asian and Latin Americans have a comparatively high intermarriage rate with
other ethnic/racial groups. Among Asian Americans, 12% of the men and
25% of the women have intermarried with others, especially European
Americans. The relatively high rate of intermarriage for Asian and Latin
Americans likely is an indication of a lower resistance to assimilation in their
communities and a greater acceptance of them by the dominant European
American society. However, assimilation is not easy or even possible for
members of some minority groups since they are subject to more persistent
stereotyping and discrimination. This is generally the case with African
Americans today. Partly in response to this rejection, assimilation has ceased
being a desirable goal of many African Americans.
7
The American mass media and
government historic preoccupation with black/white
relations has tended to make othersmaller ethnic groups
relatively invisible and discounted their concerns. This is
ethnic discrimination by not acknowledging the existence
of people and not taking them into consideration. An
Filipino Americans example of a largely overlooked ethnic group is the
unobtrusive Filipino population concentrated in Southern California. Few
Americans realize that they are the 2nd largest recent immigrant group in the
country.
Forms of Discrimination
Prejudice and discrimination based on presumed ethnic/racial differences are
universal--they are found in various forms in all societies. Acts of prejudice
range all the way from benign classification of people to cruel persecution.
However, the term racism has come to be imprecisely applied to all of these
behaviors. Kwame Appiah, a British and Ghanaian scholar of African
American issues, has made a useful distinction between kinds of prejudicial
behavior. He uses the term racialism for the more benign forms of
discrimination such as categorizing people for reference purposes on the
basis of age, gender, and ethnicity/race. He reserves the term racism for
harmful discrimination such as not hiring someone because of their "race."
This distinction will be followed here.
We are all racialists. It is normal to categorize people in our daily lives based
on a number of traits. It can be a useful aid in predicting behavior. For
instance, when you are lost in a strange city, you very likely approach an adult
rather than a young child for help because you surmise that the adult will
know more. Similarly, when you want to take an out-of-town guest to a good
traditional Mexican restaurant, you may ask a Mexican American friend for
recommendations. However, when categorizing leads to behavior that harms
another person, it becomes racism.
8
No one ethnic/racial group has the
monopoly on racism. Even members
of groups that are aggressively
discriminated against by others may
think and act in a vicious racist
manner. Racism has been a common
element in American history.
However, the most pervasive racist
acts are not being carried out in Recent hotspots of severe racism
America today. Far from it. Over the
last two decades, they have been in such places as the former Yugoslavia,
Israel, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Rwanda, South Africa and Sudan. In all of
these countries, ethnic identities have been strongly emphasized as a
government policy. The result has been the rise of tribalism and
even genocide in some regions. Throughout history, there have been
numerous atrocities carried out in the name of ethnic/racial purification. If
racism and ethnic persecution are indeed as much a part of human nature as
ethnocentrism, we can expect that such atrocities will occur in the future as
well.
9
Ethnic Identification Process
One's ethnic/racial identity may result from self-identification or from an
imposition by others. Identifying other people's ethnicity for them has always
been a powerful political tool for controlling, marginalizing, and even getting
rid of them. From the early 1930's through the mid 1940's, the Nazi's in
Germany methodically labeled people as being Jews even though they did not
always personally identify themselves as such. In most cases, this label was
tantamount to a death sentence.
10
mothers, and relatively poor performance in school. After generations of
images reflecting this view, many African Americans came to define
themselves negatively. It was not a mere coincidence that the "black power"
political movement of the 1960's created the catch phrase "black is beautiful."
This was a conscious effort to counter negative images with a positive one.
In North American middle class "white" families today, it is not uncommon for
teenagers to feel a lack of ethnic identity. There is a perception that they are
not anything. This should not be a surprise since their education has
generally emphasized the value of ethnicity for others but not them. The use
of terms such as "people of color" for African, Asian, and Native Americans in
11
a sense stigmatizes European Americans as "people without color"--a
negative classification. This along with revised American history that
emphasizes the unfairness of "whites" in their interactions with others leads
many European American youths to have a somewhat negative image of their
ethnicity and of themselves. Subsequently, they become eager vessels to
accept the ethnic traits of others. This may be one of the reasons that they
have readily adopted the music, style of dress, and slang of Black America.
Likewise, tacos, burritos, and other Mexican foods have become as popular
as hamburgers for teenagers and young adults, especially in the Southwest.
