TODAY I WILL GIVE YOU A SHORT INTRO INTO WHAT IT
IS WE WILL BE DOING SO YOU CAN FORM A BETTER JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS COURSE.
SOME OF THIS WILL BE OLD HAT TO THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN
OTHER SOCIOLOGY COURSES, BUT IT IS ALWAYS GOOD TO BE REMINDED
SOCIOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF HUMAN SOCIAL LIFE.
OR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF SOCIAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR.
SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION OF PATTERN
IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF DOING
THIS: COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL.
THE FIRST LITERALLY COMPARES THE STATUS OF ANY GROUP
OF PERSONS OR PHENOMENA AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
THE SECOND LOOKS FOR CAUSAL ORDER IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF PARTICULAR PHENOMENA OR PERSONS.
WE HOPE TO DO BOTH THIS SEMESTER.
FOR COMPARATIVE:
WE ARE INTERESTED IN FINDING SYSTEMIC COMMONALTIES
OR SYSTEMIC DIFFERENCES
WHY?
IN PART 'CAUSE ITS FUN.
IN PART BECAUSE IF WE CAN ISOLATE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS
OF GROUPS WE CAN MORE EASILY PREDICT HUMAN BEHAVIOR
WE CAN ALSO ADDRESS SOCIAL PROBLEMS BY IDENTIFYING
THE CRITICAL ELEMENT OF A SITUATION OR A GROUP IN CRISIS.
SPECIFICALLY , IN LIGHT OF THIS COURSE, WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE MOST SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS.
WE ARE INTERESTED IN WHETHER ETHNIC IDENTITY (A PROBLEMATIC CONCEPT TO BEGIN WITH) REALLY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
IDENTITY FOR A SERIES OF INDIVIDUALS OR WHETHER CLASS,
GENDER, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
THAT IS AND RACE (ALSO PROBLEMATIC) MAY BE MORE
IMPORTANT. WHETHER PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUALS MAKE THEM
FOR HISTORICAL:
WE WILL LOOK AT THE SIMPLE NARRATIVES OF GROUPS
OF PEOPLE
HOW DID THEY COME TO BE WHERE THEY ARE?
WHAT ASPECTS OF THAT PATH WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT
IN DETERMINING WHERE THEY ARE
WE WILL DO THIS WITHIN A GEOGRAPHIC FRAMEWORK--
WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF THE PLACE IN WHICH THESE PEOPLE FIND THEMSELVES AND
HOW ARE THEY SHAPED BY THAT HISTORY?
THEN WE CAN HOPEFULLY COMPARE BOTH THE END POINTS; AND
THE CAUSAL PATHS OF THE VARIOUS GROUPS AND ASK QUESTIONS TO INFORM EACH SIDE OF THE INVESTIGATION
DID HISTORY SHAPE IDENTITY
DID HISTORY SHAPE OPPORTUNITY
DOES HISTORY MAKE FOR LINKS OR DISSOLVE THEM?
A FINAL GOAL FOR THIS COURSE IS TO TEACH YOU HOW
TO DO SOCIAL RESEARCH.
GIVEN THESE SETS OF QUESTIONS AND A READINGS ABOUT
POSSIBLE ANSWERS, HOW DO WE CONSTRUCT A PROJECT FOR UNDERSTANDING A LOCAL GROUP?
WE WILL APPLY ALL THESE QUESTIONS TO A GROUP OF
PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WHOSE IDENTITY IS SOME AMBIGUOUS AND
WHOSE EXISTENCE IS SO QUESTIONABLE (ON SOME LEVELS)
AS TO HAVE SEVERAL NAMES.
LATINOS, HISPANICS, SPANISH SPEAKING....
WE TEND TO AGREE ABOUT WHOM THIS MIGHT INCLUDE.
I WILL DISCUSS THE VARIOUS SUB-GROUPS IN THE NEXT
LECTURE.
