Race and Ethnicity in the United States

Learning outcomes

  • Describe the historical context and current experience of Native Americans in the United States
  • Describe the historical context and current experience of Blacks and African Americans in the United States
  • Describe the historical context and current experience of Asian Americans in the United States
  • Describe the historical context and current experience of Hispanic/Latino Americans in the United States
  • Describe the historical context and current experience of Arab Americans in the United States
  • Describe the historical context and current experience of white Americans

When the first European explorers came to the New World in 1492, Native Americans had been on the continent for 15,000 years. The brutal suppression of Native American tribes all over the United States is unfortunately not so different from the treatment of other minority groups in U.S. history. Chattel Slavery began with the Transatlantic Slave Trade of Africans in 1619 and continued until 1865, but mistreatment and abuse of African Americans persisted well into the post-slavery era.

Image is for decorative purposes

Fig. 1. Group of people. (Photo courtesy of Omar Lopez)

Like the Native Americans, other groups had their lands stolen, or obtained through forced treaties. Consider the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) in which Mexico signed away 525,000 square miles, including what is today Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Treaty guaranteed both land rights and citizenship (retain Mexican citizenship or become U.S. citizens) and official documents were bilingual; the first “English-only” rule was created thirty years later in 1878 [1]. The reality, however, was quite different. Most Mexican landowners lost their land within a few decades and had little or no legal recourse. We hear a lot about immigration today, but much less about the history of these groups, or about how that history helps us to understand the contemporary experiences of minority groups in the U.S.

Waves of immigrants came from various parts of the world for a variety of reasons; see a timeline showing push and pull factors affecting immigration. to see a timeline with push and pull factors. Most of these groups underwent a period of disenfranchisement in which they were relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy. In the same period, racist ideologies persisted, and often resulted in discrimination and systemic inequalities that still affect black and brown peoples in the U.S. today.

Our society is multicultural and filled with diverse groups that are reflected in American culture, but we must use our sociological imaginations to examine history and biography to truly understand race and ethnicity in the United States today. Similar to the example of “Stratified Monopoly” from the social stratification readings, racial and ethnic minority groups do not start at “GO” with the same resources. For Native American, Mexican American and African American peoples, a variety of mechanisms prevented them from owning land, a significant source of wealth and power in the United States that has generational socioeconomic effects.

This section will describe how several groups became part of United States society, discuss the history of inter-group relations, and briefly assess each group’s status today. You can see current statistics about the racial composition of the U.S. at the United States Census Bureau.

Watch the following video for a review of some of the basics about race and ethnicity we’ve already learned about, but also for an overview about the main racial categories in the United States. The U.S. Census currently identifies six: White, Black or African-American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.

Native Americans

The only non-immigrant ethnic group in the United States, Native Americans once dominated the North American continent but by 2010 made up only 0.9 percent of U.S. populace (U.S. Census, 2010). Currently, about 2.9 million people identify themselves as Native American alone, while an additional 2.3 million identify them as Native American mixed with another ethnic group (Norris, Vines, and Hoeffel, 2012).

How and Why They Came

The earliest immigrants to America arrived millennia before European immigrants. Dates of the migration are debated, with estimates ranging from between 45,000 and 12,000 BCE. It is thought that these early migrants came across a land bridge from present-day Siberia in search of big game to hunt, which they found in huge herds of grazing herbivores in the Americas. Over the centuries and then the millennia, Native American culture blossomed into an intricate web of hundreds of interconnected tribes, each with its own customs, traditions, languages, and religions.

History of Inter-group Relations

Native American culture prior to European settlement is referred to as Pre-Columbian; that is, prior to the coming of Christopher Columbus in 1492. Mistakenly believing that he had landed in the East Indies, Columbus named the indigenous people “Indians,” a name that has persisted for centuries, despite being a geographical misnomer and one used to blanket 500 distinct groups who each have their own languages and traditions.

The history of inter-group relations between European colonists and Native Americans is a brutal one. As discussed in the section on genocide, one effect of European settlement in the Americas was to nearly destroy the indigenous population. Native Americans’ lack of immunity to European diseases caused the most deaths, but overt mistreatment of Native Americans by Europeans was devastating as well.

From the first Spanish colonists to the French, English, and Dutch who followed, European settlers took what land they wanted and expanded across the continent at will. If indigenous people tried to retain their stewardship of the land, Europeans fought them off with superior weapons. A key element of this issue is the indigenous view of land and land ownership. Most tribes considered the earth a living entity whose resources they were the stewards of. Europeans’ domination of the Americas was one of conquest. One scholar points out that Native Americans are the only minority group in the United States whose subordination occurred purely through conquest by the dominant group (Marger, 1993).

After the establishment of the United States government, discrimination against Native Americans was codified and formalized in a series of laws intended to subjugate them and keep them from gaining any power. For example:

  • The Indian Removal Act of 1930 forced the relocation of any native tribes east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river.
  • The Indian Appropriation Acts (1851, 1871, 1885, and 1889) funded further removals and declared that no Indian tribe could be recognized as an independent nation with which the U.S. government would have to make treaties. This made it even easier for the U.S. government to take land.
  • The Dawes Act of 1887 reversed the policy of isolating Native Americans on reservations, instead forcing them onto individual properties that were intermingled with white settlers, thereby reducing their capacity for power as a group.

Native American culture was further eroded by the establishment of Indian boarding schools in the late nineteenth century. These schools, run by both Christian missionaries and the United States government, had the express purpose of “civilizing” Native American children and assimilating them into white society with the infamous slogan, “Kill the Indian, Save the Man.” The boarding schools were located off-reservation to ensure that children were separated from their families and culture. Schools forced children to cut their hair, speak English, and practice Christianity. Physical and sexual abuses were rampant for decades; only in 1987 did the Bureau of Indian Affairs issue a policy on sexual abuse in boarding schools. Some scholars argue that many of the problems that Native Americans face today result from almost a century of mistreatment at these boarding schools.

Although many Native Americans were already U.S. citizens through marriage, military service, or accepting land allotments, it wasn’t until 1924 and the Indian Citizenship Act that all Native Americans were granted citizenship. American Indians today have all the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, can vote in elections, and run for political office, but controversies remain over how much jurisdiction the federal government has over tribal affairs, sovereignty, and cultural practices. Many Native Americans served in the American armed forces during World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945). Hundreds of Cherokee, Choctaw, and Navajo service members (among others) utilized their tribal languages in the unique and vital “code talker” program, which provided a means of transmitting messages during combat operations that could not be deciphered by enemy forces.

Current Status

The eradication of Native American culture continued until the 1960s, when Native Americans were able to participate in and benefit from the Civil Rights Movement. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 guaranteed Native American tribes most of the rights enumerated in the United States Bill of Rights. New laws like the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Education Assistance Act (both 1975) recognized tribal governments and gave them more power. Indian boarding schools have dwindled to only a few, and Native American cultural groups are striving to preserve and maintain old traditions and tribal languages to keep them from being lost forever.

