Suchergebnisse

Polls measuring attitudes on immigration suggest that Americans generally agree that immigration is good for the United States. However, these same polls suggest that Americans support strict border enforcement and racial profiling to curtail illegal immigration. These same mixed responses about immigration also characterize southern views, particularly in new immigrant destinations. Drawing on 180 in-depth interviews from southern college students, this article uses color-blind racism and racist nativism theories to examine immigration rhetoric. Results suggest that respondents fear immigrants "taking over," racializing the immigration debate to only focus on Mexican immigrants. They also conflate their views of blacks and Mexican immigrants, suggesting these two groups are essentially the same. However, they deflect being blatantly racist nativist by camouflaging their comments with color-blind frames. Many note that the mistreatment of immigrants is "fair" in comparison with their immigrant ancestors, and because immigrants are here "illegally." These findings advance color-blind rhetoric research beyond the black-white dichotomy by focusing on non-white immigrants. It also demonstrates that researchers should consider how at least respondents in new southern immigrant destinations intertwine various color-blind and racist nativist devices to shape immigration attitudes.

AbstractSince the 1960s, academia and the public have frequently used racism as the catch‐all phrase to explain any racial or ethnic injustice identified in America. However, are the disparities domestic minorities face the same as those faced by immigrant minorities? For example, journalists have suggested that the various state immigration policies targeting Hispanic immigrants in the United States recently are as racist as the Jim Crow laws enacted decades ago. In this essay, I contend that while nativism and racism are kissing cousins, distinguishing and using these concepts may lend to more precise explanations of the issues many racial and ethnic minorities face who exist outside of the Black–White dichotomy that has traditionally characterized United States. To untangle these terms, I review recent scholarship to provide up‐to‐date definitions, as well as reintroduce the concept of 'racist nativism' to better explain the variability that characterizes racial or ethnic prejudice and discrimination in 21st century America.

Between 2007 and 2009, we created a research-based community partnership to identify and assess the health care needs of Latino1 families in the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina. This report presents the survey and focus group findings for 159 Latinos concerning their views of health care services and barriers to accessing resources. Only 20 percent of the sample reported health as a major concern in their daily lives; however, notable proportions accessed health care within the last year through free or reduced-fee clinics (36%), hospital emergency rooms (25%), and individual doctors (18%). Most (82%) reported cost of care as the most significant barrier to accessing health care along with language fluency and facing discrimination. Many suggested they waited to seek care until symptoms worsened; hence the high number of hospital visits. Most (82%) did not have any health insurance. However, based on the focus groups, respondents felt that once a serious disease afflicted them, only faith and family could help them, as accessing American health care was a luxury they could not afford.

"How is race defined and perceived in America today, and how do these definitions and perceptions compare to attitudes 100 years ago ... or 200 years ago? This four-volume set is the definitive source for every topic related to race in the United States"--

Abstract
In 2018, Northern Ireland (NI) government officials, journalists, and preliminary research declared that NI citizens had provided a 'welcoming society' to Syrian refugees settling in local communities across the country. However, this claim starkly contrasted with other reports of growing violence towards foreign-born groups, particularly Muslims, which lead to NI being identified as the 'Race Hate Capital of Europe.' Using the 2015 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (NILT), we problematize and empirically-test these initial conclusions about NI attitudes towards Syrian refugees by testing four prominent social theories. We first examine whether economic self-interest and social exposure (i.e., contact hypothesis) predict NI attitudes towards Syrian refugees. We also recognize NI's unique conflictual ethnic history by testing whether cultural marginality and ethnic competition theories further explain attitudes. The findings suggest that multiple theories explain NI citizen views towards Syrians. Results provide partial support for economic self-interests and direct and preferential social exposure as predictors. However, when considering racism and sectarianism measures, the results require a nuanced understanding of the context of NI people's attitudes. We found that identity politics related to NI's citizens' religious and nationalist identity encouraged racist and sectarian disapproval of Syrian refugee resettlement. These findings provide a promising avenue of study in understanding how ethno-identities shape attitudes towards Syrian refugees and other foreign-born groups living in NI. However, we contend more granular research will be needed to highlight these nuances.

In 2018, Northern Ireland (NI) government officials, journalists, and preliminary research declared that NI citizens had provided a 'welcoming society' to Syrian refugees settling in local communities across the country. However, this claim starkly contrasted with other reports of growing violence towards foreign-born groups, particularly Muslims, which lead to NI being identified as the 'Race Hate Capital of Europe.' Using the 2015 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (NILT), we problematize and empirically-test these initial conclusions about NI attitudes towards Syrian refugees by testing four prominent social theories. We first examine whether economic self-interest and social exposure (i.e., contact hypothesis) predict NI attitudes towards Syrian refugees. We also recognize NI's unique conflictual ethnic history by testing whether cultural marginality and ethnic competition theories further explain attitudes. The findings suggest that multiple theories explain NI citizen views towards Syrians. Results provide partial support for economic self-interests and direct and preferential social exposure as predictors. However, when considering racism and sectarianism measures, the results require a nuanced understanding of the context of NI people's attitudes. We found that identity politics related to NI's citizens' religious and nationalist identity encouraged racist and sectarian disapproval of Syrian refugee resettlement. These findings provide a promising avenue of study in understanding how ethno-identities shape attitudes towards Syrian refugees and other foreign-born groups living in NI. However, we contend more granular research will be needed to highlight these nuances.

Humor is a significant weapon in interpersonal and intergroup conflict and competition. Over the centuries, males have used humor and jokes to create and perpetuate patriarchal ideals, relationships, and structures. Today, feminists and other proponents of gender equality use humor to deconstruct patriarchal ideologies and sexist stereotypes. This exploratory study analyzes a collection of over 1,700 jokes identified as feminist and women's humor to discover what these jokes suggest with regard to the male‐dominant structure in society and how these jokes are subversive in attempting to disrupt gender stereotypes and roles. We find that the humor of women and feminists seeks, in part, to discredit assumptions of males' superiority, masterfulness, sexual prowess, and extraordinary value to women and society. These jokes may, however, also work to reinforce stereotypes associated with men and women:"If they could send a man to the moon, why not just send all of them?"

"War: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Armed Conflicts around the World presents a broad variety of interdisciplinary social scientific perspectives on the causes, processes, cultural representations, and social consequences of the armed conflicts between and within nations and other politically organized communities. Composed of framing essays and original readings, this book provides theoretical views of armed conflict and its impact on people and institutions around the world."--Provided by publisher