Search Results

Immigrant worship communities help forge a sense of identity among participants, but that identity may be religious or ethnic, both at once, or a combination of the two. Most immigrants develop multiple identities. At the same time, worship communities sometimes struggle over the particular identity they represent, as when African or Hindu groups divide into ethnically differentiated worship communities. In the case of many area mosques, an overarching religious identity brings together immigrants from a variety of national and ethnic backgrounds, and even religious traditions within Islam. Leaders often call upon either ethnic or religious identities in mobilizing members of their communities for political action.

This chapter explores what it means to call a church “multiethnic”. It distinguishes the multiethnic church from other institutional forms that urban churches have developed to “manage” diversity by defining the multiethnic church as an inclusive, ethnically diverse community. In practice, such churches are often criticized for ignoring or overemphasizing diversity. The challenge for the multiethnic church is to both affirm the unique ethnic heritage of its members and create a shared sense of community. The chapter considers how Evergreen has institutionalized its commitment to the inclusion of diversity, and how the significance of ethnic identity is understood in this multiethnic setting.

This chapter demonstrates how Korean American camp counselors locally construct ethnic identity through the practice of self‐categorization in discourse. Self‐categorization, or the identification of oneself in terms of ethnic identity, serves to position counselors in terms of Korean ethnicity and to associate that identity with one's personal goals in participating in the Korean camp. Counselors discuss and debate whether the teaching of Korean heritage or the mentorship of the campers should be the primary objective of the camp. This opposition between ‘heritage’ and ‘mentorship’ is cast as a source of tensions that map onto ideologies of identity, whereby ‘Korean American’ identity acquires the local meaning of being linked to the importance of mentorship over Korean heritage.

Hostility dominated the relations between the Normans and the English during the Middle Ages. Peace between the two ethnic groups proved unattainable, and the animosity lingered well into the 12th century. Yet by the end of the 12th century, this hostile state of affairs was altered beyond recognition. Ethnic distinctions had broken down to the point that one could not know who was English and who was Norman. Although Norman French continued to be spoken, at least as a second language, until the 14th century, the aristocracy of England, descended in large measure from the conquerors, came to identify itself firmly as English. In fact, the two peoples merged quite quickly. Despite Norman victory and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the conquerors, Normanitas, the identity of the ruling dynasty and its chief warriors, eventually ceded to the Englishness of the conquered people. These are the processes with which this book is concerned.

This chapter investigates how Latinos' racial and ethnic identities yield either similar or dissimilar educational outcomes to African American youth. It analyzes interethnic differences between African Americans and Latinos in behaviors and attitudes about “acting white” and suggests that gender has the strongest influence. It discussed findings that Latinos are more likely than Latinas to share cultural styles, such as those of hip-hop culture, with African American youths.

Applying a discursive approach to categories, this chapter examines video data which is extracted from the discussion section of a panel presentation titled “Japanese American Contemporary Experiences in Hawai'i,” which took place at the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai'i in 2003. It specifically investigates how participants who are often categorized as Japanese or Japanese Americans in Hawai'i use a variety of categories or references to themselves and others and how their orientation to the meaning of categories may instantiate their (subcategories of) ethnicity. My analysis is mainly concerned with how they deploy emergent categories to interactively position themselves and co‐participants, constructing and negotiating “who‐we‐know‐we‐are” (Schegloff 1972) at the moment of interaction.

Both before and after 1066, a strong sense of ethnic identity existed in Normandy, at least among the elites. To untangle the course of ethnic relations after the conquest, this chapter examines the basis of Norman identity, or Normanitas, and its strengths and weaknesses. Before turning to the nature of pre-conquest Norman identity, however, this chapter investigates whether this is the main way in which the conquerors of England viewed themselves. The formulaic phrase ‘to his men, French and English’, which appears in the opening lines of thousands of English charters, dating from shortly after the conquest to the early 13th century, raises the question of whether the invaders considered themselves Norman or French.

Although cultural assimilation and the re-emergence of a dominant English identity were closely related, they were separate processes, with somewhat different dynamics. The shift in ethnic identity needs to be conceptualised in a different manner than in the past, and this requires treating its chronology independently of that for assimilation. Moreover, in the chronology of identity there was an additional phase, lasting into the 13th century, in which the descendants of Normans in the aristocracy moved from simply accepting English identity to embracing it and making it a part of their political agenda and propaganda. The most important symptom of the problem of group identity in post-conquest England is the widespread avoidance of ethnic terminology in histories from most of the 12th century, when compared to the preceding and following periods, and particularly in contexts involving the elites.

This chapter reflects in a speculative manner about the ways in which the process of globalization might affect the extent of discrimination against people on account of their (broadly defined) ethnic group identity, as well as the extent of efforts to combat such discrimination via affirmative action. It begins by offering definitions of the key terms contained in the title of the chapter. Section 2 addresses the question: how does globalization influence the propensity for ethnicity-based discrimination? Section 3 considers how globalization might impinge on the propensity to counter such discrimination with policies of affirmative action. Finally, Section 4 offers a brief conclusion.