It wasn’t until 2009 that an “apology to Native Peoples of the United States” was included in the text of the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act. It states that the U.S. “apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States.”

Today, Native Americans (some of whom now wished to be called “American Indians” so as to avoid the “savage” connotations of the term “native”) still suffer the effects of centuries of degradation. There are over five million Native Americans in the United States, 78% of whom live outside reservations. Generational poverty, inadequate education, cultural dislocation, and high rates of unemployment contribute to Native American populations falling to the bottom of the economic spectrum.

Graph titled, "Median household income for Native Americans and total population (2016 dollars), 2005-2016". Shows that the median income for Native Americans remains roughly $15,000 or $20,000 below the total population whose median income is around $55,000 to $60,000.

Figure 2. Median household income of Native Americans remains significantly lower than the total population. Source: The Economic Policy Institute, https://www.epi.org/chart/acs-data-2017-native-americans-median-household-income-for-native-americans-and-total-population-2016-dollars-2005-2016/?view=embed&embed_template=charts_v2013_08_21&embed_date=20181006&onp=134867&utm_source=epi_press&utm_medium=chart_embed&utm_campaign=charts_v2.

Native American populations also have lower life expectancies than most groups in the United States, and high rates of suicide, particularly among 18-24 year olds, is a growing concern. Recent large-scale research from the University of Arizona has found comparable rates of alcohol use between Native Americans and other racial groups, which calls into question the stereotypes of rampant alcoholism among Native Americans (for more information on the study, watch a summary video clip of the University of Arizona research). 
Native Americans continue to have a complicated relationship with the United States government. Much can be learned from the variety of Native American tribes, including a worldview that sees the natural environment as something we are entrusted to care for and maintain for future generations, an ethos expressed by the following: “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” 

Sports Teams with Native American Names

In figure (a), a Native American man sits facing the camera. Figure (b) is a photograph of a baseball stadium during an active game.

Figure 3. Many Native Americans (and others) believe sports teams with names like the Indians, Braves, and Warriors perpetuate unwelcome stereotypes. (Photo (a) courtesy of public domain/Wikimedia Commons; Photo (b) courtesy of Chris Brown/flickr)

The sports world abounds with team names like Indians, Warriors, Braves, Seminoles, and even Savages and Redskins. These names arise from historically prejudiced views of Native Americans as fierce, brave savages, attributes that might be beneficial to a sports team, but which are offensive to many Native Americans and others in the United States who seek to distance themselves from these stereotypical views.In college sports, the Florida State Seminoles’ fans do a “tomahawk chop.” Many see this as an instance of cultural appropriation and a de-contextualization of Native American history.

Since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been campaigning against the use of such mascots, asserting that the “warrior savage myth . . . reinforces the racist view that Indians are uncivilized and uneducated and it has been used to justify policies of forced assimilation and destruction of Indian culture” (NCAI Resolution #TUL-05-087 2005). The campaign has met with only limited success. While some teams have changed their names, hundreds of professional, college, and K–12 school teams still have names derived from this stereotype. Another group, American Indian Cultural Support (AICS), is especially concerned with the use of such names at K–12 schools, where this practice might influence children and young adults in the very place where they should be gaining a fuller and more realistic understanding of Native American history and culture.

What do you think about such names and/or gestures? Should they be allowed or banned? What argument would a symbolic interactionist make on this topic? How would a functionalist or conflict theorist approach this topic?

African Americans

As discussed in the section on race, the term African American can be a misnomer for many individuals, and needs to be carefully examined when applied in scholarly contexts. Many people with dark skin may have more recent roots in Europe, the Caribbean, or South America, and are, for example, Haitian, Afro-Puerto Rican (also known as Afro Borinquen), or Brazilian. The African diaspora refers to the dispersion of people with African ancestry all over the world, but predominantly to populations in North and South America.

Further, immigrants belonging to nations on the continent of Africa themselves may feel that African American is a misclassification that does not apply to their own identity and does not accurately describe the identity of Blacks who have been in the western hemisphere for generations. In academia, the distinction between “African American Studies,” “Black Studies,” and “Africana Studies” (among other names in departments ranging from history to humanities to English) is hotly debated, and holds importance not only to the faculty who dedicate their lives to this work, but also to those individuals and groups that identify as Black or African American. Because race is a social construction with real consequences, it is important to closely scrutinize the language used to categorize people.

This section will focus on the experience of enslaved persons who were shipped from Africa to the United States, and their progeny. Currently, the U.S. Census Bureau (2014) estimates that 13.2 percent of the United States’ population is Black or African American.

How and Why They Came

If Native Americans are the only minority group whose subordinate status occurred by conquest, African Americans are the exemplar minority group in the United States whose ancestors came by force. Enslaved Africans were first brought to the United States by the Spanish in the early 1500s in the region of South Carolina. Later, a Dutch sea captain brought Africans to the Virginia colony of Jamestown in 1619, and sold them as indentured servants. This was not an uncommon practice for either blacks or whites, and indentured servants were in high demand. For the next century, black and white indentured servants worked side by side, but the growing agricultural economy demanded greater and cheaper labor. Thus began the racist enterprise of buying and selling enslaved Africans to supply the labor demand. By 1705, Virginia passed the slave codes declaring that any foreign-born, non-Christian could be enslaved, and that slaves were considered property.

The next 150 years saw the rise of U.S. slavery, with Africans being kidnapped from their own lands and shipped to the New World on the trans-Atlantic journey known as the Middle Passage. Once in the Americas, the black population grew until U.S.-born blacks outnumbered those born in Africa. Early colonial slave codes, which were eventually replaced by U.S. laws, declared that the child of a slave was a slave, thus ensuring the practice of inter-generational enslavement.
It is estimated that, by 1808 when U.S. participation in the international slave trade was outlawed, some 12.5 to 15 million men, women and children had been trafficked from Africa to the Americas to be used as slaves.

History of Inter-group Relations

There is no starker illustration of the dominant-subordinate group relationship than that of slavery. In order to justify their racist behavior, slaveholders and their supporters had to view blacks as innately inferior. The enslaved were denied even the most basic rights of citizenship, a crucial enabling factor for enslavers and their supporters. Slavery poses an illustrative example of conflict theory’s perspective on race relations, as the dominant group needed complete control over the subordinate group in order to maintain power. Extreme corporal punishments were common, including whippings, lashings, and branding. Crimes of war such as rape, family separation, and public executions (lynchings) were part of a larger system of social control; and slaves were prohibited from reading or obtaining an education. In the 1848 U.S. Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court declared that slaves were property and that slave owners were protected in this legal arrangement by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (which effectively meant that slaves were still considered property even in free territories). The Dred Scott decision also established that persons of African descent (whether freed or enslaved) had no legal standing as citizens, and therefore could not sue–for their freedom or anything else–in federal court.