FOR NOW, WE CAN AGREE THAT FOUR OF THE LARGEST POPULATIONS
CONSIST OF MEXICANS, CUBANS, AND PUERTO RICANS AND THAT THESE ARE
CONCENTRATED IN A NUMBER OF CITIES, FOUR OF WHICH ARE SAN ANTONIO, LOS
ANGELES, MIAMI, AND NEW YORK.
SO, WE ARE TO GOING TO LOOK AT THESE FOUR POPULATIONS IN THESE FOUR SETTINGS AND ASK WHETHER THESE DIFFERENT PEOPLE REALLY DO SHARE SOMETHING CALLED AN "ETHNICITY" OR WHETHER THE DIVISIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE UNITIES.
NOTE OF CAUTION:
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE TAUGHT THIS COURSE.
I AM NOT A SCHOLAR OF THIS POPUALTION
MY WRITING IS ON CONTEMPORARY LATIN AMERICNA POLITICS
AND THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE
I HAVE NEVER WRITTEN A SCHOLARLY PIECE ON THIS ISSUE
I DO HAVE SOME BUSINESS EXPERIENCE OF IT FROM THE
EARLY 1980S
BUT I WOULD CALL MYSELF A WELL-INFORMED AMATUER
WHAT I DO HAVE IS A SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION THAT
I CAN BRING TO BEAR ON THIS ISSUE
A WAY OF CATEGORIZING PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN SUCH
A MANNER THAT YOU CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE DATA I WILL BE GIVING YOU.
BUT AGAIN, I AM NOT EXPERT ON THESE POPUALTIONS OR
THESE CITIES
I LOOK TO THOSE OF YOU FROM THEM TO BRING UP POINTS,
DISAGREEMENTS AND COMMENTS IN ORDER TO ENRICH THE ANALYSIS
THAT'S ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA. LET ME JUST GO
OVER WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED.
ON ASSIGNMENTS:
TWO EXAMS-- A MIDTERM AND A FINAL. JUST TO KEEP
YOU HONEST. EACH ONE OF THESE WILL COUNT FOR 25% OF THE GRADE.
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TESTING OF WHETHER YOU HAVE
DONE THE READINGS.
FIRST EXAM ON MARCH 12TH, THE OTHER DURING FINALS
A RESEARCH PROJECT.
THIS WILL COUNT FOR 50% OF THE GRADE.
THIS RESEARCH PROJECT WILL INVOLVE PRIMARY RESEARCH
HERE IN THE LATINO COMMUNITY.
YOU WILL GO OUT AN GATHER INFORMATION THAT NO-ONE
ELSE HAS SEEN OR THOUGHT ABOUT.
THE POINT WILL BE TO ASK A SERIES OF IMPORTANT SOCIOLOGICAL
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.
DESIGN A RESEARCH PROGRAM THAT MIGHT ANSWER IT.
AND GO OUT AND DO IT.
YOU WILL THEN WRITE UP THE RESULTS AND A ROUGH DRAFT
WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE LAST WEEK OF CLASSES.
ALL PROJECTS WILL BE PUT UP ON THE WEB SITE FOR THE
COURSE (A BIT MORE ON THAT IN A MINUTE).
YOU WILL THEN TAKE COMMENTS, RE-WRITE THE PAPER AND
SUBMIT IT FOR A FINAL GRADE.
TOPICS ARE UP TO YOU WITH MY OK.
YOU WILL NEED TO SUBMIT A TOPIC AND SOME METHODOLOGICAL
PROGRAM TO ME BY THE END OF THE THIRD WEEK. THESE MUST BE APPROVED BY ME
OR BY VERONICA.
YOU ARE ALLOWED TO WORK TOGETHER-- AS MANY OF YOU
AS NEED BE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT (OUR CALL).
ALL PEOPLE IN THE GROUP WILL SHARE THE GRADE-- ONCE
YOU ARE IN A GROUP THAT IS IT-- YOU HAVE TO LIVE TOGETHER.
