{"title":"Melanin and Curls: Evaluation of Black Women Candidates — CORRIGENDUM","authors":"Danielle Casarez Lemi, Nadia Elizabeth Brown","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.42","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"3222 1","pages":"355 - 355"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86591197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper examines the context-dependent role of race as a predictor of non-electoral political participation. Prior country-level studies have documented group-level differences in a variety of forms of participation in South Africa and the United States, but have found few to no differences in Brazil. Why are members of one group more engaged in certain political activities than members of other groups only in specific contexts? Why do members of socioeconomically deprived groups, such as non-Whites, participate more than better-off groups in acts that require group mobilization in South Africa and the United States but not in Brazil? Results from the World Values Survey and the International Social Survey Programme show that Blacks and Coloureds in South Africa and Blacks in the United States participate more than Whites in activities that demand prior organization and mobilization, whereas group differences are negligible in Brazil. I argue that (1) race as a driver of political mobilization is conditional on the existence of politicized racial identities; (2) members of groups that share a strong collective identity participate in direct political action more than predicted by their socioeconomic background; (3) politicization of identities is the product of racial projects that deploy the state apparatus to enforce group boundaries for the implementation of segregationist policies as well as the reactions against them; and (4) by enforcing group boundaries, those systems unintentionally create the conditions for the formation of politicized group identities. In the absence of such requisites, political mobilization along racial lines would be weak or nonexistent.
{"title":"Race and non-electoral political participation in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States","authors":"Fabrício M. Fialho","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.29","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper examines the context-dependent role of race as a predictor of non-electoral political participation. Prior country-level studies have documented group-level differences in a variety of forms of participation in South Africa and the United States, but have found few to no differences in Brazil. Why are members of one group more engaged in certain political activities than members of other groups only in specific contexts? Why do members of socioeconomically deprived groups, such as non-Whites, participate more than better-off groups in acts that require group mobilization in South Africa and the United States but not in Brazil? Results from the World Values Survey and the International Social Survey Programme show that Blacks and Coloureds in South Africa and Blacks in the United States participate more than Whites in activities that demand prior organization and mobilization, whereas group differences are negligible in Brazil. I argue that (1) race as a driver of political mobilization is conditional on the existence of politicized racial identities; (2) members of groups that share a strong collective identity participate in direct political action more than predicted by their socioeconomic background; (3) politicization of identities is the product of racial projects that deploy the state apparatus to enforce group boundaries for the implementation of segregationist policies as well as the reactions against them; and (4) by enforcing group boundaries, those systems unintentionally create the conditions for the formation of politicized group identities. In the absence of such requisites, political mobilization along racial lines would be weak or nonexistent.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"48 1","pages":"262 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87933336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Autonomy carries the promise of resolving longstanding distributive inequalities between indigenous and non-indigenous groups. Yet, contemporary autonomy arrangements have often been associated instead with a reduction in native communities' access to needed public goods and services. I situate these negative effects within a broader autonomy-representation dilemma: autonomy provides indigenous groups with more responsive coethnic leaders, but these leaders frequently face difficulties in collecting and deploying revenue. These capacity constraints often arise from the way national governments have recognized autonomy. As such, pursuing coethnic representation within the state might—under certain conditions—be more likely to provide indigenous groups with needed goods and services. Drawing on natural experimental evidence and an original survey of indigenous community presidents from Peru, I first demonstrate that achieving coethnic political representation within the state can expand indigenous groups' access to the public good they most need: water. I then illustrate how capacity constraints that arise from autonomy have prevented native groups in Bolivia's autonomous municipalities from achieving similar distributive gains. Ultimately, the findings provide insights for understanding the sources of—and potential institutional remedies for—indigenous groups' unequal access to local public goods in the Americas and beyond.