Slavery eventually became an issue over which the nation divided into geographically and ideologically distinct factions, which among other factors led to the Civil War (1861-1865). The institution of slavery was crucial to the Southern economy, whose production of crops like rice, cotton, and tobacco relied on the virtually limitless and free labor that slavery provided. In contrast, the North’s economy did not directly depend on slavery, though Northern banks did handle capital derived from the practice of slavery. Thus, it should be noted that segregation and discrimination, to varying degrees, were common in both the North and the South. During the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, the Thirteenth Amendment (1863) was ratified to abolish involuntary servitude, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) to guarantee birthright citizenship, and the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) to bar racial discrimination in voting.

In the South, what developed in the aftermath of the war was essentially slavery by a different name. Some of the practices that enabled the continuation of disenfranchisement and economic oppression included sharecropping, tenant farming, the convict lease system, voter suppression (i.e., the Black Codes), outright violence and intimidation, and gerrymandering, which is the drawing of Congressional districts in a way that reduces the power of black votes.

In 2010, Michele Alexander published a book titled The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, in which she argues that blacks and other minority populations are kept in an inferior position in the United States because of the disproportionate and unfair number of racialized individuals who are imprisoned.

Watch this video for a brief introduction to Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow:

The twentieth century (1900s) included a number of social movements that worked to create equality for Blacks in the United States. Sociologist W.E.B. DuBois was at the forefront of the Niagara Movement (1905-1909), which sought to bring about legal change and equal economic and educational opportunities for African Americans. The 1908 Springfield Race Riot galvanized a group of activists including white Jewish socialists (male and female), white suffragists, and African Americans (including DuBois and Ida B. Wells) to create the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. The NAACP still exists today and continues its mission to “ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race.”[2] DuBois also served as editor of The Crisis, a journal that reported news on civil rights activism and black art, writing, and poetry, “with the vision of challenging mainstream stereotypes of African Americans”[3].

A half-century later, the Civil Rights Movement was characterized by boycotts, marches, sit-ins, and “freedom rides,” all forms of activism practiced by a subordinate group no longer willing to submit to domination. In 1954, the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education resulted in a Supreme Court decision that interpreted segregated schools as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is meant to guarantee equal protection before the law. A major blow to America’s formally institutionalized racism was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and was followed one year later by the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. Despite these crucial laws, some sociologists would argue that institutionalized racism persists to this day. 

Further Research

  • For an extensive multidisciplinary coverage of the history of slavery in the U.S. and its far-reaching repercussions, review the The 1619 Project resource published by The New York Times.

Current Status

Most sociologists point out that institutionalized racism persists in social institutions such as public schools and the criminal justice system (laws, policing, and sentencing). Some states have also found different ways to limit the franchise (i.e., voting rights) for minority groups. These methods including mandatory requirements for IDs, fewer polling places in rural and poor areas, and felon disenfranchisement in states with large black populations. Schools today are more segregated in some areas than ever. This is an example of de facto segregation. As we will see in the module on education, black children are more likely to be labeled as deviant, and are suspended and/or expelled at rates far greater than for whites who commit the same or similar offenses. This state of affairs has led some to argue that a “school-to-prison pipeline” begins as early as pre-k within public schools. 

The National Urban League’s Equality Index reports that blacks’ overall equality level with whites was 72.5 percent in 2018, which means that rather than having a whole pie (100 percent), or full equality with whites, over a quarter of the pie is missing. The Index, which has been published since 2005, notes very little change in total equality over time (.4% less in 2018 than in 2005) within categories like economics, health, education, social justice, and civic engagement.

To what degree do racism and prejudice contribute to this continued inequality? The answer is complex. The year 2008 saw the election of this country’s first African American president: Barack Hussein Obama. Despite being popularly identified as black, former President Obama is of mixed heritage; his mother was a white anthropologist from Kansas and his father was Kenyan. Obama was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, so culturally his background is steeped in Pacific Islander and Southeast Asian influences. The fact that Obama is referred to as “the first black president” reflects the logic of the “one-drop rule,” or the tendency to view someone’s racial status as wholly corresponding to the minority status within the individual’s heritage.

Although all presidents have been publicly mocked at times (Gerald Ford was depicted as a klutz, Bill Clinton as someone who could not control his libido), a startling percentage of the critiques of Obama have been based on his race. The most blatant of these was the controversy over his birth certificate, where the “birther” movement questioned his citizenship and thus his right to hold office. Although blacks have come a long way from slavery, the echoes of centuries of disempowerment are still evident.

Asian Americans

Like many groups discussed in this module, Asian Americans represent a great diversity of cultures and backgrounds. The experience of a Japanese American whose family has been in the United States for three generations will be drastically different from a Laotian American who has only been in the United States for a few years.

The most recent estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau (2017) suggests that about 5.8 percent of the population identify themselves as Asian. While this number may be a relatively small percentage of the current U.S. population, Asians are projected to become the largest immigrant group in the country, surpassing Hispanics in 2055. In 50 years, Asians are projected to make up 38 percent of all U.S. immigrants, while Hispanics will make up 31 percent of the nation’s immigrant population[4]

How and Why They Came

The national and ethnic diversity of Asian American immigration history is reflected in the variety of their experiences in joining U.S. society. Asian immigrants have come to the United States primarily in the third wave (1880-1914) and fourth wave (1965-present), but also in the second wave (1820-1860). The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act removed national-origin quotas established in 1921, resulting in marked population growth during this period with 491,000 Asian immigrants in 1960 and 12.8 million Asian immigrants in 2014, which accounts from a 2,597 percent increase[5]. As of 2014, the top five origin countries of Asian immigrants were India, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Korea.

The first Asian immigrants to come to the United States in the mid-nineteenth century were Chinese. These immigrants were primarily men whose intention was to work for several years in order to earn incomes to send back to their families in China. Their main destination was the American West, where the Gold Rush (’49 ers) was drawing people with its lure of abundant money. The construction of the Transcontinental Railroad was underway at this time, and the Central Pacific section hired thousands of migrant Chinese men to complete the laying of rails across the rugged Sierra Nevada mountain range. Chinese men also engaged in other manual labor like mining and agricultural work. This work was grueling and underpaid, but like many immigrants, they persevered.

Japanese immigration began in the 1880s, on the heels of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Many Japanese immigrants came to Hawaii to work in the sugar industry; others came to the mainland, especially to California. Unlike the Chinese, however, the Japanese had a strong government in their country of origin that negotiated with the U.S. government to ensure the well-being of their immigrants. Japanese men were able to bring their wives and families to the United States, and were thus able to produce second- and third-generation Japanese Americans more quickly than their Chinese counterparts.

Filipinos migrated to the United States after the U.S. annexed the Philippines in 1899. As U.S. nationals, they were not subjected to the same restrictions as other groups. Many settled in California and Hawaii and worked in agricultural jobs. Immigration slowed as a result of restrictions for several decades, but after World War II “war brides” began to arrive with returning U.S. servicemen. Although the Philippines obtained its independence in 1946 in the Treaty of Manila, the U.S. still became home to a large number of Filipino immigrants, with the number of immigrants quadrupling from 501,000 in 1980 to 1,942,000 in 2016.[6]

Bar graph showing the increase in number of Filipino immigrant populations in the United States. In 1980, the number of immigrants was 501,000, and steadily increased to nearly 2 million in 2016.