TOPICS INCLUDE:
PERFORMANCE OF LATINOS IN SCHOOL
ROLE OF THE CHURCH
CRIME AND POLICE RELATIONS
WORK CONDITIONS
MIGRATION PATTERNS
BASIC SOCI-DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE COMMUNITY
SURVEY WORK.
WE CAN WORK ON THESE OVER THE NEXT 2 WEEKS.
IMPORTANT: THIS WILL BE A LOT OF WORK FOR A LOT OF
PEOPLE AND WE AS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PERCEIVED AS A COMMUNITY
(WHETHER WE ARE ONE OR NOT IS PART OF THE
COURSE QUESTION) WILL BE JUDGED BY THIS.
WHICH MEANS THAT IF YOU ARE NOT READY TO TAKE THE
COURSE SERIOUSLY, PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT
THIS COURSE IS NOT ABOUT SELF-AFFIRMATION, OR ABOUT
YOU CHECKING STUFF OUT
IT IS ABOUT STUDYING WHAT IS INCREASINGLY THE MOST
IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.
COME TO PRECEPTS AND DO THE READING, OTHERWISE IT
WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THE WORK.
FOR NEXT WEEK, READ PORTES AND RUMBAUD, PP. 28-138,
269-298; PLUS ONE OF CHAPTERS 5-7.
I REALLY MEAN IT ABOUT NO LATE PAPERS: TWO REASONS:
CONFUSING FOR ME TO MANAGE THE PAPER FLOW AND SERVES AS A SUPER-EGO FOR YOU SO YOU KNOW ALREADY WHAT YOU
HAVE TO DO. SEE ME IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS. I'M USUALLY VERY GOOD ABOUT IT.
GRADES. I HATE THEM, BUT... PREFER PEOPLE TAKE
ON THE MATERIAL THAN REGURGITATE. INCLUDES DISAGREEING WITH ME. I TEND TO BE FAIRLY HARD GRADER.
PLEASE REMEMBER WHY IT WAS THAT YOU WANTED TO GO
TO PRINCETON-- THE LOVE OF BOOKS AND LEARNING AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
OFFICE HOURS ARE TBA DEPENDING ON PRECEPTS. I
ALSO TEND TO EAT IN MATHEY AND WE CAN MEET THEN.
THE SYLLABUS. LOT OF CHOICES TO MAKE REGARDING
WHAT IS IMPORTANT. SOME THINGS ARE NEGLECTED.
LET ME JUST TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE FEATURES
AND SHOW YOU THE WEB PAGE
IT IS THERE FOR FUN--- MINE AND YOURS. REMEMBER
THAT THE LINKS DO NOT REPLACE THE READINGS.
Today's lecture is about defining the categories
under which we might characterize members of this population and to discuss why one may be more salient than another.
I want to sensitize you to the importance of this
creation of categories.
By analyzing this population as þHispanicsþ
or Latinos, you are already making huge assumptions about what is the critical thing in their experience.
Classifying them under gender, class, or race, on
the other hand, could produce diametrically opposed findings.
Those of who you who suffered with me in Soc 101
will have to excuse the bit of repetition again, but I think you will find my definitions of this concept possibly
richer than those in Intro and in any case, necessary to understand what we want to do with this course.
Lets us begin with ethnicity.
The best definition perhaps remains that of Weber:
an ethnic group is one whose members entertain
a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or customs or both,
or because of memories of colonization and migration.....it does not matter whether or not an objective blood
relationship existsþ I would amend this definition in an important way.
Using a more recent definition we have:
ethnicity is a segment of a larger society
whose members are thought, by themselves, and/or others to have a common origin and to share important segments of
a common culture and who in addition, participate in shared activities in
which the common origin and culture are significant ingredients.
While Weber places the burden of the perception on
the members, we have to remember that it takes at least two social actors
to create an ethnic category-- a member
and an outsider.