{"title":"The Autonomy-Representation Dilemma: Indigenous Groups and Distributive Benefits in the Americas","authors":"C. Carter","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.25","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Autonomy carries the promise of resolving longstanding distributive inequalities between indigenous and non-indigenous groups. Yet, contemporary autonomy arrangements have often been associated instead with a reduction in native communities' access to needed public goods and services. I situate these negative effects within a broader autonomy-representation dilemma: autonomy provides indigenous groups with more responsive coethnic leaders, but these leaders frequently face difficulties in collecting and deploying revenue. These capacity constraints often arise from the way national governments have recognized autonomy. As such, pursuing coethnic representation within the state might—under certain conditions—be more likely to provide indigenous groups with needed goods and services. Drawing on natural experimental evidence and an original survey of indigenous community presidents from Peru, I first demonstrate that achieving coethnic political representation within the state can expand indigenous groups' access to the public good they most need: water. I then illustrate how capacity constraints that arise from autonomy have prevented native groups in Bolivia's autonomous municipalities from achieving similar distributive gains. Ultimately, the findings provide insights for understanding the sources of—and potential institutional remedies for—indigenous groups' unequal access to local public goods in the Americas and beyond.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"110 1","pages":"294 - 315"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74480989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In calling for articles for this special issue we sought to feature the institution of the US presidency and its implications for racial and ethnic politics in the United States. It was our sense that the race, ethnicity, and politics (REP) literature would benefit from such an emphasis by increasing and complementing the modest amount of extant research on the presidency within the subfield. At the time, bringing in racial dimensions would enrich the presidency research. While presidency scholars have often used case studies about issues racial and ethnic politics to develop theories about the functioning of the institution (see, for example, Graham, 1990; Milkis et al., 2013; Tichenor, 2016), presidential studies writ large has been slow to adopt core theoretical perspectives from the REP subfield. Similarly, the insights from the rich tradition of research on the US presidency propagated by pioneering scholars of color—like Barnett (1983), Walters (1988), and Walton (1985) has been largely unrecognized and underappreciated. Since behaviorism emerged as the dominant approach to the study of racial and ethnic politics in the 1970s. The election of Barrack Hussain Obama as the 44th president in 2008 generated a resurgent interest in the presidency and the role that the institution plays in racial and ethnic politics with the REP subfield (Tesler and Sears 2010; Sanchez et al., 2012; Smith, 2013; Price, 2016; Tillery, 2019). Our goal with this volume is to support this burgeoning movement. To that end, we have sought to prompt, promote, and to provide critical assessment of the extent and the ways in which “presidential-related” activities—including presidents, presidential administrations, policies, as well as election processes— acknowledge, engage, frame, or conceptualize ideas, and emphasize (or ignore) social factors, public policies, as structured by factors relevant to race and racial equality (or inequality) in US politics. Our goal is to spur the growth of presidential research in the REP subfield to rival the rich traditions that the field maintains in Congressional studies (Minta, 2011; Wallace, 2014; Tate 2018) and State and Local politics (Browning et al., 1986; Grimshaw, 1995; Hero 1998). The six articles that comprise this special issue have risen to the challenge of our call. They fall roughly into three very common trajectories of research on the US
在为本期特刊征集文章时，我们试图以美国总统制度及其对美国种族和民族政治的影响为特色。我们的感觉是，种族、民族和政治(REP)文献将受益于这样的强调，通过增加和补充该子领域内现有的少量关于总统的研究。当时，引入种族因素会丰富总统研究。虽然总统学者经常使用有关种族和民族政治问题的案例研究来发展有关该机构运作的理论(例如，参见Graham, 1990;Milkis et al.， 2013;Tichenor, 2016)，总统研究在采用REP子领域的核心理论观点方面进展缓慢。同样，由巴内特(Barnett, 1983)、沃尔特斯(Walters, 1988)和沃尔顿(Walton, 1985)等有色人种先驱学者传播的关于美国总统的丰富研究传统的见解，在很大程度上没有得到认可和重视。自从行为主义在20世纪70年代成为研究种族和民族政治的主要方法以来。2008年巴拉克·侯赛因·奥巴马当选为第44任总统，重新激起了人们对总统职位以及该机构在REP子领域的种族和民族政治中所起作用的兴趣(特斯勒和西尔斯2010;Sanchez et al.， 2012;史密斯,2013;价格,2016;Tillery, 2019)。我们这本书的目标是支持这一蓬勃发展的运动。为此，我们试图提示、促进并提供对“总统相关”活动(包括总统、总统行政部门、政策以及选举过程)承认、参与、框架或概念化思想的程度和方式的批判性评估，并强调(或忽视)社会因素、公共政策，这些因素是由美国政治中与种族和种族平等(或不平等)相关的因素构成的。我们的目标是促进总统研究在REP子领域的发展，以与该领域在国会研究中保持的丰富传统相抗衡(Minta, 2011;华莱士,2014;Tate 2018)以及州和地方政治(Browning et al.， 1986;格,1995;英雄1998)。本期特刊的六篇文章响应了我们的号召。它们大致可以分为三种非常常见的美国研究轨迹
{"title":"Race and the Bully Pulpit: The U.S. Presidency and the Quest of Equality in America","authors":"Rodney E. Hero, Alvin B. Tillery","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.27","url":null,"abstract":"In calling for articles for this special issue we sought to feature the institution of the US presidency and its implications for racial and ethnic politics in the United States. It was our sense that the race, ethnicity, and politics (REP) literature would benefit from such an emphasis by increasing and complementing the modest amount of extant research on the presidency within the subfield. At the time, bringing in racial dimensions would enrich the presidency research. While presidency scholars have often used case studies about issues racial and ethnic politics to develop theories about the functioning of the institution (see, for example, Graham, 1990; Milkis et al., 2013; Tichenor, 2016), presidential studies writ large has been slow to adopt core theoretical perspectives from the REP subfield. Similarly, the insights from the rich tradition of research on the US presidency propagated by pioneering scholars of color—like Barnett (1983), Walters (1988), and Walton (1985) has been largely unrecognized and underappreciated. Since behaviorism emerged as the dominant approach to the study of racial