Figure 4. Filipino Immigrant Population in the United States, 1980-2016. Sources: Data from U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2016 American Community Surveys (ACS), and Campbell J. Gibson and Kay Jung, “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-2000” (Working Paper no. 81, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, February 2006), https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/twps0029.html.

Fourth wave Asian immigration included immigrants from India, Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. As you can see in Figure 2, Indian immigration grew between 1980 and 2010 more than eleven-fold, roughly doubling every decade. It is composed primarily of English-speaking, highly educated immigrants, many of whom qualified for an H-1B (a temporary visa for highly skilled immigrants)[7]. In 2013, India and China supplanted Mexico as the top sources of newly arriving immigrants in the United States (Zong and Batalova, 2017).

Bar graph showing the increasing number of Indian immigrants from 206,000 in 1980, to 2.3 million in 2015.

Figure 5. Indian Immigrant Population in the United States, 1980-2015. Sources: Data from U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2015 American Community Surveys (ACS), and 1980, 1990, and 2000 Decennial Census, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states.

Wars in Korea and Vietnam led to increased immigration from those countries after 1965. While Korean immigration has been fairly gradual, Vietnamese immigration was more concentrated after 1975, when the formerly U.S.-backed city of Saigon fell and a restrictive communist government was established. Whereas many Asian immigrants came to the United States to seek better economic opportunities, Vietnamese immigrants came as political refugees, seeking asylum from repressive conditions in their homeland. The Refugee Act of 1980 helped them settle in the United States, with large numbers coming from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Many of these refugees settled in California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, forming ethnic enclaves in urban areas.
A black and white image of a crowded boat containing Vietnamese refugees.

Figure 6. Thirty-five Vietnamese refugees wait to be taken aboard the amphibious USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19). They are being rescued from a thirty-five-foot fishing boat 350 miles northeast of Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, after spending eight days at sea. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy/Wikimedia Commons)

History of Intergroup Relations

We hear a lot about opium use today as opiate-related deaths have sharply risen, though opium use is nothing new in America. Although its popularity has varied over time, opium use spread, especially on the west coast, because many Chinese immigrants brought the knowledge and familiarity of opium dens to the United States. San Francisco passed an ordinance against opium dens in 1875, making it a misdemeanor to keep or visit any place where opium was smoked, though the law also served to discriminate against the Chinese. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle explained that the Board of Supervisors acted to ban opium dens after learning of “opium-smoking establishments kept by Chinese, for the exclusive use of white men and women” and of “young men and women of respectable parentage” going there.[8]

This early act of discrimination was quickly followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which restricted immigration from China. This act was a result of anti-Chinese sentiment, which was further exacerbated by a depressed economy and loss of jobs. White workers blamed Chinese migrants for taking jobs, and the passage of the Act meant the number of available Chinese workers decreased. Chinese men did not have the funds to return to China or to bring their families to the United States, so they remained physically and culturally segregated in the Chinatowns of large cities. Nevertheless, some eventually opened businesses such as laundromats or other service establishments.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to administer a law that is ostensibly race-neutral in a prejudicial way with regard to a particular group of people. The plaintiff, Yick Wo, a non-citizen Chinese immigrant who owned a laundry in a wooden building (common in San Francisco, though technically illegal) was denied a permit (along with every other Chinese-owned laundromat), though whites in the same situation were granted permits. This was a landmark case because it established equal protection for non-citizens residing in the U.S.

Although Japanese Americans have deep, long-reaching roots in the United States, their history here has not always been smooth. Restrictions on Japanese immigration took the form of the Gentleman’s Agreement in 1907 between the U.S. and Japan, wherein President Theodore Roosevelt agreed to urge the City of San Francisco to end a school segregation order affecting Japanese students, and the Japanese emperor agreed in turn not to issue any new passports for Japanese citizens looking to work in the U.S. (although it did not prevent “picture brides” from coming to the U.S. to marry Japanese men). 
The California Alien Land Law of 1913 was aimed at the Japanese and other Asian immigrants, and it prohibited aliens from owning land. The Immigration Act of 1924 completely excluded Asian immigrants from entering the United States. The Act included the race-based National Origins Act, which was aimed at keeping U.S. ethnic stock as undiluted as possible by reducing “undesirable” immigrants. It was not until after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that Chinese immigration again increased, and many Chinese families were reunited. Another notoriously discriminatory policy against the Japanese were the internment camps of World War II, discussed earlier as an illustration of expulsion.

Current Status

Asian Americans are a rapidly growing part of the population. The New York University (NYU) Center for the Study of Asian American Health examines growth in New York City. Researchers there found that New York City (NYC) is home to nearly 1.2 million documented and undocumented Asian Americans, representing more than 13% of the total NYC population. This diverse population (more than 20 countries of origin and 45 languages and dialects) grew by 110% from 1990 to 2010.

Immigrant and Emigrant Populations by Country of Origin and Destination

Use this interactive map on immigrant and emigrant populations to examine where many of the world’s 258 million international migrants moved. You can use the dropdown menu to select a country of origin to see where emigrants have settled.

Asian Americans certainly have been subject to their share of racial prejudice, despite seemingly positive stereotype as the model minority. The model minority stereotype is applied to a group that is seen as achieving significant educational, professional, and socioeconomic success without challenging the existing establishment. This stereotype is typically applied to Asian groups in the United States, and it can result in unrealistic expectations by putting a stigma on those who do not meet the presumed standard. Stereotyping all Asians as smart and capable can also limit much-needed government assistance, and can result in educational and professional discrimination.

The reality is quite different for most Asian Americans, especially recent immigrants. Although there are stories of Chinese billionaires buying properties for their children studying in the U.S. and about the influx of educated, highly-skilled Asians seeking employment in STEM fields, many of the poorest Asian groups in the U.S. have a vastly different quality of life. Although unemployment remains low among Asian Americans, 12.3 percent live below the federal poverty level, with almost 20 percent of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders living in poverty (according to the American Community Survey (ACS), an annual survey similar to the U.S. Census, conducted every ten years).[9] According to the NYC Opportunity tabulations, 17.9 percent of people living in poverty in New York City were Asian Americans, and they had the highest poverty rate of any racial or ethnic group at 29 percent. Contradictorily, Asian American community organizations received only 1.4 percent of the city’s social service contract dollars from the Department of Social Services (Tran, 2018).

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)

Watch the trailer from the blockbuster hit Crazy Rich Asians (2018) for one example of the elite Asian American immigrant. Then consider the questions that follow.

  • Why do you think there is such a disconnect between numbers of Asian Americans in poverty and funding for Asian community organizations?
  • What would be the unique challenges of obtaining survey data in Asian communities that might not pose the same challenges in other minority communities? How would you suggest addressing these sampling challenges?
  • In what ways is the model minority an ideology to justify inequality and racism?
  • Do you think dark-skinned Asian Americans might be subjected to more prejudice and discrimination than light-skinned Asian Americans?

