“Caribbean Transnationalism As a Gendered Process” – Ho

In this article, the author discusses the role that women play in transnational ties as well as the disadvantages and problems they face in such a system. The author begins by claiming that the effects of globalization and capitalism affect both men and women differently. These effects (on both genders) have been negative and include rising unemployment, decreasing wages, and the “casualization” of labor. However, in this essay, the author looks into its effects on women. Families in the Caribbean have a matrifocal structure. That is, the family structure focuses on the relationship between mother and child, and the responsibility for raising children lies on female kin. However, this also leads to a less involved family structure for men, as these men have outside relations with other women. This, according to the author, leads to a greater burden on the mother, both financially and emotionally, thus leading to greater dependence on men for financial support.

Economic conditions deny Caribbean men a higher wage as well. However, since most women do not have the proper schooling, they are forced to work in mainly informal and low-paying jobs. Although an explanation exists (that cites industrialization) on women’s financial dependence, this explanation seems rooted in European experience. The Caribbean experience has been different because (1) men have been paid very low wages themselves, (2) women have not been excluded from the public workspace, and (3) women have always been burdened with a double workload and have never been exempt from household responsibilities.

Women have also been limited in terms of the types of jobs they can access, as they have been limited to low-paying, wage work. However, men have had similar experiences in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. Despite this, recent years have seen an increase in the number of jobs available for women because, according to the author, they are cheaper and more docile. Yet, the lack of jobs for men undermines their role in the household and forces some to leave home, making this increase in jobs for women a double-edged sword. Thus, some Caribbean women have resorted to migration.

In migration, women play an important role in maintaining transnational and kinship ties. These ties involve the sharing of responsibilities and the pooling of resources among members. This is especially true of child rearing because parents may send children to the Caribbean for a better education, and family members watch these children (until they reach higher education when they return). However, migration may cast a toll on relationships including marriage breakdown (because men have a difficult time finding work, thus undermining their role in the family) and strained parent-child relationships (because of long-term separation or conflicts between parent-child values).

I was intrigued by one sentence that the author wrote. It said:

“Put differently, (material) changes in the mode of production may alter the family as an economic unit but do little to change it as an ideological (nonmaterial) one” (38).

Now, to change the economic status of women, there must be a change in terms of material possessions (e.g. higher wages). This would allow Caribbean women to better their economic position as they would have to work less and some of the double workload would be lifted off their shoulders. I agree with this part of the statement.

However, I must partially disagree with the last part of the statement, which states that a material change would do little to alter ideology. To me, material changes have the ability to set in motion a set of ideological changes as well. Given the state of the economy today, I do not find it difficult for higher wages to undermine the system of patriarchy that the author mentions. Although it would be somewhat difficult, it can be done. However, given that such an event (e.g. an increase in wages) is rather unlikely in this day and age, I will admit that a more psychosocial-oriented change is necessary.

On page 40, the author provides a proposed explanation for the decreased status of women. However, she mentions in the next paragraph that this explanation is “obviously based on the European and Euro-American experience” (41). As was seen in the other two readings, it seems that many long-standing explanations were based on European experience. Was this the effect of Anglo hegemony in such studies? Despite this, it is nice to see that more and more people are now beginning to question these long-standing notions.

In addition, we are reminded of the importance of trust networks to Caribbean migrants. This is especially relevant when the author mentions that Caribbean migrants tend to put children in the care of relatives back home. It was also interesting to see how the author called children “human currency” (48). I never thought of children with such an analogy; however, it is very appropriate. Children act as the gateway to stronger transnational ties between family members. Parents place enormous amounts of trust in these family members, who are expected to take care of the child and provide him/her a proper education and discipline. Thus, it is only appropriate that children be considered a form of currency that assists in strengthening these transnational ties.

“Black Like Who?” – Rogers

This chapter discusses the differences in group identity and consciousness between African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. As the number of foreign-born Caribbean blacks in New York City increases, the notion of a homogenous group of “black people” becomes increasingly irrelevant. Considering a simple grouping of one black people ignores ethnic and class differences as well as the diversity among this group. Many researchers have recently begun asking whether or not blacks share a racial group identity. Another, more important question asks about the identity that foreign-born blacks take. Do they take identify ethnically (as from their home countries) or racially (as African-American)?

Some have suggested that foreign-born blacks tend to identify ethnically in order to distance themselves from native blacks and avoid stigmatization. Others have suggested that racial inequalities force Afro-Caribbeans to identify racially and unite with African-Americans in the fight against these inequalities. However, the author argues that the choice is not dichotomous. That is, many foreign-born blacks primarily identify ethnically; however, they may also identify as blacks (with varying levels of intensity). The author argues that differences in racial identity between foreign-born and native blacks are due to differences in their “cognitive frames of reference” and their socialization in specific institutions.

To African-Americans, a shared racial identity serves as a point for group mobilization against racial discrimination. However, even more than this, African Americans believe in a linked racial fate outlook. They believe that their own individual fates are linked to that of African Americans as a whole. In addition, there exists a strong group consciousness, which results from dissatisfaction with the group’s social, economic, and political resources. African American political behavior seems to be driven by this consciousness and creates, according to the author, a “distinctive ideological lens.” In addition, institutional networks have acted as a sort-of group mobilization ground. However, this heightened group consciousness seems to be more prominent in middle-class blacks because they are more likely to encounter whites in everyday life and are more likely to participate in these institutions.