and ethnic politics in the 1970s. The election of Barrack Hussain Obama as the 44th president in 2008 generated a resurgent interest in the presidency and the role that the institution plays in racial and ethnic politics with the REP subfield (Tesler and Sears 2010; Sanchez et al., 2012; Smith, 2013; Price, 2016; Tillery, 2019). Our goal with this volume is to support this burgeoning movement. To that end, we have sought to prompt, promote, and to provide critical assessment of the extent and the ways in which “presidential-related” activities—including presidents, presidential administrations, policies, as well as election processes— acknowledge, engage, frame, or conceptualize ideas, and emphasize (or ignore) social factors, public policies, as structured by factors relevant to race and racial equality (or inequality) in US politics. Our goal is to spur the growth of presidential research in the REP subfield to rival the rich traditions that the field maintains in Congressional studies (Minta, 2011; Wallace, 2014; Tate 2018) and State and Local politics (Browning et al., 1986; Grimshaw, 1995; Hero 1998). The six articles that comprise this special issue have risen to the challenge of our call. They fall roughly into three very common trajectories of research on the US","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"21 1","pages":"473 - 477"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83863664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"REP volume 6 issue 3 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.26","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"f1 - f4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88580856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract We analyze the prevalence and framing of references to equality and inequality in presidential state of the union addresses (SOTUs) delivered between 1960 and 2018. Despite rising income inequality and increased attention among political elites to structural inequalities of race and gender in recent years, we find very few direct or indirect references to inequality as a social problem and surprisingly few references even to the ostensibly consensual and primary values of equal opportunity and political equality. References to racial inequality have been few and far between since the height of the civil rights era. By contrast, another primary value in the American political tradition—economic individualism are a major focus in these SOTUs. We trace the scant presence of equality talk in these speeches to the ambiguous scope of egalitarian goals and principles and their close tie-in with race in America. We rely on automated text analysis and systematic hand-coding of these speeches to identify broad thematic emphases as well as on close reading to interpret the patterns that these techniques reveal.
{"title":"Unequal values: equality and race in state of the union addresses, 1960–2018","authors":"Rodney E. Hero, Morris Levy","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.21","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We analyze the prevalence and framing of references to equality and inequality in presidential state of the union addresses (SOTUs) delivered between 1960 and 2018. Despite rising income inequality and increased attention among political elites to structural inequalities of race and gender in recent years, we find very few direct or indirect references to inequality as a social problem and surprisingly few references even to the ostensibly consensual and primary values of equal opportunity and political equality. References to racial inequality have been few and far between since the height of the civil rights era. By contrast, another primary value in the American political tradition—economic individualism are a major focus in these SOTUs. We trace the scant presence of equality talk in these speeches to the ambiguous scope of egalitarian goals and principles and their close tie-in with race in America. We rely on automated text analysis and systematic hand-coding of these speeches to identify broad thematic emphases as well as on close reading to interpret the patterns that these techniques reveal.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"21 1","pages":"499 - 528"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81869686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
of Race can be read as a history of ideas companion to political and cultural histories of Anglo-Americanism like Kathleen Burk’s Old World, New World (2008). One of the blind spots of Bell’s Anglotopian subjects was that they saw Anglo-American racial amity as immanent, rather than as an identity that needed to be fostered and rejuvenated over time. Except for Wells, the thinking of few of the figures Bell writes about evolved much, and they seemingly learned little from the failures of earlier Anglo-American union visions. Perhaps, this is evidence that racial utopias are by their nature ahistorical, proverbial “castles in the sky” that remain evanescent, but whose pursuit causes real harm to those groups excluded from the providential community. It would be interesting for other scholars to extend Bell’s scholarship to look at how capital and class shaped visions of Anglo-American union—to what extent was this an elite, and furthermore a conservative, project, and to what extent was it a racial vision that manifested itself in different ways and forms in different parts of the late-Victorian global English-speaking society. One of the great merits of this book is how it suggests many fruitful further lines of inquiry on the nature of white supremacy and Anglo-Saxonism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