Latino/Hispanic American

The segment of the U.S. population that self-identifies as Hispanic in 2017 was estimated at 18.1 percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). Like Asian Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans encompass many different ethnic groups (see Figure 1). But unlike other ethnic groups who share a Pan-Asian or Pan-African identity among various members from different countries of origin, a majority of Hispanics don’t view themselves as simply “Hispanic” or “Latino”, but feel a stronger connection with their family’s country of origin. [10]. 

Chart titled, "Hispanic origin profiles, 2015" showing the country origins of Hispanics in the U.S. 35 million come from Mexico, then over 5 million from Puerto Rico, about 2 million from El Salvador and Cuba, 1.8 million from the Dominican Republic, 1.3 million from Guatemala, about 1 million from Colombia, 853,000 from Honduras, 799,000 from Spain, 707,000 from Ecuador, 651,000 from Peru, 422,000 from Nicaragua, 321,000 from Venezuela, and 274,000 from Argentina.

Figure 7. The origin country of Hispanics in the United States from 2015. From Antionio Flores “How the U.S. Hispanic population is changing“, Pew Research Center.

A large majority of Latinos live in two metropolitan areas: Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim in California, and New York City/ Newark/Jersey City in New York and New Jersey—with 6 million and 4.8 million respectively. However, four other metropolitan areas (Miami, Houston, Riverdale, and Chicago) are each home to over 2 million Latinos.[11][12] 

Not only are there broad differences among the different national origins that make up the Hispanic American population, but there are also different names for the group itself. The 2010 U.S. Census states that “Hispanic” or “Latino” refers to a person of “Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.” There have been some disagreements over whether Hispanic or Latino is the correct term for a group this diverse, and whether it would be better for people to refer to themselves as being of their national origin specifically, for example, Mexican American or Dominican American. This section will compare the experiences of Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans.

How and Why They Came

As discussed in the introduction to this section, many Mexicans who became American citizens didn’t “come” to the United States. They lived in areas of Mexico that became part of the United States as a result of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. They didn’t immigrate (or even move); some became U.S. citizens and some remained citizens of Mexico living in the United States. Since then, Mexican migration was often in response to the need for cheap agricultural labor, and often coincided with seasonal crop cycles. 

The 1898 Treaty of Paris resulted in the purchase of the Philippines and to Spain ceding Puerto Rico, Guam, and Cuba to the U.S. Puerto Rico is the largest U.S. territory and Puerto Ricans are legally U.S. citizens. Like the Philippines, Puerto Rico was under Spanish control prior to the treaty, so the island went from one colonizer to another; however, unlike the Philippines, which became independent in 1946, Puerto Rico continues to be a U.S. territory.

Salvadorians comprise the third largest of the Latino subgroups, and are the largest group from the “Northern Triangle,” which also includes Guatemala (#6) and Honduras (#8). The number of immigrants from this region rose by 25 percent from 2007 to 2015.[13]. Immigrants from this area of Central America cite economic opportunity as the primary reason why they come to the United States, but many also cite the growing violence in their home nations as a reason for leaving. 

Cuban Americans are the fourth largest Hispanic subgroup, and their history is quite different from the aforementioned groups of Latinos. The main wave of Cuban immigration to the United States started after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. In fact, Cubans were granted political asylum in the 1960s and were given an easier path to U.S. citizenship. This immigrant wave crested in 1980 with the Mariel Boatlift, which resulted in 125,000 Cubans leaving the island with Castro’s blessing, including many prisoners and people released from mental asylums. Castro’s revolution ushered in an era of communism that continues to this day. To avoid having their assets seized by the government, many wealthy and educated Cubans migrated north, generally to the Miami area.

History of Intergroup Relations

For decades, Mexican workers crossed the long border into the United States, both legally and illegally, to work in the agricultural fields of the developing United States. Western growers needed a steady supply of labor, and the 1940s and 1950s saw the official federal Bracero Program (bracero is Spanish for strong-arm) that offered protection to Mexican guest workers. Interestingly, 1954 also saw the enactment of “Operation Wetback,” which deported thousands of illegal Mexican workers. From these examples, we can see the U.S. treatment of immigration from Mexico has been ambivalent at best.

Sociologist Douglas Massey (2006) suggests that although the average standard of living in Mexico may be lower than in the United States, it is not so low as to make permanent migration the goal of most Mexicans. However, the strengthening of the border that began with 1986’s Immigration Reform and Control Act has made one-way migration the rule for most Mexicans. Massey argues that the rise of illegal one-way immigration of Mexicans is a direct outcome of the law that was intended to reduce it.

The United States’ original interest in Puerto Rico was economic and related to the production and export of sugar cane. In 1901, the Supreme Court, in a series of cases known as the Insular Cases said that “alien races” that might not be able to understand Anglo-Saxon laws, therefore the protections of the U.S. Constitution wouldn’t apply to them. Puerto Rico had no legal standing as U.S. citizens until 1917, which was the same year the U.S. entered World War I. Approximately 236,000 Puerto Ricans registered for the draft and nearly 20,000 served in the war, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.[14] One of New York City’s most famous Puerto Ricans, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was repeatedly described as  “the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants.” Although migrants versus immigrants might seem like an unimportant distinction to some, the common confusion of these terms highlights the fact that nearly half of all Americans don’t realize (or know) that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. Comedian and Last Week Tonight host John Oliver exclaimed, “She is the daughter of Americans who moved from Puerto Rico!” (watch the Last Week Tonight clip “U.S. Territories”).

During the Cold War (1945-1991), as the world’s capitalist nations faced off against the communist U.S.S.R. and its satellite states, the U.S. funneled billions of dollars into El Salvador (a country with a population of 4.7 million in 1980) in an effort to suppress communist-affiliated revolutionary movements in Central America. Leftist peasants and civilians fought against the El Salvadorian military (which was supported by the U.S.), and over 75,000 people were killed during the ensuing civil war. In the aftermath of this conflict, fleeing Salvadorians were given Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 1990, which allowed them to legally live and work in the U.S. This program was meant to expire in 1992, but has been extended several times and continues to be a point of contention today as part of the larger debate concerning immigration policy. 

Cuban Americans, perhaps because of their relative wealth and education level at the time of immigration, have fared better than many other immigrant groups. Further, because they were fleeing a newly established communist country (which was backed by America’s Cold War adversary the U.S.S.R.), they were given refugee status and offered protection and social services. The Cuban Migration Agreement of 1995 has curtailed legal immigration from Cuba, leading many Cubans to try to immigrate illegally by boat. According to a 2009 report from the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. government applies a “wet foot/dry foot” policy toward Cuban immigrants; Cubans who are intercepted while still at sea will be returned to Cuba, while those who reach the shore will be permitted to stay in the United States.

