Notes
- The term “twice-minorities” is used here for easy reference; it does not exclude the possibility that groups can and do become minorities more than twice.
- See Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan, eds., Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975).
- The ethnic-to-ethnic model is inadequate to explain changing situations or circumstances or to account for ethnic change. See Andrew Greeley, Ethnicity in the United States: A Preliminary Reconnaissance (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974); Charles Keyes, “The Dialectics of Ethnic Change,” in Ethnic Change, edited by Charles Keyes (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981).
- Nathan Glazer, “Ethnic Groups in America: From National Culture to Ideology,” in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited by M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. Page (New York: Van Nostrand, 1954); William C. Yancey, Eugene P. Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani, “Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulations,” American Sociological Renew 41 (1976): 319–403; Kenneth A. Skinner, and Glen L. Hendricks, “The Shaping of Ethnic Self-Identity among Indochinese Refugees,” Journal of Ethnic Studies 7 (1979): 25–41; Ben Rafael Eliezer, The Emergence of Ethnicity (Westport, Connecticut. Greenwood Press, 1982).
- Glazer, “Ethnic Group in America,” Stanford Morris Lyman, Chinatown and Little Tokyo: Power, Conflict and Community among Chinese and Japanese Immigrants in America (New York: Associated Faculty Press, 1986); Rudolph Vecoli, “The Formation of Chicago's little Italies’,” Journal of American Ethnic History 2 (1983): 5–20. For example, Glazer reports that the Scandinavian peasants, upon arrival in America, “thought of themselves less as members of nations than as coming from a certain family, and village, and as belonging to a certain church,” 163. Chinese and Italian immigrants were similarly divided: overseas Chinese organized by surname, place of origin and dialect; Italians clustered around immigrants from their hometowns and provinces.
- Some scholars propose that cultural symbols—a common language, a shared religion—explain the proves of ethnicization. See V. Greene, For God and Country: The Rise of Polish and Lithuanian Ethnic Consciousness in America, 1860–1910 (Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1975). Opting for a structural explanation, other scholars focus on the prevailing ecological, political, economic, and social conditions to explain the emergence of ethnicity. See Orlando Patterson, “Context and Choice in Ethnic Allegiance,” in Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, edited by Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975); Candace Nelson and Marta Tienda, “The Structuring of Hispanic Ethnicity: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives/’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 8 (1985): 49–74; Yancey, Ericksen, Juliani, “Emergent Ethnicity.”
- Abner Cohen, “Variables in Ethnicity,” in Ethnic Change, edited by Charles F. Keyes (Seattle: University of Washington Press), 320.
- Alejandro Portes, “The Rise of Ethnicity: Determinants of Ethnic Perceptions among Cuban Exiles in Miami,” American Sociological Remew 49(1984): 383–397; Nelson and Tienda, “Hispanic Ethnicity.” These studies suggest that ethnic awareness develops as a result of the minority-majority relationship.
- The importance of changing ecological conditions for the development of ethnic groups has been fully explored in other works. For example, see Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani, “Emergent Ethnicity.” Also, this papier does not examine the role of nationalistic movements in inducing national ethnic identity among immigrant groups. Changing political conditions in the home country shape immigrants ethnicity; however, the extent of this influence is still inconclusive. Scholars have documented cases where immigrant groups achieve national ethnic identity prior to the nationalist movement. See Lyman, Chinatown and Little Tokyo; Maxine P. Fisher, The Indians of New York City (Missouri: South Asia Books, 1980).
- Ivan Light, “Ethnic Succession,” in Ethnic Change, edited by Charles F. Keyes (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981), 70–73.
- Other-definition and self-definition do not necessarily adjust at the same rate; the former often precedes and encompasses more individuals than the later. However, the two identifications ultimately converge: the immigrants cast off local identity and identify with the broader classification intelligible to outsides. See Donald L. Horowitz, “Ethnic Self-Identity,” in Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, edited by Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975); Jonathan D. Sarna, “From Immigrants to Ethnics: Toward a Theory of Ethnicization’,” Ethnicity 5 (1978): 370–378.
- See Sarna “Theory of Ethnicization.” Elsewhere in the world, students of ethnicity has also documented the influence of other-defined ethnic identity. For example, the homogenization of the East Indians in British Guiana and Trinidad is detailed in Horowitz, “Ethnic Identity,” 128–129.
- See Sama, “Theory of “Ethnicization',” 373.
- Allen Williams Jr., Nicholas Babchuk, and David R. Johnson, “Voluntary Associations and Minority Status: A Comparative Analysis of Anglo, Black, and Mexican Americans,” American Sociological Review 38 (1973): 637–646.
- Stephen Steinberg, The Ethnic Myth (New York, 1981), 55. See also Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956); Light, “Ethnic Succession.”
- Coser, Social Conflict; Won Moo Hurh, “Towardsa Korean-American Ethnicity: Some Theoretical Models,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 3 (1980): 444–469.
- Susan Olzak, “A Competitive Model of Ethnic Colective Action in American Cities, 1877–1889,” in Competitive Ethnic Relations, edited by Susan Olzak and Joane Nagel (San Diego: Academic Press, 1986), 21.
- Raymond Breton, “Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and the Personal Relations of Immigrants,” American Journal of Sociology 70 (1964): 193–205.