Thus we would include those who might conceive of
that ethnic group form the outside as also helping to consolidate this
subjective belief (whatever its validity) into an ethnic category.
I will come back to this in a minute.
What features may form this perception?
geographic origin
language
religion
foods
tradition
folklore
music
residential patterns
political concerns
institutions
consciousness or sense of distinctiveness
Note that almost these have to do with what we might
cultural elements.
Ethnicity then involves the subjective acceptance of cultural similarities as having a salience in group
identity.
To what extent is this true for Latinos in the US?
Is there a common culture found in Miami, LA San Antonio and New York?--- answer is problematic.
we might all feel it at times, but to what extent
does it reflect any common set of interests?
And even these can have fine turning of names---
you can tell a great deal about someoneþs life, politics,
and culture by whether they identify themselves:
Imagine a person whose father was born in Mexico
but born in LA and these possible labels:
Hispanic
Latino
American of Mexican descent,
I. Mexican American
II. Chicano
III. American
It is important to consider that choice MAY BE an
important part of the creation of an ethnic identity.
this may be on an individual level-- what you decide
to call yourself at Princeton.
or as a social phenomenon
we will be looking at this in greater detial, but
there is considerable evidence that the creation of an ethnicity of
Latinos (and particularly for Mexicans
and Pueerto Ricans, the creation of national ethnic identities) was a
reflection of the Civil Rights movement led by African Americans in the
1950s and 1960s.
In the Mexican case this hasd to do a lot with the
woerk of Cesar Chavez, for example, among migrant workers.
In the case of Puerto Ricans, this had to do with
the very different migration situation and with the habit (in the 1960s) of state referal of PR issues to the Commonwealth
office in New York.
For the Cubans, it has had more to do with the US
policy towards Cuba.
More recently, there have been attempts to consolidate
a pan-ethnic--the work of Ruben Blades and Tato Laviera.Blades and his espousal of a common consciencia and
his criticims of the plasticos who tend to blend in.
Laviera espousal of chicano-rique¤os and the
possibility of neurican discovering that the Chicano is his carnal.
But I think that the Princeton experience might make
us doubt the automatic nature of such links.
To an extent, we can make ourselves what we are and
this is a dynamic process.
we need to study this process.
recall also what I said about the importance of an
external agent helping to create that ethnicity.
In fact, it might be said that one can only become
an ethnic (at least in US terms) except by a process of leaving
oneþs one space and entering a new
world through migration (forced or not)
So, ethnicity requires a presence of some other against
which one is labeled.
Geertz has said that ethnicity is þthe longing
not to be belong to any other group;-- a negation.
One form of that negation is the increasing concern
from a variety of political quarters that the Hispanic/Latino population
is overwhelming American
culture and hampering the development of an þAmerican
idendity; from this view, the classification of a common identity
or ethnicty may be a negative one--- hampering the assimilation of this population.
Another actor that has played an important role is
business.
There has been a boom in the Hispanic
market.
Even a company like Coors recognizes it and has tried to include Hispanic marketing in their startegies.
In the case of Latinos, probably the biggest actor
in defining a common identity has been the state.
particularly relevant is the work of the Census Bureau.
(there is a whole discussion about why this kind
of information is considered important-- why is it that we need to know this as opposed to foot size?)
Until 1920, the census recognized a Mexican sub-section
of the population as a nationality (much like European immigrants) through
the second generation at which point they disappeared into
the general population.
In 1930, the Census established the classification
of Mexican; and put it under the rubric of other
races (non-white).
This met with opposition from both the Sate department
and the Mexican Government (which is interesting since the latter was at the same time constructing its
own myth about the raza cosmica)
It also under-counted the population as many light-skinned, middle-class Mexicans refused to list themselves.
For example, in 1930, new Mexico had an estimated
200,000 Spanish speaking people but only less than 62,000 listed themselves as Mexican.