Current Status

Mexican Americans, especially those who are here illegally, are at the center of a national debate about immigration. Myers (2007) observes that no other minority group (except the Chinese) has immigrated to the United States in such an environment of illegality. He notes that in some years, three times as many Mexican immigrants may have entered the United States illegally as those who arrived legally. It should be noted that this is due to an enormous disparity of economic opportunity on two sides of an open border, not because of any inherent inclination to break laws. In his report, “Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States,” Jacob Vigdor (2008) states that Mexican immigrants experience relatively low rates of economic and civil assimilation. He further suggests that “the slow rates of economic and civic assimilation set Mexicans apart from other immigrants, and may reflect the fact that the large numbers of Mexican immigrants residing in the United States illegally have few opportunities to advance themselves along these dimensions.”

The current status of Puerto Ricans today is that more live on the mainland than on the island, with the majority of Puerto Ricans (1 million) living in New York City. The status of American citizens living on the island will be explored below in the context of Hurricane María. 

Blackout in Puerto Rico

The storm season of 2017 resulted in three Category 4 storms,  Harvey (Texas), Irma (Florida), and María (Puerto Rico), that occurred within 4 weeks of each other. Despite their similarities, the government response to the storms varied dramatically. For example, nine days following the hurricanes, 5.1 million meals were provided in Texas, 10.9 million meals in Florida, and only 1.6 million in Puerto rico; 4.5 liters of water were given in Texas, 7 million liters of water were given in Florida, and only 2.8 million to Puerto Rico. Within this same time period, there were 30,000 federal workers deployed to Texas, 22,000 to Florida, and only 10,000 to Puerto Rico. 

Look at this comparative analysis on hurricane response to read more about how the U.S. government responded to the 2017 hurricanes in Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico. You can also watch “Blackout in Puerto Rico” to get a closer look at the difficulties on the island following the hurricane.

Some more recent immigrants from El Salvador were granted TPS in the wake of several earthquakes in 2001. In January 2018, President Trump announced that this program will expire, leaving nearly 200,000 Salvadorians in danger of deportation. In October 2018, a federal judge blocked the administration’s decision, and a new deadline of January 2020 has been set.  

By contrast, Cuban Americans are often touted as models of a Latino immigrant success story. Many Cubans had higher socioeconomic status when they arrived in this country, and their anti-Communist agenda has made them valuable symbols of the superiority of Western capitalist democracy. In south Florida, especially, Cuban Americans are active in local politics and professional life.

While immigration is slowing, there is evidence to suggest a growing number of Hispanics are experiencing positive gains and upward social mobility, especially in the second and third generations. In 2015, almost 40 percent of Hispanics have attended some college, which is up from 30 percent in 2000. [15].

Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070

A group of protesters at an immigrant’s rights rally. A protestor holds a sign that reads, "Immigrant rights are human rights"

Figure 8. Protesters in Arizona dispute the harsh new anti-immigration law. (Photo courtesy of rprathap/flickr)

As both legal and illegal immigrants, and with high population numbers, Mexican Americans are often the target of stereotyping, racism, and discrimination. Arizona has been at the forefront of a national debate over immigration laws. In 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), which required that Arizona police officers establish the immigration status of anyone they suspected to be undocumented during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.

Federal law already requires aliens older than 18 to possess proper identification, with failure to do so classified as a federal misdemeanor; what SB 1070 added was police officers’ discretion to detain people they suspected might be undocumented. The minimum fine for a first offense under SB 1070 was $500, with a minimum of $1000 for a second violation and a maximum jail sentence of six months; a violation of the federal law carries a fine of up to $100 for a first offense, plus court costs and up to 20 days in jail. Subsequent offenses may include a penalty of up to 30 days in jail.

To many, the most troublesome aspect of this law is the latitude it affords police officers. Having “reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States” is reason enough to demand immigration papers (Senate Bill 1070, 2010). Like “stop and frisk” in New York City, racial profiling is the likely result, making it hazardous to be caught “Driving While Brown,” a takeoff on the legal term Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), or the slang reference of “Driving While Black (DWB).”

After its passage, several legal challenges were mounted against SB 1070. Courts argued about issues in the bill pertaining to the Supremacy Clause (a federal law is paramount over a state law), the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment freedom of speech protections (since one’s accent could result in racial profiling), and Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures

A complex chain of legal filings and lawsuits at the state and federal level ensued and in 2012, Arizona v. United States was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of the most controversial provisions were preempted by federal law, but the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the portion of the law that required Arizona law enforcement to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained.  [16]

How can sociological theories help us to understand the tension between state and federal laws or between the dominant and subordinate racial/ ethnic groups in Arizona? Try examining SB 1070 from a conflict perspective and compare that to a functionalist perspective.

In what ways do you think the law could be seen as a symbol of “law and order” or as a symbol of racial profiling? What does it mean to different groups?

Arab Americans

The category of Arab Americans may be among the most difficult to define. For Arab Americans, their country of origin—Arabia—has not existed for centuries, although millions of people speak Arabic and it is the sixth most commonly spoken language worldwide. Geographically, the Arab region comprises the Middle East and parts of northern Africa. People whose ancestry lies in that area, or who speak primarily Arabic may consider themselves Arabs.

In addition, Arab Americans represent all religious practices, despite the stereotype that all Arabic people practice Islam. As Myers (2007) asserts, not all Arabs are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Arab, complicating the definition of what it means to be an Arab American. Although Islam will be discussed more fully in the module on religion, it is important to note that Muslims make up a small portion of the U.S. population, just 0.9 percent. They are one of the most racially diverse groups in the country, with 41 percent of the Muslim population being white, 20 percent black, 28 percent Asian, and 8 percent Hispanic.[17]

The U.S. Census has struggled with the issue of Arab identity. The 2010 Census, as in previous years, did not offer an “Arab” box to check under the question of race. Individuals who want to be counted as Arabs had to check the box for “Some other race” and then write in their race. However, when the Census data is tallied, they will be marked as white. This classification is problematic, however, as it denies Arab Americans opportunities for nearly $400 billion in federal assistance.[18]

According to the best estimates of the U.S. Census Bureau, the Arabic population in the United States grew from 850,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2000, an increase of .07 percent (Asi and Beaulieu 2013). The American Community Survey (ACS) showed the Arab American population to be around 1.8 million in 2011, an increase of 47 percent from 2000, but the Arab Institute estimates the U.S. Arab population to be 3.7 million. The Arab Institute criticized the decision to reject a Middle East/North Africa (MENA) category to the 2020 U.S. Census, a category that was added to the ACS [19]

Regardless of the exact size, the community is enormously diverse. The Arab American population has ancestral ties to 22 countries, varying religious backgrounds, and complex historical, cultural, and political identities. The U.S. population is concentrated in five regions: the Detroit/Dearborn area, Los Angeles, New York/New Jersey, Chicago, and Washington D.C., but segments of the population live in all 50 states. [20]

Why They Came

The first Arab immigrants came to this country in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They were predominantly Syrian, Lebanese, and Jordanian Christians who were fleeing persecution and hoping to make a better life. These early immigrants and their descendants, who were more likely to think of themselves as Syrian or Lebanese than Arab, represent almost half of the Arab American population today (Myers, 2007). Restrictive immigration policies from the 1920s until 1965 curtailed all immigration, but Arab immigration since 1965 has been steady. Immigrants from this time period have been more likely to be Muslim and more highly educated, often escaping political unrest and looking for better opportunities.