Cultural assimilation was strongly affected by the precise nature of the social interaction between the English and the Normans during the medieval period. Yet one cannot simply mechanically trace the relative contribution of each ethnic group and the shape of the new integrated culture from the numbers of individuals in each people, or even from the numbers of each people in various social groups. Just as personal interaction and constructs of identity affected cultural assimilation, so the melding of the two cultures affected questions of identity and relations between the English and Normans, a point that is no more than common sense. This chapter examines the contribution of culture to ethnic relations and identity and the complexity of relations between culture and identity. Three case studies are discussed, one of which investigates the telling of history after the Norman conquest, showing more ways in which it influenced identity, but also showing the limitations of that influence and how identity shaped history.

Over the long sweep of history it is difficult to argue that the lands around the Black Sea have been more volatile, a sense of ethnic identity more deeply felt, or questions of land, custom, and religion more divisive than in any other part of Europe or Eurasia. At times the region has been a frontier between different empires and civilizations; at other times, it has been a well-integrated part of broader European—even global—economic and political relationships. The ecology of the sea itself set the stage for long periods of interaction and exchange.

This chapter presents a brief overview of Englishness and of ethnic interaction before the Norman conquest of 1066 to understand the fate of that identity and the nature of relations between English and Normans after the conquest. A key factor in the survival of Englishness after 1066 is the strength of that identity before. The various factors that upheld English identity in the Anglo-Saxon period are examined to explain its strength and reveal both change and continuity in that identity in the generations following 1066. This chapter also discusses how the English dealt with important pre-conquest minorities and their interaction with the Normans.

An important support for the emergence of Englishness after the Norman conquest was the construct of England. This raises important questions about the relations between place and identity and about how a large and highly abstract geographic designation could command loyalty and therefore influence questions of ethnicity. This was typical of a process known as the territorialisation of memory, by which ethnic identity can lead to a new conceptualisation of landscape through linking a place to a people and their historical memory. This chapter examines how a conceptualisation of the landscape and a sense of place influenced ethnicity. More specifically, it examines the survival of the concept of England after the conquest, and its contribution to the triumph of English identity. It argues that in contrast to Englishness, which became problematic because of the introduction of ethnic divisions and the creation of a non-English ruling elite, the concept of England remained largely unaffected by the conquest.

This chapter focuses on the importance of ethnic identity change for conflict transformation. The author asserts that collective identity is malleable, constructed in interaction with other social actors, and subject to incremental change. Those who sponsor the display of group symbols and rituals are situated to introduce new ideas and shift group boundaries. However, such change is limited by structural circumstances, strategic imperatives, and the social psychological needs of group members. Fortunately, the shift in Northern Ireland’s conflict toward nonviolent political persuasion provides opportunities for unionists and loyalists to reflect on their priorities, articulate their goals and identities, and thereby develop a sense of empowerment that is conducive to the development of a multicultural society.

This chapter argues that there is yet a case to be made about the nature of identity and its political and epistemic implications. It is certainly not the case that the work we need to do is finished; there are numerous “authentic” problems of identity that need attending to, but we do not need to overcome identity as much as tounderstand it more deeply. An alternative account of identity is developed which will be used to show the inadequacy of the assumptions behind the critique of identity.

Assimilation and the construction and maintenance of ethnic identities are social processes, and one must not lose sight of the fact that individual humans are the driving force behind them. Individual people, by developing new relationships across ethnic lines over the course of generations, cumulatively create assimilation. By exchanging beliefs, practices, and ideas between different groups, they bring about cultural assimilation. The collective impact of their personal decisions causes the loss, maintenance, or triumph of a particular ethnic identity. This chapter explores important issues and problems of methodology, terminology, evidence, and definition concerning the personal interaction between English and Normans. Because the interaction occurred over several generations, the focus is on the precise role of descent in ethnicity in this society.

This chapter discusses the ways in which the image of other peoples helped to strengthen English identity and eliminate the boundaries between natives and immigrants. Anthropologists have often stressed that ethnic identity is relational, i.e. that it is defined partly in contrast to other groups, and Fredrik Barth in particular has argued that peoples define themselves through what makes them different from other groups. What the inhabitants of England thought about other peoples helped to shape how they thought about themselves. It also helped to create a sense of unity that overcame earlier divisions. In the decades after the conquest, the English and Normans probably contrasted themselves mainly with each other. But as time went on comparison with other peoples made the conquerors and the conquered seem more alike. Exposure to other groups helped to make clear what the two peoples had in common from the beginning and, as cultural assimilation proceeded, underscored their growing cultural unity.