In 1940, the Census asked for mother tongue-- this
picked up 1.9 million in the USA
But this was also unsatisfactory because they found
that significant parts of the Mexican-American population already spoke English at home.
From 1950-1970, the census arrived at the last name
solution. They literally matched names to a list of 7,718 names thought
to indicate Spanish origin (with complicated exceptions)
This was imperfect as in studies 81% with a Spanish
surname identified themselves as Spanish origin and 74% of those identifying themselves as Spanish origin
had a Spanish surname.
Debates about the inclusion of Mexicans developed
into the concept of Hispanics (including Puerto Ricans and Cubans) through the 1970s and this along with Spanish
origin has become an extra question on the census (self-identification) separate from the race question.
All this is still being debated and decided.
Another point to keep in mind about ethnicity is
that it is not only socially constructed, but historically so-- it is the result of a process of residential and
occupational segregation and or concentration.
This will become extremely important when we look
at what happens within national origin groups as opposed to between them.
The point of this whole story is to make you conscious
of the what we might call socially capricious nature of definitions of ethnicity.
Consider what you might have labeled yourself before
coming to Princeton and how you might label yourself in a variety of different setting after graduation.
Similar arguments could be made about another categorical
concept: race.
As we leaned in excruciating detail last semester,
race is a constructed concept.
That is-- there is no genetic or þnatural basisþ
for different races or for categorizing people and predicting their behavior on that score.
Nevertheless, race as a term might serve as a sub-category
of ethnicity:
as a social classification by members of a society
based on putative physical traits to complement those more cultural ones defined by ethnicity.
We don't have to accept the validity of the
concept of race as a social category to understand that physical aspects
associated with the term may make a huge
difference in peoples' lives.
Obvious example here is skin color.
It might mean nothing in terms of ability, etc.,
but it does mean a great deal in terms of life chances and probability of being observed in a store on Nassau
St.
This consideration is particularly important when
we are talking about a n ethnicity such as Latinos (assuming for the
moment that it does exist) if we are interested in analyzing a social phenomena
such as this population, is "Latin ethnicity" important for determining
life chances or is it skin color.
A white Argentineans or Cuban might share some of
the "ethnic" cultures of Mexicans and PR (still open
to debate), but is unlikely to find the same sort of
social stigmas faced by Mixtec indian from Oaxaca, a black Dominican, or a dark skinned Puerto Rican.
(The issue if Indians is particularly tricky-- to
call them Latinos or Hispanics seems to be adding insult to injury, no).
All this divisions might pale in term of significance
to someoneþs life compared to gender.
Gender is "an organized pattern of social relations between
women and men, not only in face to face interaction and within the family but also in the major institutions of
society such as social class the hierarchies of large scale organizations
and the occupational structure."
As we will see and at least some of you will attest,
being a woman presents a series of social obstacles against which anything involving ethnicity might pale.
It gets even more complicated in that defenses of
ethnicity might end up re-enforcing gender exploitation.
Let me give you an example studied by a senior some
years ago.
She was interested in finding out the educational
progress of Mexican-American men vs. women.
She found that the data did not indicate any pattern.
BUT in gathering narratives for the thesis, she found
many sisters and wives of the male "success stories" that were þpaying for these with their own opportunities
sacrificed.
That is, an ethnic victory was being accomplished
by gender defeats.
An important issue and one that I hope to analyze
is how heterosexual gender realtions may be creating a pan-ethnicity through intermarriage.
46% of Puerto Ricna marriages and 55% of Dominican
marriages in New York in early 1980s appear to have been with other Latino
groups--- these family links may be where we will find a common
pan-ethnicity?
All of these categories are ascribed.
So, in many ways is class, but it is one in which
some agency (however minimal) might be recognized.
Class involves a separation of a society according
to a) relations to means of production; b) status in the market; c) simple
income; d) cultural and social capital
When dealing with the effects of ethnicity or race,
or gender, it is also vital to understand the possible effect of class.