Between 1980 and 2010, the size of the MENA immigrant population quadrupled, from 223,000 to 861,000. And from 2010 to 2016, the MENA population increased another 36 percent, to 1,167,000.[21] Wars in Syria and Yemen have resulted in humanitarian crises causing refugees to seek asylum in the U.S. and in other countries.

History of Intergroup Relations

Relations between Arab Americans and the dominant majority have been marked by mistrust, misinformation, and deeply entrenched beliefs. Helen Samhan of the Arab American Institute suggests that Arab-Israeli conflicts in the 1970s contributed significantly to cultural and political anti-Arab sentiment in the United States (2001). The United States has historically supported the State of Israel, while some Middle Eastern countries deny the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Disputes over these issues have involved Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine.

In 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Israel was moved from Tel Aviv, the nation’s capital, to Jerusalem, which houses sacred religious sites for Muslims, Jews, and Christians. This controversial move resulted in days of protests, with 55 Palestinians killed by the Israeli Army and 2,770 injured.[22]

In figure (a) A bearded man holds high a large American flag amidst a protest, a sign reads "no clubhouse for jihadists". In figure (b) People are shown carrying "United We Stand" and "USA" signs.

Figure 9. The proposed Park51 Muslim Community Center generated heated controversy due to its close proximity to Ground Zero. In these photos, people march in protest against the center, while counter-protesters demonstrate their support. (Photos (a) and (b) courtesy of David Shankbone/Wikimedia Commons)

As is often the case with stereotyping and prejudice, the actions of extremists come to define the entire group, regardless of the fact that most U.S. citizens with ties to the Middle East condemn terrorist actions, as do most inhabitants of the Middle East itself. The United States was deeply affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. This event has left a deep scar on the American psyche, and it has fortified anti-Arab sentiment. In the first month after 9/11, hundreds of hate crimes were perpetrated against people who looked like they might be of Arab descent, including many Sikhs (a religious minority with origins in India). According to the FBI, anti-Muslim hate crimes (against Muslims or people mistaken to be Muslim), surged 67 percent in 2016, a level not seen since 2001.[23]

The United States has had business interests in Saudi Arabia’s oil industry since 1933, when Standard Oil, now Chevron, explored the area and discovered oil. By 1980, Saudi Arabia had bought out foreign shareholders and established what is known today as Saudi Aramco, though U.S. companies like Chevron, Dow Chemical, and ExxonMobil continue to have deep business ties with Saudi Arabia. As the second-largest holder of crude oil reserves in the world, Saudi Arabia enjoys a close political relationship with the United States.

Current Status

Although the rate of hate crimes against Arab Americans has slowed, they are still victims of racism and prejudice. Racial profiling has proceeded against Arab Americans as a matter of course since 9/11. Particularly when engaged in air travel, being young and Arab-looking is enough to warrant a special search or detainment. This Islamophobia (irrational fear of or hatred against Muslims) does not show signs of abating. Scholars note that white domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, who detonated a bomb at an Oklahoma courthouse in 1995, have not inspired similar racial profiling of or hate crimes against whites. Executive Orders enacted by President Donald Trump in 2017 have drastically reduced U.S. entry from several Muslim-majority countries and created other restrictions on refugees and resettlement. The “Muslim Ban” has faced multiple legal challenges but has resulted in reduced immigration. As discussed earlier, there has been a 67 percent increase in attacks against Arab Americans since 2016.

The United States’ close political and economic ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia have led to increasing tensions when violence continues to erupt. Saudi-supported attacks in Yemen have led to what the European Union called “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world” in 2018. Whether the U.S. will continue to support Saudi Arabian attacks in what many are calling a genocide in Yemen is unknown, but a surge in civilian deaths in the summer of 2018 has resulted in a call for intervention. Yemen is one of the seven countries included in Executive Order 13769 (otherwise known as the “Muslim Ban”).

White Americans

As we have seen, there is no minority group that fits easily in a category or that can be described in simple terms. While sociologists believe that individual experiences can often be understood in light of their social characteristics (such as race, class, or gender), we must balance this perspective with awareness that no two individuals’ experiences are alike. Making generalizations can lead to stereotypes and prejudice. The same is true for whites, who come from diverse backgrounds and have had a great variety of experiences. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2014), 77.7 percent of U.S. adults currently identify themselves as white alone. Although there has been discussion about including ethnic groups under the racial category of white on the 2020 Census, ethnicity has not previously been measured on the Census and likely will not be part of the 2020 form. In this section, we will focus on German, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants.

Why They Came

White Europeans formed the second and third great waves of immigration, from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. They joined a recently established United States that was primarily made up of Protestants from England, known as WASPS (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). While most immigrants came searching for a better life, their experiences were not all the same.

The first major influx of European immigrants came from Germany and Ireland, starting in the 1820s. Germans came both for economic opportunity and to escape political unrest and military conscription, especially after the 1848 Revolutions. Many German immigrants of this period were political refugees, liberals who wanted to escape from an oppressive government. They were sufficiently well-off to make their way inland, and they formed heavily German enclaves in the Midwest that exist to this day.

The Irish immigrants of the same time period were not always as affluent, especially after the Irish Potato Famine of 1845. Irish immigrants settled mainly in the cities of the East Coast, where they were employed as laborers and where they faced significant discrimination.

German and Irish immigration continued into the late 19th century and early 20th century, at which point the numbers for Southern and Eastern European immigrants started growing as well. Italians, mainly from the southern part of the country, began arriving in large numbers in the 1890s. Eastern European immigrants from Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, and Austria-Hungary started arriving around the same time. Many of these Eastern Europeans were peasants forced into a hardscrabble existence in their native lands; political unrest, land shortages, and crop failures drove them to seek better opportunities in the United States. The Eastern European immigration wave also included Jewish people escaping the pogroms (anti-Jewish uprisings) of Eastern Europe and the Pale of Settlement, in what was then Poland and Russia (a “pale” is a border marker, whether literal or figurative). Although Jews are considered “White” on the U.S. Census, being Jewish is considered an ethnicity as well as a religion because of the importance of cultural components of Judaism for both practicing (or religious) and non-practicing American Jews.

History of Inter-group Relations

In a broad sense, German immigrants were not discriminated against to the same degree as many of the other subordinate groups discussed in this section. While they may not have been welcomed with open arms, they were able to settle in enclaves and establish roots. A notable exception to this was during the lead up to World War I and through World War II, when anti-German sentiment was pervasive.