Some ethnic groups have been created by themselves for the rational goal of
gaining political and economic power. It has been suggested that this was the
case with Latinos in the United States. Until the1960's, their identity was
mostly as distinct Mexican American, Cuban American, and Puerto Rican
groups. Since then, a feeling of shared cultural identity as "Hispanics" has
been fostered by Latino leaders. At the same time, the significant cultural
differences between these groups have been underplayed in order to
reinforce Latino unity. As new Central and South American immigrants
12
arrived, the Latino ethnic group redefined itself to incorporate them as well.
Even Portuguese speaking Brazilians have been included. The creation and
recognition of a homogenous Hispanic identity was fostered by the national
government. The term "Hispanic" was actually created by federal bureaucrats
working under President Nixon in the early 1970's.
Summary
We have seen that ethnic identity is often complex. It can change dynamically
through time as situations alter. It can be created by self definition or others
can define it for us whether we wish them to or not. The power to label
others is the power to control them. Our stereotypes of groups has a strong
effect on how we view and relate to members of those groups. It also can
have a profound effect on how we see ourselves. Definitions of ethnicity and
"race" have immense political importance in America today. Those ethnic
groups that have a high public visibility generally have political clout. Those
that are largely invisible do not.
Many, if not most, European Americans now believe that this official
ethnic/racial classification and life-long tracking is unnecessary. The writer
Tony Morrison has observed that "whites see themselves as unraced." For
those who do not label themselves in terms of "race", official racial
designations naturally seem irrelevant and even counter productive to social
harmony and individual rights. In contrast, members of ethnic/racial minorities
generally see value in this group classification system because they do not
13
consider themselves to be "unraced." For them, labeling may prevent their
official invisibility and subsequent social and economic discrimination. This
view is not surprising considering the history of past discrimination and even
slavery of some groups.
The official state and national government practice over the last century in the
U.S. was to try to force everyone into one of a number of specific racial/ethnic
categories for the national census, hiring goals, college admission records,
etc. Ultimately, these categories are based on the false assumption that
somewhere there are "pure races" and "pure cultures." Such groups do not
exist today and may never have existed due to intergroup mating and to the
more or less constant diffusion of culture traits around the world. Despite the
fuzzy assumptions about the nature of ethnicity and race, groups based on
these phenomena continue to be officially recognized largely because it is
politically popular.
In the 1990 U.S. census, everyone who was not defined as being Native
American, Asian, or Pacific Islander apparently was assumed to be "black" or
"white." This simplistic system was used despite the fact that for four
centuries, there has been considerable intergroup mating and extensive
cultural exchanges between European, African, and Native Americans.
Asians and Pacific Islanders have also been added to the mix over the last 1½
centuries, especially in Hawaii and urban areas of thewestern states.
14
Many Americans of mixed ancestry do not fully
identify with the single racial/ethnic category
that they have been assigned to and do not feel
comfortable with it. For instance, when one
parent is of European and Chinese descent and
the other is African and Native American, what
single category would their children fit into? For
many Americans with complex ancestries such "Multi-racial" Americans
as this, the answer is that they are multi-racial,
mixed-racial, or multi-ethnic. The number of these multi-racial children in
America has doubled during each of the last 3 decades.
When asked to provide personal family information for the year 2000 Census,
nearly 7 million Americans reported that their ancestry included two or more
"races." The real number of multi-racial Americans is certainly far higher.
Government agencies have been officially blind in the past to such realities
except for providing the option of the ambiguous category of "other race" on
information request forms. There are several active national lobbying groups
trying to get a "multi-racial" category added to future censuses and other
federal records. Strongly opposing this addition are racial/ethnic rights
organizations, such as the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People and the National Council of La Raza. Apparently, their
opposition is due to anticipated decreased numbers in their groups and a
subsequent loss of political power. While the year 2000 census for the first
time allowed people to identify themselves as being members of more than
one "race", a "multi-racial" category was not allowed. Compounding the
problem of getting an accurate picture of American society, the U.S. Census
Bureau decided that people who identified themselves as black and some
other "racial" group on the year 2000 census would be counted as being
black for some purposes--they would not be given a choice. This created the
curious situation in which someone who is 90% Asian and only 10% black
would not be considered Asian.
15
"Other Pacific Islander" East Indian
(woman from Tonga)
In addition, some people have been officially shifted from one category to
another in the census. For instance, people from India were commonly
defined as "white" in the past. Now, they are usually considered to be Asian
or given their own group category--Indian or East Indian. Despite objections
based on feelings of national identity, people from Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nepal, and Sri Lanka also are usually labeled as being Indian.
16
In 17th century Spanish colonial America, there were 15 "racial" categories
based on the percent of one's ancestry from different groups:
In 18th century French colonial Haiti, there were 9 categories of African and
European mixture that were defined based on the assumption that people
have 128 parts of inheritance:
These "racial" terms are still important to many people in Haiti, especially
members of the largely mixed ancestry upper class. Similar kinds of
distinctions are found in the neighboring Dominican Republic today.
Summary
17
Most people around the world are identified in terms of ethnic and/or "racial"
identity at birth. However, ethnicity is not a static phenomenon. Ethnic
groups can change through time in complex ways. Similarly, individual
identity in heterogeneous societies today, such as the United States, Canada,
and Brazil, can also be flexible--individuals may identify themselves as being
members of different ethnic groups or "races" at different times.
Unfortunately, governments usually are the last to recognize and respond to
the changes. Ethnic/racial group organizations often play a major role in the
definition of group identities and in the maintenance of boundaries between
groups--they usually act as conservative forces by resisting assimilation into
the majority population.
PERCENT
GEOGRAPHIC REGION POPULATION
OF WORLD
Asia 3,518,000,000 56.4%
Africa 839,000,000 13.5%
Europe (including nations that
803,000,000 12.9%
were part of the Soviet Union)
Latin America and Caribbean 539,000,000 8.7%
North America (U.S. and Canada) 320,000,000 5.1%
Near East 179,000,000 2.9%
Oceania (Pacific Islands) 32,000,000 .5%
Source: Global Population Profile: 2002, U.S. Census Bureau 2004
Just how many different societies, cultures, and
ethnic groups make up the world's population is not
certain. This is due, in part, to the fact that these
social entities are not always distinct enough to
clearly warrant their being considered as separate
groups. For instance, Canada and the U.S. are
separate nations but culturally and linguistically
similar almost to the point of not being
distinguishable by outsiders (except for French
speaking Quebec Province).
18
Contributing to the problem of counting the number of societies, cultures, and
ethnic groups is not only the overlapping nature of many of these groups but
the fact that they are now changing rapidly as mass media and relatively
inexpensive long distance travel increasingly blur cultural differences. We are
experiencing culture change on a scale and at a pace that is unprecedented in
human history.
TOTAL
SPOKEN AS "NATIVE" LANGUAGE
SPEAKERS
1. Mandarin Chinese 874,000,000
2. Hindi (India) 366,000,000
3. English 341,000,000
4. Spanish 322-358,000,000
5. Bengali (India and Bangladesh) 207,000,000
6. Portuguese 176,000,000
7. Russian 167,000,000
8. Japanese 125,000,000
9. German (standard) 100,000,000
10. Korean 78,000,000
Note: If the 15 major variants of Arabic are considered
one language, Arabic is the 6th most common language
in the world having 198-201,000,000 native speakers.
Source: Ethnologue Volume I: Languages of the
World, 14th ed. (2000). These statistics are only
rough approximations in most cases.
19
more useful to speak other languages. This is largely a result of the growth in
influence and power of nation states over their indigenous minority
populations and of the increasing globalization of our economies. The culture
homogenizing effect of mass media should not be underestimated either.
Much of the television programming viewed around the world originated in
Western Nations. It is startling to realize that the most popular television
shows world wide in recent years have been stereotypical American sitcoms
such as "Will and Grace" and "Friends."
The rapid global growth in the importance of the English language and of
Western culture (especially American) has not been as straight forward and
simple as it initially may seem. Cultural traits have not only diffused from the
Western Industrial societies to the rest of the world. They have gone the other
way as well. American society, culture, and language have become far more
diverse. For instance, English now contains words from more than 240 other
languages. In less than a generation, the cultural influences of Asia and Latin
America especially have dramatically changed life in the U.S. and Canada.
This has been particularly true of the food preferences inurban areas.
Countering these rapid globalization trends in the late 20th and early
21st centuries has been the dramatic resurgence of tribalism. While many
small indigenous societies are disappearing into national societies, many
larger ethnic groups are violently reasserting their presence and even
independence from the nations that they have been integral parts of until
now. The breakup of Yugoslavia into ethnically "purified" areas in the 1990's
is a prime example. Similar "tribal" reemergences have occurred throughout
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Tribalism also recently has
spawned genocidal conflicts in Africa, especially in Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda,
and Congo.