To an extent, common class position or structural
position within an economic system might link at least significant parts of the þLatinoþ community.
This would certainly be an argument for an LA-New
York nexos.
But does this apply to San Antonio and Miami?
All this to say that we must be careful approaching
our subject and not allowing a consciousness of a supposed common culture to necessarily overwhelm the possible
critical importance of other factors that may be determining peoples' life
chances.
I will be giving you some infromation on this next
Monday.
an alternative way of imagining these divisions is
not so statistically, but analyzing them in terms of a more dynamic process.
We can imagine different takes on a Latino ethnicity
depending on a series of experiences.
entry integration
reaffirmation
immigration Reception symbolic
economic
economic Structural political
political cultural
conquest
Social/economic mobility
Geographical mobility
Discrimination
Birth Residential location "Minority" status
Origin Labor market ethnic status
Ancestry Social class national identity
Language
Race What does this mean for you in the course?
For the course it means building a þdata bankþ
regarding the gender, class, racial, political, economic, social, etc.
experiences of the different populations we
will study.
Look for difference between and among the populations.
Doe sit mean the same thing to be a Mexican light
skinned woman in San Antonio then a dark skinned man in New York? A Mexican doctor working as an insurance clerk
in LA and a Cuban one working in Miami?
And we will try to integrate all this information into a hisotreical fremework.
Imagine all the possible different combinations.
We will discuss these in class on Monday.
What does this mean for the Princeton project?
You can explore similar questions, but rather than
doing þfrom aboveþ-- a macro view--- which is what
we will be doing here, you can do so "from below",
by looking at the detailed experiences of Princeton Latinos.
So, if you are interested in class differences, you
might gather data on income, education, professional histories and ascertain how much of a range exists
in Princeton.
For gender, you could obtain information on the distribution
of similar variables across gender or gather information on the home lives of Latino men and women.
For race, you might explore the experiences of different
migrant groups depending on how easily they might "pass on Nassau St.
All of these can be done using aggregate data-- censuses,
surveys, etc.
I also want to encourage you to explore two other
possibilities:
Using institutions (churches, schools, police, etc.)
Individual family narratives.
We will have to discuss guidelines for these.
SOCIOLOGY
OF LATINOS
Why is all this conceptual fine tuning important?
Because the 27 million Hispanics (probably an undercount)
represent an increasingly important part of American life.
Mex: 64%
PR: 11%
Cubans: 5%
Central/South Am: 14%
Other: 7%
By the year 2030, Hispanics will be 60 million and
make up 20% of the population.
Hispanics add about 1 million a year (these numbers are very
sensitive to assumptions
about fertility-- an issue that should be explored in the Princeton community).
Concentrated in young. The median age is 26.4 as
opposed 34 for non-Hispanic.
A part that is increasingly having some problems
In 1995, median household income rose for every other
group, but fell 5.1% of Latinos
Whites made $36,000 while both blacks and Hispanics
made a little over $22,000.
If we look at average wages, whites make $494, blacks
$383, and Hispanics make $329 (these differences exist ----with less of a gulf) even if we control for occupational
category.
Since 1989 median income fro Hispanics has gone down
14% while it has risen slightly for blacks and considerable for white anglos.
Hispanics make up 24% of Americas poor (up 8% since
1985) and 24% of the þpoorest of the poorþ-- those
with incomes below 7500 for a family of four.
Of all Hispanics 30% were considered poor
The figures were even worse for families with children
(33.2%) overall, 40% of Hispanic children were poor.
55% of Hispanic children participated in school lunch
programs.
26.8% of Hispanic children not covered by insurance.
and for female-headed families--- which is roughly
1/4 of Hispanic families---- the rate is 49.4%.
The last figure is particularly significant. We
need to discuss the implications of a þfeminizationþ
of poverty in a Latino cultural setting.
for female headed families with a child the number
was 57%.