- Arnold M. Rose and Caroline B. Rose, eds., Minority Problems (New York, 1965), 247.
- Portes, “The Rise of Ethnicity,” 395.
- Ibid., 394–95.
- Ibid., 394.
- Ibid. Also, see Hurh, “Korean-American Ethnicity.” Hurh labels this in-group cohesion a “collective sense of marginality,” “a feeling of common destiny, as being… immigrants in America, whether young or old, doctor or janitor,” 25.
- Felix Padilla, “Latino Ethnicity in the City of Chicago,” in Competitive Ethnic Relations, edited by Susan Olzak and Joane Nagel (San Diego: Academic Press, 1986), 162.
- Glazer, “Ethnic Groups in America.”
- Ibid., 166.
- Ibid., 171.
- Oscar Handin, “Historical Perspectives on the American Ethnic Group,” Daedalus 90 (1961): 220–32.
- For example, Jacqueline Desbarate, “Ethnic Differences in Adaptation: Sino-Vietnamese Refugees in the United States,” International Migration Review 20 (1986): 405–427.
- Georges Sabagh and Ivan Light of UCLA are currently studying the sub-communities and sub-economies among Armenian, Jewish, Bahai, and Muslim Iranians.
- Williams, Babchuk, and Johnson, “Voluntary Associations,” 644.
- Nelson and Tienda, “Hispanic Ethnicity,” 55.
- Williams, Babchuk, and Johnson, “Voluntary Associations,” 638.
- Desbarats, “Sino-Vietnamese Refugees.”
- Keith St. Carmail, Exodus China (Hong Kong: Heinemann, 1983).
- Burton J. Hendricks, The Jews in America (New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1923), 99.
- Edna Bonacich and John Modell, The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980); Ivan Light, Ethnic Enterprise in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972). In a recent study of Korean entrepreneurs in Los Angeles, the authors report that Korean entrepreneurs had access to ethnic resources which they utilized to further their business goals. For example, Koreans appealed to ethnic solidarity in the interest of regulating competition; they also exchanged information and mutual aid—both economic and social. See Ivan Light and Edna Bonacich, Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles 1965–1982 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).
- In the late nineteenth century, the Eastern European Jews joined the Jewish community in America. The two groups were marked off in language, religion, culture and occupation. However, by the end of the First World War, a “consciously single Jewish community was formed.” As twice-minorities, the Eastern European Jews, could—and did—rely on the organizational resources of two ethnic communities, their own and their German co-ethnics in America. See Priscilla Fishman, The Jews of the United States (New York: Quadrangle, The New York Times Book Co., 1973); Glazer and Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot; Hendricks, The Jews in America.
- However, there is a strained relationship between the Chinese Vietnamese and the Canadian Chinese. The Chinese Vietnamese regard the local Chinese as unsympathetic, authoritarian, and uncaring. See Woon, “The Sino-Vietnamese in Victoria,” 550.
- In a study of East African Skihs who migrated from India to Africa and then to Britain, Bhachu reports that their common experiences (in East Africa) have given them skills which they are able to utilize in the establishment of communities in the United Kingdom. Since these “twice migrants” were already part of an established community before resettlement in the United Kingdom, they have been able to reproduce community ties and to establish ethnic institutions rapidly upon arrival. Their skills have helped them to establish themselves much more rapidly than direct migrants who lacked the same expertise, linguistic facility, and communications network to develop community structures at the same pace. See Parminder Bhachu, Twice Migrants: East African Sikh Settlers in Britain (London: Tavistock Publications, 1985).
- Yuen-Fong Woon, “Ethnic Identity and Ethnic Boundaries: the Sino-Vietnamese in Victoria, British Columbia,” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 22 (1985): 534–558. In this study of Vietnamese refugees in British Columbia, Woon found that the Chinese Vietnamese were unwilling to befriend ethnic Vietnamese because of the strained historical relationship between the two groups.
- Barry Wain, The Refused (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981).
- Desbarats, “Ethnic Differences in Adaptation: Sino-Vietnamese Refugees in the United States,” International Migration Review 20: 2 (Summer 1986): 405–427; Lewis M. Stern, “The Overseas Chinese in Vietnam, 1920–75: Demography, Social, Structure, and Economic Power,” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 12: 2 (Spring/Summer 1985): 1–30; Woon, “Sino-Vietnamese in Victoria.”
- Stern, “The Overseas Chinese in Vietnam,” 25.
- Some first-time minorities also possess organizational skills upon arrival. (For example, Korean immigrants bring with them their religious organizations.) However these social institutions served a limited role in the home country (e.g., to perform religious functions); as such, they differ from the ethnic institutions of the twice-minorities. In the new country, these organizations have to be realigned, expanded to serve the multiple organizational needs of the emergent ethnic community. This realignment is necessary because of the constraints imposed upon the immigrant group by the host society.
- Viviani, The Long Journey, 259–64.
- Ibid., 264–65.
- Stern, “The Overseas Chinese in Vietnam,” 12.
- Ibid., 264–66.
- Ibid., 265–66.
- Penelope McMillan, “Vietnam Chinese Give Chinatown New Look,” Los Angeles Times, November 24, 1984.
- Anh Tran, “Adaptation Strategy of Chinese-Vietnamese in the U.S., 1975–1987,” unpublished manuscript (Los Angeles, 1988).