{"title":"Moral Majorities Across the Americas: Brazil, the United States, and the Creation of the Religious Right By Benjamin A. Cowan. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2021. 304 pp. $29.95 (paper), $95.00 (hardcover).","authors":"Paul A. Djupe","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.28","url":null,"abstract":"of Race can be read as a history of ideas companion to political and cultural histories of Anglo-Americanism like Kathleen Burk’s Old World, New World (2008). One of the blind spots of Bell’s Anglotopian subjects was that they saw Anglo-American racial amity as immanent, rather than as an identity that needed to be fostered and rejuvenated over time. Except for Wells, the thinking of few of the figures Bell writes about evolved much, and they seemingly learned little from the failures of earlier Anglo-American union visions. Perhaps, this is evidence that racial utopias are by their nature ahistorical, proverbial “castles in the sky” that remain evanescent, but whose pursuit causes real harm to those groups excluded from the providential community. It would be interesting for other scholars to extend Bell’s scholarship to look at how capital and class shaped visions of Anglo-American union—to what extent was this an elite, and furthermore a conservative, project, and to what extent was it a racial vision that manifested itself in different ways and forms in different parts of the late-Victorian global English-speaking society. One of the great merits of this book is how it suggests many fruitful further lines of inquiry on the nature of white supremacy and Anglo-Saxonism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"673 - 675"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78198594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract What shapes Americans' attitudes toward and about Native Americans? Public opinion research acknowledges that race and ethnicity are a factor in shaping US public opinion. Native Americans have been almost entirely excluded from this research. But we do know that, despite being a relatively small population, the general public holds stereotypes and false narratives about Native Americans that have been perpetuated by popular culture, education curriculum, and national myths. In this paper, we use new and original data collected under the Reclaiming Native Truth project to examine the factors that shape attitudes toward Native Americans. More specifically, we examine individual and contextual factors that shape views of discrimination against Native Americans and resentment toward Native Americans. We find that political ideology (liberal versus conservative) and the reliance on Native American stereotypes are factors most consistently associated with resentment and attitudes about Native American discrimination, although direct personal experiences and factual knowledge also matter. Our findings contribute to conversations about attitudes toward racial and ethnic minority groups and emerging scholarship on the role of political attitudes in settler-colonial societies.
{"title":"Discrimination and resentment: examining American attitudes about Native Americans","authors":"Raymond Foxworth, Carew Boulding","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.23","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What shapes Americans' attitudes toward and about Native Americans? Public opinion research acknowledges that race and ethnicity are a factor in shaping US public opinion. Native Americans have been almost entirely excluded from this research. But we do know that, despite being a relatively small population, the general public holds stereotypes and false narratives about Native Americans that have been perpetuated by popular culture, education curriculum, and national myths. In this paper, we use new and original data collected under the Reclaiming Native Truth project to examine the factors that shape attitudes toward Native Americans. More specifically, we examine individual and contextual factors that shape views of discrimination against Native Americans and resentment toward Native Americans. We find that political ideology (liberal versus conservative) and the reliance on Native American stereotypes are factors most consistently associated with resentment and attitudes about Native American discrimination, although direct personal experiences and factual knowledge also matter. Our findings contribute to conversations about attitudes toward racial and ethnic minority groups and emerging scholarship on the role of political attitudes in settler-colonial societies.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"10 1","pages":"9 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82646410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Cruelty as Citizenship: How Migrant Suffering Sustains White Democracy By Cristina Beltrán. Forerunners: Ideas First. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2020. 128 pp., $10 Paper.","authors":"Ronald Schmidt","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.19","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"108 1","pages":"667 - 669"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89944005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
maintain white supremacy. This is a superb book that should be read carefully by all students of American politics, international migration, and democratic citizenship. My only criticism is that I think the book would have benefitted from a more fully developed explication of the settler colonial foundations of U.S. racial politics. That is, like Olson’s seminal work on white democracy, this book rests on the notion that the U.S. is a settler colonial country but doesn’t fully articulate the meaning of this assertion in a polity that has virtually erased the memory of its own foundations. Many readers, I suspect, would have benefitted from a fuller treatment.
{"title":"Immigrant Incorporation in East Asian Democracies By Erin Aeran Chung. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020. xvii, 261 pp. $34.99 Paperback/$28.00 Ebook.","authors":"D. Milly","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.20","url":null,"abstract":"maintain white supremacy. This is a superb book that should be read carefully by all students of American politics, international migration, and democratic citizenship. My only criticism is that I think the book would have benefitted from a more fully developed explication of the settler colonial foundations of U.S. racial politics. That is, like Olson’s seminal work on white democracy, this book rests on the notion that the U.S. is a settler colonial country but doesn’t fully articulate the meaning of this assertion in a polity that has virtually erased the memory of its own foundations. Many readers, I suspect, would have benefitted from a fuller treatment.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"52 1","pages":"669 - 671"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74606154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：