These poor included the þworking poorþ--
those with less than ca. $15,000 for a family of four but with
a year-round, full-time worker---- 12.2% of Hispanic families.
Very high labor force participation for men. Lower
than average for women.
But unemployment is higher.
Why the economic downturn?
some of it may be a combination of statistics and
demographics.
demographics are very different between the subgroups and the greatest pop growth is occurring in the poorest.
(more on that in a minute)
unskilled work wages have gone down
27.5% are in relatively low skill jobs
Only 11.4% are in professional/managerial as opposed
to 27.4% non-Hispanics.
migration from LA (2 million between 1990-1995) may
have also brought down wages in precisely those fields where Hispanics are concentrated in major centers such
as California)
interesting issue for pan-ethnic solidarity?
de-industrialization and safety
Hispanic males were victimized at a rate of 49.5
per 1000 as opposed to 36.3 per 1000
health and fitness?
less than 60% had insurance as opposed to 83.5% for
white males.
practically double pop representation in AIDS/HIV
Increasing consensus that education is a problem.
Only 12.7% of whites dropped out of HS in 1994 and
15.5% of blacks, but for Latinos the figure is 34.7%!
52% of Hispanics over 25 years old have a HS as opposed
to 81.5% of non-Hispanics.
in 1994, only 9% of Hispanics had college degrees
as opposed to 24% on non-Hispanics.
This ratio has gotten worse--- in 1975, the numbers
were 5 and 11.6%.
only 2.2% of full time faculty were Hispanics (Princeton
may be under this norm).
Hispanics are more likely than other minority students
to attend predominantly minority HS (74%) as opposed to for Black
students.
Bu a lot of myths: By the time they have ben here
for 15 years, 75% of Hispanics speak English
The effects of educational performances?
40% of Hispanic families w/o a HS diploma were poor
(50% of PR families).
How can we begin to address these problems.
But the aggregate figures also tend to hide significant
differences between groups.
Families under poverty:
PR: 35.4%
Mex-Am: 27.6%
South Am/CA: 23.9%
Cuban: 17.2%
Education (completed HS > 25)
Mex: 45.2%
PR: 60.5%
Cubans 62%
CA/South: 61.7%
What about gender?
Hispanic females drop out earlier, but overall drop-out
less than males.
Major reason is marriage and/or pregnancy-- for males
it is either a job or expulsion.
Latinas had much higher fertility rates (about 60%
higher than non-Hispanic)
Latina girls are twice a likely to become parents
as white girls and are more frequently unmarried
PR had the highest proportion of single mother families
(41%) as opposed to 21.8% fro Cubans and 21.3% for Puerto Ricans.
consequences: 65% of female head of households 18-24
were living in poverty.
But they seem to have better jobs-- over 16% in
managerial/professional gulf between them and white women is much less than
between Hispanic and white men-- (30% vs. 100%)
National origins rankings are reversed with PR women
making the most of all Hispanic women ($13,000) and Mexicans making the least.
Family structure:
Cubans and Mexicans have the highest rate of families
headed by couples (74.4% and 71.2% receptively)--- Puerto Ricans have the worse (##).
What about attitude toward political and social issues?
These populations do share a certain political marginality
(although this may not really be true for Cubans).
Puerto Ricans in New York:
community not involved in local politics until 1960s-1970s but still marginal because of decentralization of
power in the city and lack of PR resources. Bronx is an exception.
critical vote for Dems (overwhelming support) in
order to carry state
political elite has been independent and may have
lost influence because of it.
Mex-Am in Texas:
still underrepresented but increasing dramatically
since 1980.
competition between the two parties fairly strong.
Los Angeles
traditionally also marginalized
first elected Mex-Am to LA City Council in 1991
Latinos get elected by Latinos
Dems.
Miami
Republican support (half consider themselves conservative)
would not support aid to their own group
very strong in Miami
Results from LPEP project: