The struggles of the major minority groups, though related in some ways, have in fact acted as hindrances to each other’s progress for many years. This is in part due to the inherent differences between the three groups in question, and the fact that each one has its own particular issues and policy that it contends for. The most obvious distinction stems from the fact that most Asian and Latino immigrants voluntarily immigrated to the United States, whereas African-Americans were involuntarily taken to the United States as slaves beginning in the 15th century (in-class notes, 10/9). Various push and pull factors augmented Latino and Asian immigration later in history; for instance, many Hispanic-Americans cite causes such as economic crises and political/social instability in their home country as reasons that they must immigrate to the United States, with the added benefit of employment opportunities and family reunification as other crucial factors (Monforti and Bedolla 141-2). African-Americans, however, were thrust into an alien situation in which they had to adapt and assimilate in order to survive in society — voluntary immigrants are much more likely to maintain the belief that the United States is a land of opportunity according to “What Americans Think about Race and Ethnicity” by Everett C. Ladd. Furthermore, agenda-based differences constitute a large part of interracial conflict and distrust among the groups as well. Each group competes against one another for representation through race-based policy and impedes the progress of the others in the process. In “Expanding Disciplinary Boundaries: Black, Latino, and Racial Minority Group Politics in Political Science” by McClain and Garcia, the authors cite that coalitional efforts between groups are fairly futile due to the stark contrasts between them, namely the example of blacks being unconcerned with immigration reform and more involved in desegregation efforts. On the other hand, though the groups themselves may be different, they still do have similar qualities. All do seek to represent their group in the most effective way possible, and all are concerned with electing members of their own minority group to government at the local and national levels (Lopez and Pantoja 4). Moreover, each face negative stereotypes and implicit biases from white Americans on a daily basis which cause disillusionment and apathy; for example, the Gold Rush marked the first spike in Asian immigration to the United States, and as a result, they were greeted with such stereotypes as opium addicts, heathens, and gamblers which have evolved into the modern stereotypes we view today (Kenyon and Hune 6).
(6 points) Is diversity among government leaders (especially in the executive branch given the current context of President Trump and previously President Obama) important? Why or why not? What about at the local and state levels? Explain.
Diversity among government leaders is something greatly sought after so as to obtain representation for various minority groups. However, though having minority leaders in our government is inherently a good thing, it does raise the question of whether or not it truly affects the positions of minorities themselves. As the reading “Expanding Disciplinary Boundaries: Black, Latino, and Racial Minority Group Politics in Political Science” by McClain and Garcia states, the driving force and entire concept of black politics centers around the ideal of electing black government officers in districts that are majority-black, a notion known as deracialization. Though this is in fact “representation,” it only impacts minority groups at a very small scale which makes the actual benefit of having it negligible. In addition, this has something has been done at the local and state levels for quite some time, and for this reason it is imperative to question if this actually has done anything for the position of the group itself. It is critical to look to the national level as well in this instance in order to view the impact of the presence of such leaders as Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor in the national political sphere. We have seen much criticism of these two important figures over their years in office, and much of it is due to their status as minorities. For instance, Shelby Steele, author of “Sotomayor and the Politics of Race” believes that Sotomayor’s gender and ethnicity played a bigger role in her election to the Supreme Court than her actual prowess in politics. As for Obama, members of all groups have chastised him on the basis of his minority status rather than his actual beliefs and policies; negative campaign advertisements against him that have darkened his skin tone in order to trigger negative implicit association among whites have been proven to have actual effects on the public opinion of Obama (Weaver 160). With this, another experiment proved racial dispositions had a significant role in public opinion on specific policy when whites were surveyed about Obama’s initiatives which were the exact same proposals as Clinton’s years before (Tesler 111-2) To answer the question, it seems that representation of minority groups in all facets of politics is largely symbolic; though the fact that they are elected is important, the hindrances of negative connotations of skin color and status have faced candidates more so than any actual policy and belief. For this reason, it is difficult to measure the actual influence of minority leadership in government on the United States.
(6 points) How have/do racial inequalities affect democracy and/or representation (or you may discuss the effect democracy and/or representation may have on racial inequality)? What are the implications today?
To this day, democracy and representation of different minority groups is still affected by the intrinsic racial inequality present in modern American society. For one, territorial districting and gerrymandering are two obstacles in the way of accurate minority representation in politics, according to “Groups, Representation and Race Conscious Districting” by Lani Guinier. Territorial districting is described as a system of representation which “imperfectly distributes representation based on group attributes and disproportionately rewards those who win the representational lottery” (4). More often than not, the winners of said representational lottery are whites, and the advancement of minority groups is simply not possible due to the fact that their voices are not being heard. According to the same reading, representatives of districts typically decide what the dominant group is and give them the majority of the power within that district; in fact, the Supreme Court even recognized in the 1960s that the expansion of the urban majority would not have any governmental power unless there was some form of intervention. Gerrymandering only further exacerbates this issue in that governors intentionally split the lines through packing members of minority groups into one district, cracking them all into separate districts, or stacking two districts with high percentages of minority to dilute their power in the state as we have discussed in class. The whole concept of racial politics is for the group in question to obtain representation in any way possible, and these methods are designed to disenfranchise these people from doing so. Even when minority groups successfully use the democratic process to lobby for racial policies like equal treatment policies, opportunity enhancement policies, and equal outcome policies, they still are met with maltreatment from both whites and their representatives despite their obvious obligation to their constituency (Krysan 3-5). According to “Beyond the Color Line: New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America” by David Brady Thernstrom, incumbents are likely to simply stick with the status quo when faced with controversial initiatives, namely affirmative action. For this reason, t
oday, when racial issues are so disputable, it is even more difficult for minorities to participate in democracy and maintain representation because representatives are so engrossed with retaining their incumbency.
(4 points) Explain what drives the (real or perceived) solidarity among American Indians/Native Americans in American politics. Contrast American Indian and racial minority politics/policy agenda.
Native Americans are a facet of the political sphere that are often unaccounted for in that their representation is something that is often overlooked. The general populace has gotten glimpses of their struggle in recent years what with the controversy of the Dakota Access Pipeline in the headlines, yet most Americans do not see this important minority group as a factor in United States politics as they are not ever-present. Much of this stems from misinformation about the group itself and its differences with the rest of modern American society. For example, there is a perceived solidarity amongst the myriad of tribes considered to be “American Indian” or “Native American” and many members feel that such terms are disrespectful because they lack the capacity to envelop the actual diversity of the minority groups (Wilkins 4). Much like racial groups such as Asians and Hispanics, Native Americans are generalized to one specific category though have well over five hundred different tribes (4). In addition, the widely-utilized belief that these groups came to this continent via the Bering Strait land bridge is something that has been refuted by all tribes with the reason that each individual tribe has its own account of how it settled in North America (4). Though on the surface it appears that Native Americans would stand together, the styles of government and lifestyle vary from tribe to tribe and make it clear that Native American politics is not homogeneous. Despite this, though, many of the tribes do have similar issues that set them apart from other minority groups. They live on reservations in relative isolation, often living without resources common to all others. Their educational standard is much lower, most live in crippling poverty, and there are very high rates of alcoholism and gambling. According to a video we watched in class, on the Pine Ridge reservation of the Oglala Lakota tribe, approximately 80% of the adults on the reservation suffer from alcoholism and there is a near-epidemic of suicide. It is abundantly apparent that these tribes are suffering, but at the same time they are not very politically active in that they have the lowest rate of voter participation of any minority group, as the document “Native American Political Activism” by Jerry D. Stubben states. Their political mobilization is apparent through factions such as the American Indian Movement (AIM) founded in response to horrible living conditions on reservations and racism against their group, but it seems that they are much less likely than other minority groups to gain a political stake through voting and the traditional participatory methods.
(6 points) How can communities co-exist in the midst of racial, cultural, economic and other forms of difference in our lives? What are the barriers for us moving forward towards a more democratic and people centered social order? Use your understanding of our course to share why and how we need to change. What is your call to action? “We need to…”
After having taken this class, I can definitely say that I have been left with a more pessimistic outlook about racial relations in the United States. All of the readings we discussed this semester along with insights from classmates allowed me to gain an entirely new perspective on the conditions of various parts of the country, and made me realize how sheltered I’ve truly been. As a white, middle-class male from a town I consider to be both racially and ethnically homogenous, the experiences and struggles of minority groups are something relatively foreign to me (Hero and Tolbert). However, I do believe that there are initiatives that can set the stage for future change. Education is something common to all minority groups, and it is unjust that educational standards in predominantly minority, bifurcated communities are much lower than that in other areas (Hero and Tolbert). We need to reform the educational system in the United States, not solely due to the inequality of knowledge acquisition between minority groups, but also because it will break stereotypes and hopefully lead to higher voter participation among people of color. For instance, the article “Is it Really Racism?” by Sears, Van Laar, Carrillo, and Kosterman cites the negative stereotypes against blacks such as laziness and unintelligence as an example of a racist attitude impeding the progress of racial equality. Along with this, McClain and Garcia discuss the differences in political efficacy with reference to blacks as opposed to other minority groups. These differences are composed of political education, social deprivation, intelligence, and political reality. These issues could be fixed through reform of the educational system along with required civics classes in order to increase awareness, and encourage those in these classes to participate in local elections and involve themselves in the political sphere. This way, voter apathy would decrease and voter participation would skyrocket in future generations. There is still a long way to go in order to truly co-exist as a unified nation, but we can begin by focusing on the things that make us similar, like education, and not think about the things that divide us.