Irish immigrants, many of whom were very poor, were more of an underclass than the Germans. In Ireland, the English had oppressed the Irish for centuries, eradicating their language and culture and discriminating against their religion (Catholicism). Although the Irish had a larger population than the English, they were a subordinate group. This dynamic reached into the new world, where Anglo Americans saw Irish immigrants as a race apart: dirty, lacking ambition, and suitable for only the most menial jobs. In fact, Irish immigrants were subject to criticism identical to that with which the dominant group characterized African Americans. By necessity, Irish immigrants formed tight communities segregated from their Anglo neighbors.

The later wave of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe was also subject to intense discrimination and prejudice. In particular, the dominant group—which now included second- and third-generation Germans and Irish—saw Italian immigrants as the dregs of Europe and worried about the purity of the American race (Myers, 2007). Italian immigrants lived in segregated slums in Northeastern cities, and in some cases were even victims of violence and lynchings. They worked harder and were paid less than other workers, often doing the dangerous work that other laborers were reluctant to take on.

Although groups of whites were treated unfairly, white skin color afforded all members of this group white privilege, or the unquestioned and unearned set of advantages, entitlements, benefits and choices bestowed upon people solely because they are white. In the nineteen-thirties, W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about the “psychological wage” that enabled poor whites to feel superior to poor blacks. Peggy McIntosh cemented this concept with her “invisible knapsack” or the list of privileges whites carry around without realizing them. Explore the concept of white privilege with McIntosh’s checklist to see how much of it holds true for you or others.

White supremacy, or the belief that whites are racially superior and should dominate all races, has made itself visible through the words and actions of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Brotherhood. Individuals like Dylann Roof, who shot and killed nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015, highlight the often violent hatred that under-girds white supremacy.

Watch this video from anti-racism activist Tim Wise and consider how he describes white privilege as related to the history of racism/white supremacy.

Current Status

Americans with German, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European heritage often strongly identify with that background, even though many are now several generations removed from the original waves of immigration that occurred up to or more than a century ago. Elements of each region’s culture remain important, and can be seen in festivals like Oktoberfest, holidays like St. Patrick’s Day, or Italian feast days and Columbus Day, which are celebrated with ethnic cuisines and within ethnic enclaves such as Little Italy. Support for national teams may also be on enthusiastic display during the World Cup or the Olympics.

Unlike many other racial and ethnic groups, whites are numerically declining, with more people in the demographic dying than are being born. Fewer babies were born during and after the 2008 recession, and increasing numbers of women are choosing to remain childless, often due to the lingering economic effects of the downturn. Mortality rates among whites aged 30-59, in what are being called “deaths of despair” such as suicide and drug overdoses, have also increased, particularly in economically depressed areas of rural America.

Further Research

Are people interested in reclaiming their ethnic identities? Read this article “The White Ethnic Revival” and decide what you think.

Think It Over

  • In your opinion, which group had the easiest time coming to this country? Which group had the hardest time? Why?
  • Which group has made the most socioeconomic gains? Why do you think that group has had more success than others?
  • Why do you think it is difficult for whites to recognize white privilege?

Glossary

African diaspora:
the dispersion of African peoples into other communities, especially those in North and South America, from the 16th to the 19th centuries
model minority:
the stereotype applied to a minority group that is seen as reaching higher educational, professional, and socioeconomic levels without challenging the majority establishment
white supremacy:
the belief that whites are racially superior and should dominate all other races
  1. Oliver, P. 2017. "What the Treaty of Guadalupe Really Says." University of Wisconsin Madison. https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/racepoliticsjustice/2017/07/12/what-the-treaty-of-guadalupe-actually-says/ ↵
  2. "What is the Mission of the NAACP?" NAACP. https://www.naacp.org/about-us/ ↵
  3. Bragg, S. 2009. "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People," BlackPast.org. https://blackpast.org/perspectives/national-association-advancement-colored-people-and-long-struggle-civil-rights-united-s ↵
  4. Lopez, G., Ruiz, N., and E. Patten. 2017. "Key facts about Asian Americans," http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asian-americans/ ↵
  5. Zong, J. and J. Batalova. 2017. "Indian Immigrants in the United States," https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states. ↵
  6. Zong, J. and J. Batalova, 2018. "Filipino Immigrants in the United States," Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/filipino-immigrants-united-states. ↵
  7. Zong, J. and J. Batalova. 2017. "Indian Immigrants in the United States," https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states. ↵
  8. Fisher, G. 2014. "The Drug War at 100." Stanford Law School Aggregate Blog. https://law.stanford.edu/2014/12/19/the-drug-war-at-100/. ↵
  9. Tran, V. 2018. "Asian Americans are Falling Through the Cracks," Urban Wire. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/asian-americans-are-falling-through-cracks-data-representation-and-social-services. ↵
  10. Cohn, D. 2017. "Seeking better data on Hispanics," http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/seeking-better-data-on-hispanics-census-bureau-may-change-how-it-asks-about-race/. ↵
  11. null ↵
  12. Stepler, R. and M. Lozpez. 2016. "U.S. Latino population growth and dispersion," Pew Research Center. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/08/5-ranking-the-latino-population-in-metropolitan-areas/. ↵
  13. Cohn, D., Passel, J., and A. Gonzalez-Barrera. (2017). "Rise in U.S. Immigrants From El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras Outpaces Growth from Elsewhere." Pew Research Center. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/07/rise-in-u-s-immigrants-from-el-salvador-guatemala-and-honduras-outpaces-growth-from-elsewhere/. ↵
  14. "Collins, Shannon. Puerto Ricans Represented Throughout U.S. Military History," U.S. Department of Defense. https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/974518/puerto-ricans-represented-throughout-us-military-history/ ↵
  15. Flores, A. 2017. "How the U.S. Hispanic population is changing," Pew Resarch Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/#. ↵
  16. "Arizona v. U.S.", Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182. ↵
  17. Huda, 2018. "The World's Muslim Population," Thought Co. https://www.thoughtco.com/worlds-muslim-population-2004480. ↵
  18. "Uses of Census Bureau Data," 2017. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/working-papers/Uses-of-Census-Bureau-Data-in-Federal-Funds-Distribution.pdf. ↵
  19. Harb, A. 2018. "U.S. Fails to Add MENA to the U.S. Census." Middle East Eye. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-census-continue-count-arabs-white-1206288795. ↵
  20. Brown, Heather, Emily Guskin, and Amy Mitchell. 2012 "Arab-American Population Growth." Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2012/11/28/arabamerican-population-growth/ ↵
  21. Cumoletti, M. and J. Batalova. 2018. "Middle Eastern and North African Immigrants in the U.S." https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/middle-eastern-and-north-african-immigrants-united-states. ↵
  22. Chapell, B. 2018. "55 Palestinian Protesters Killed." NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/14/610934534/18-palestinian-protesters-die-gaza-officials-say-as-u-s-opens-jerusalem-embassy. ↵
  23. Suri, M. & H. Wu. 2017. "Religious Minority Target of Hate Crimes." CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/asia/sikh-hate-crimes-us-muslims/index.html. ↵