Afro-Caribbeans tend to embrace both their ethnic and racial identity; however, their ethnic, home country identity is usually their primary identity. Yet, despite shared racial group identification, they do not express a high level of racial group consciousness and express some ambivalence about any ideological meanings to their racial identity. This is because these people are not as preoccupied with racism as are African Americans. In addition, they are not connected to institutional networks as much as African Americans. Those who are connected express a higher level of group consciousness. Furthermore, transnational attachments tend to continue these patterns.

The concept of an alternate frame of reference stems from the fact that African Americans tend to compare themselves with whites; whereas, Afro-Caribbeans tend to compare themselves with their previous situations back home. In addition, Afro-Caribbeans speak of an exit option. That is, if racial conditions become particularly rough, they have the (often times, imaginary) option to return to their home countries.

The author wrote that African American group consciousness leads to a political worldview “at odds with the American ethos.” However, it is also mentioned that African Americans tend to lean toward a liberal or radical conception of this ethos, which they consider to be aligned with the nation’s ideals. To me, it is all a matter of perspective. To a white person, it may appear to be radicalism. Government intervention to address certain grievances does sound somewhat radical given the issue being considered.

However, to an African American, this may be seen as aligning to the American ideal: “That all men are created equal.” Thus, from their point of view, intervention makes sense because it was one of the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

As a result, the question of whether or not African American group consciousness leads to a political worldview “at odds with the American ethos” is a purely subjective one.

I also believe that a shared racial identity (among Afro-Caribbeans and African Americans) makes sense. One of the respondents in the study stated of African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans that “our histories are similar.” Both African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans have similar roots. Both groups were brought over from Africa to the Western Hemisphere a couple of hundred years ago in order to provide labor. What is the difference? One group was sent to what is today the United States. Another group was sent to the Caribbean. Thus, it is understandable that Afro Caribbeans may have a sense of shared racial identity. However, what is stopping them from fully identifying with African Americans is the stigma and racism associated with being “black.” Thus, the notion of full-blown, shared racial identity cannot become a reality until racism and discrimination are (to put it lightly) eradicated (something that might not happen for a long time).

“Growing Up West Indian and African American” – Waters

Here, the author discusses the development of an identity (ethnic or racial) among West Indians as well as the implications of choosing a certain identity. The author found that first-generation Caribbean immigrants identified according to nation of origin and distanced themselves from African Americans. However, this was mixed in the second generation as race, class, and gender all play a role in determining identity. People who identified ethnically were more likely to come from a middle-class background, and those who identified racially (and had an “oppositional identity”) were more likely to come from a lower-class background. Middle-class children may have had access to better schools as well as participation in voluntary associations; they may also be shielded in a way from black culture by their parents. In addition, African-American identified teens had more negative things to say about being American (no equality) than ethnic-identified teens (with hard work, success is possible). In terms of gender, boys were more direct and discussed being black in terms of racial solidarity; whereas, girls were less direct and discussed it in terms of freedom from parental control.

The author recommends looking at West Indian identity and understanding it in context. This is because identity is usually chosen in relation to others based on kin ties. In addition, identification with American blacks carries with it the stigmatization and racism associated with being African American.

There is also the notion of West Indians being a “model minority.” It seems that the less American an immigrant is, the more likely they are to have access to jobs and information from social networks. The author attributes this to hiring preferences and social networks as well as cultural expectations (such as a relatively more “comfortable” attitude towards racism). The author ends by remarking that the plight of West Indians and African Americans is a sad one and questions the future of race relations in America.

This article differs from the last one by Rogers in that this talks about the implications of individual identification. The Rogers article discussed group consciousness and identity. However, I liked how the articles tied into and related to each other.

I liked the detail that the author gave in describing her study. She went into close detail about who her study subjects were, where they came from, and where they worked/went to school as well as hints at their social class backgrounds. I believe that it really helped the reader (me) to understand the structure of her study and helped to clear up any misconceptions about her study.

Now, the author mentions:

“If anyone has an incentive to maintain either loyalty to another country or a transnational identity, West Indians in the United States do” (203).

I would have liked it if the author elaborated a bit more on this statement. Is it because they have the option to distance themselves from African Americans? Is it because these transnational ties confer some type of other benefit? A little more elaboration would have been useful here to clear up these questions.

Later, the author writes:

“If the West Indian experience teaches us anything about American race relations, it should refocus our attention on the destructive, everyday prejudice and discrimination for which whites are still responsible” (207).

and

“Decent jobs, effective schools, and safe streets are not immigrant-oriented or race-based policies. They are universal policies that would benefit all urban residents” (209).

I do not have much to say on these lines, other than the fact that I was impressed by the forcefulness of the author’s words. She calls the prejudice and discrimination present “destructive” and actively blames it on “whites.” She later says that the right to a decent job, good schools, and low crime are universal (a point with which I fully agree).