Growing Up West Indian and African American – Gender and Class Differences in the Second Generation by Mary C. Waters
In her article, Waters discusses how second-generation West Indians choose to identify themselves within the American society. Throughout her writing she continuously proves that racism and discrimination still define the lives of those considered “black.” These two factors are what mainly affect a second-generation Caribbean decision to identify as American, ethnically, or as an immigrant. The child or adolescent’s experiences in class, race and gender cause him or her to define him or herself along one of those lines.
One interesting note that Waters makes is this manner in which the second generation views life after the civil rights movement. Many viewed discrimination still having a great affect on society. Some identified the separation from de facto and de jure, noting how explicit racism is illegal, yet implicit racism still runs rampant. As a 15-year-old Trinidadian girl noted, the law would not prevent you from going to a certain neighborhood, yet you know problems will arise if you do go.
Another important note that Waters discusses is the effect of racism drawn along gender lines. She notes how girls, due to the sheltering by their parents, “experience less overt hostility and exclusion by mainstream society,” while adolescent males “experienced a greater number of attacks on their rights to be full-fledged members of society.”
The portrayal of West Indians as the model minorities shows how the color line both progresses and limits them. It may provide them with tiny advantages within the workplace, stemming from their “lack of expectation of interpersonal racism.” Bosses and employers tend to feel more “comfortable” around West Indians as opposed to native blacks. Nonetheless, it is this type of “structural racism” that causes both African Americans and West Indians to be truly limited by the color line. They can never “forget about race” if they want to achieve something.
Waters ends off on an interesting point. She discusses that if the color line is not erased or if it is redrawn incorrectly, it can be detrimental for both African Americans and West Indians. The African Americans cannot help but feel stagnant, as they watch immigrants achieve a higher social and economic status than they. Yet if the color is drawn strictly between black and nonblacks, the effects on West Indians will be split. Those considered white or nonwhite would prosper much more than those considered black.
“Black Like Who?” – Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African Americans, and the Politics of Group Identity by Reuel Rogers
In the article, Rogers discusses the manners in which Afro-Caribbean immigrants identify either ethnically or racially with their African American counterparts. With Afro-Caribbean immigrants making up a large percentage of the black population within New York, it is important to note how they designate themselves socially and politically. While he displays that the immigrants may align themselves ethnically or racially due to various factors (i.e. wanting to distance themselves from African Americans or identifying racially due to segmented racism and discrimination), he makes note that choosing one does not necessarily “negate” the other. For a Caribbean immigrant, in certain cases he or she may identify themselves ethnically, and in other cases they may do so racially. Rogers importantly notes that African Americans and Caribbean immigrants may identify differently because their “frames of reference” are different. Also, the experiences of socialization of African Americans have little connection with the Afro-Caribbean peoples.
Rogers dives into the importance of politics, and how it stems from African Americans’ self-identification. He shows how American blacks tend to be more informally, politically active than whites, who were more inclined to participate in systematic voting, campaigns, and political movements. He states that political alliance is “heightened” by the African Americans’ group consciousness.
His interviews show that there are differences in how Afro-Caribbean immigrants identify with African Americans. As noted before, they embrace both racial and ethnic lines as desired. Although many initially identify ethnically, to identify a form of origin, not many refused to identify racially with African Americans. The interesting point of connecting with a home country came up here. They did identify racially with African Americans, some interviewees noted their heritage with Africa, yet they all identified with their home country first. My favorite response depicting this was “… I am naturally Jamaican but naturalized American.” Here, the immigrants have a trio of lines to identify along (African, Caribbean, American).
Unlike the African Americans, the Caribbean immigrants lack the political and social meanings that accompany racial identity. Rogers argues that this stems from their lack of group consciousness. Tying into racism, Afro-Caribbean peoples tend to not focus on racism as much as African Americans, recognizing that they (African Americans) have linked their “grievance to their highly cultivated feeling of racial group consciousness.”
Transnationalism also sets the Afro-Caribbean peoples apart from African Americans. While Afro-Caribbean immigrants do experience racial frustration, transnationalist ties provide a way to alleviate them. Rogers deems it an “exit option.” Many immigrants believe that if tensions within America become too great, they can always return to their home country, thanks to improvements in technology and communication.