20
some urban minorities and migrant farm workers are undercounted. In
addition, people have been counted in terms of ethnicity and "race" mostly as
a result of their own self-disclosure as to which categories they fit, and they
had to choose from the limited list specified by the national government. The
failure to allow people to identify with categories that they themselves
subjectively volunteer makes the data less reliable.
The U.S. Census Bureau considers some group differences to be racial and
others to be purely ethnic. Specifically, they make an ethnic distinction
between Hispanic and non-Hispanic. In contrast, categories such as Chinese
and Vietnamese are considered racial.
21
Recent "black" immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are
not similarly distinguished in terms of national origin on the census--they are
lumped into the black, or African American, category without regard for their
linguistic, religious, and other cultural differences. Many recent African and
black Caribbean immigrants have been troubled by the fact that they are
usually lumped into this category despite the fact that they think of themselves
as Africans, Nigerians, Somalis, Jamaicans, etc. Likewise, many blacks
whose ancestry included slavery in the U.S. do not feel kinship with these new
immigrants because of their radically different historical and cultural
backgrounds. Adding to this social division between native born and
immigrant blacks has been the fact that the foreign born blacks more often
have university degrees and subsequently are able to obtain higher paying
jobs. Similar to the lumping of diverse peoples into the black category for the
census, all European, Middle Eastern, and North African immigrants are
defined as "white" without concern for their significant cultural differences. To
learn how races were officially defined for the year 2000 Census click here.
NUMBER PERCENT OF
RACIAL AND ETHNIC CATEGORIES
OF PEOPLE POPULATION
Total U.S. population 281,421,906 100.0%
Race: (see note 1)
--- One race 274,595,678 97.6%
--- White 211,460,626 75.1%
--- Black or African American 34,658,190 12.3%
--- American Indian and Alaska Native 2,475,956 0.9%
--- Asian 10,242,998 3.6%
--- Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 398,835 0.1%
--- Some other race (see note 2) 15,359,073 5.5%
--- Two or more races (see note 3) 6,826,228 2.4%
22
Ethnicity: (see note 4)
--- Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 35,305,818 12.5%
--- Not Hispanic or Latino 246,116,088 87.5%
1. There was no "decline to state" option allowed for "race" designation for
the year 2000 Census.
2. 97% of the people who reported that they were "some other race" said
that they were also "Hispanic or Latino" in terms of ethnicity.
3. There are 57 possible combinations of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 races that were
allowed. 93% of the people who reported more than one race, reported
only two. The most common combination was "white" with some other
"race."
4. 48% of Hispanics reported that they were "white" and 42% said they
were "some other race."
The vast majority of Americans (97.6%) reported that they are only one
"race." It is very likely that a significant percentage of this group actually could
claim ancestry from more than one "race" but chose not to. Nearly a quarter
of all Americans (24.9%) claimed to be either members of "non-white" racial
groups or two or more "races." A comparison of the 1980-2000 censuses
shows that the "non-white" groups have been increasing in numbers more
rapidly than "whites."
1. Because of major changes in the way "race" information was collected for the year
2000 Census, these data are not entirely comparable with data from earlier censuses.
People who claim more than one race are not reflected in these data.
23
NOTE: these data indicating dramatic increases in the size of minority groups
relative to the majority European American or "white" population are
deceptive. In small groups, a large percentage increase results from the
addition of relatively few people. For instance, the increase in the Vietnamese
population of 82.7% between 1990 and 2000 actually resulted from the
addition of only 507,981 people. During the same period, the 5.9% increase
among the "white" population resulted from 11,774,556 new people.
Over the long run, however, the trend of more rapidly increasing minority
populations will have a cumulative effect in changing the broad demographic
patterns in the United States. Projecting to the year 2015, the U.S. Census
Bureau suggests that America will still remain predominantly "white" but that
other groups will continue to increase disproportionately. Perhaps the most
dramatic result of these changing population trends during the last few years
has been that African Americans were replaced by Hispanics as the largest
minority group. This change is a result of large numbers of immigrants
entering the country from Latin America and high birth rates among Hispanics.
Between 1990 and 2000, nearly 33 million people were added to our national
population. This was the largest 10 year increase in U.S. history. The fastest
growing regions were the "sunbelt areas" of the West and the Southeast.
The patterns of diversity are not the same throughout America. Most ethnic
and "racial" minorities are concentrated in major urban centers and in
particular states. For instance, Hispanics of Mexican ancestry have their
highest frequency in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. While they
make up only 12.5% of the U.S. population, Hispanics now are 32.4% of
California's population and 77.1% of them have a Mexican heritage. Greater
Los Angeles is, in effect, the 2nd largest Mexican city--only Mexico City has a
larger Mexican population. Half of all U.S. Hispanics live in California and
Texas. However, the presence of people with Hispanic ancestry is now
growing rapidly outside of the Southwest as well. This is particularly true in
New York City, Chicago, and major farming regions such as the Yakima
Valley in Washington.
NUMBER OF PERCENT OF
CITIES WITH LARGE
HISPANICS POPULATION
NUMBERS OF HISPANICS
(see note 1) THAT IS HISPANIC
New York 2,160,554 27.0%
Los Angeles (see note 2) 1,719,073 46.5%
24
Chicago 753,644 26.0%
Houston 730,865 37.4%
San Antonio 671,394 58.7%
Phoenix 449,972 34.1%
El Paso 431,875 76.6%
Dallas 422,587 35.8%
San Diego 310,752 25.4%
Among the people who identified themselves as Hispanic in the year 2000
Census, the largest group by far consisted of those of Mexican ancestry.
Well over half of all American Hispanics claimed to be Mexican.
25
--- Korean 1,076,872 10.1%
--- Vietnamese 1,122,528 10.6%
--- Other Asian 1,285,234 12.1%
All Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 398,835 3.8%
--- Native Hawaiian 140,652 1.3%
--- Guamanian or Chamorro 58,240 0.6%
--- Samoan 91,029 0.9%
--- Other Pacific Islander 108,914 1.0%
The rate of loss of a minority group's distinct identity and the assimilation of its
members into the majority population has depended on a number of historical
and social factors. It has been relatively easy for most European immigrants
to assimilate within 1-2 generations due to their similarity in physical
appearance to the majority population. However, people with darker skin
color have not been able to assimilate as readily or at all in some cases. This
has been particularly true of African Americans and some Hispanics. As a
result, assimilation now is often rejected as a goal by "minorities of color" in
favor of gaining respect and acceptance as economically and politically equal
but separate ethnic groups.
Another major factor affecting the likelihood of assimilation has been the size
and concentration of ethnic groups. Those that make up the predominate
population in a large community greatly insulate their members from the
dominant cultural patterns of the national society. Their members can live
surrounded by people sharing the same ethnicity and speaking the same
familiar language or dialect. In this situation, pressures to assimilate can be
greatly ignored. This has been the case with many Mexicans and Central
Americans in East and South Los Angeles. In part, this has also been due to
26
the continued high rates of immigration of Spanish speakers into these
communities.
When immigrants are isolated from others of their ethnic group, it is much
more difficult for them to resist the pressure to assimilate. This was the case
with some of the Vietnamese boat people who arrived in the 1970's. The
children of those who were relocated in smaller towns in the Midwest, rather
than major cities in California, usually acquired non-Vietnamese friends and
learned relatively quickly to speak English without a Vietnamese accent.
These are important first steps in assimilation. However, whether or not it
occurs also depends on the acceptance of the newcomers by the majority
population.
Multiculturalism has not been as widely accepted in the United States despite
its support by national and state governments. Those Americans who wish to
facilitate and speed up assimilation in order to reinforce national cultural unity
generally advocate a cultural melting pot instead. This latter approach is one
in which ethnic/racial distinctness is perceived of as getting in the way of
developing a culturally homogenous American society. In the past, most of
those who held this view apparently visualized the new American society as
one in which everyone spoke English and had European American values,
perceptions, and goals. "Americanization" of new immigrants essentially
meant educating everyone in the public schools to be like the existing majority
European American population.
27
continuance of the older melting pot model are European Americans.
Ethnic/racial minorities and younger, more politically liberal European
Americans more often advocate the multiculturalism model. However, it is a
mistake to assume how any American would vote on this issue based on their
age, ethnicity, "race", and political leaning. It is a complex issue that also has
become intertwined with questions of affirmative action, gender equity, sexual
preference, rights of the disabled, and public costs of the massive immigration
that has occurred over the last two decades.
28