Are Black Immigrants A Model Minority: Race, Ethnicity and Social Mobility in the United States

BY MOSI MORRISON B.S., University of Illinois at Chicago, 2003 M.S., University of Illinois at Chicago, 2007

THESIS Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2011 Chicago, Illinois Defense Committee: Maria Krysan, Advisor and Chair Tyrone Forman, Emory University Sharon Collins William Bielby Sherri-Ann Butterfield, Rutgers University William Darity, Jr., Duke University

This thesis is dedicated principally to my mother, Valena Marie Williams, and father, Songodina Ifatunji, whose love, encouragement and support has been vital to my educational success. In addition, as the first to have attained a doctorate of philosophy in my family, I dedicate this dissertation to all family members – those living and deceased.

iii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis committee – Maria Krysan, Tyrone Forman, Sharon Collins, William Bielby, Sherri-Ann Butterfield and William Darity, Jr. – for their unwavering support and assistance. They provided guidance in all areas that helped me accomplish my research goals and grow personally in the process. I would also like to thank James Jackson, who provided unrestricted access to the data used in this thesis and Philip Bowman for his support and guidance early on in my educational career. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the support of Amanda Lewis for encouraging me to pursue advanced study in sociology.

In addition, there are a number of individuals who have supported me over the years that I would like to acknowledge: Cathy Cohen, Kerry Ann Rockquemore, Beth Richie, Lunar Ford, Jose Perales, Katrina Caldwell, Ray Muhammad, David Stovall. There are also a number of institutions that have been important in determining my success: the Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy at UIC, the African American Cultural Center at UIC, the Black Student Union at UIC, the Center for the Study of Race Politics Culture and Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago, the Department of African American Studies at UIC and Northwestern, and the Public Square.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION: ARE BLACK IMMIGRANTS A MODEL MINORITY?............. 1 II. “CAN’T KNOCK THE HUSTLE?” BLACK ETHNICITY, IMMIGRANT SELECTIVITY AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES........... 14 A. Black Ethnic Disparities in the United States....................................................... 17 B. Immigrant Selectivity and Black Ethnic Disparities............................................. 18 C. Hypotheses............................................................................................................ 23 D. Data and Methods................................................................................................. 23 E. Results................................................................................................................... 30 F. Discussion............................................................................................................. 36 G. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 37 H. Cited literature...................................................................................................... 39 III. A TEST OF THE AFRO CARIBBEAN ‘MODEL MINORITY MYTH’: BLACK ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES 43 A. Black Ethnic Disparities in the United States....................................................... 48 B. The Model Minority Myth and Afro Caribbean Immigrants................................ 49 C. Hypotheses............................................................................................................ 64 D. Data and Methods................................................................................................. 64 E. Results................................................................................................................... 74 F. Discussion............................................................................................................. 82 G. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 92 H. Cited literature...................................................................................................... 94 IV. EXPLORING THE ROLE OF WHITE INTEREST IN BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES..................................... 103 A. Explanations for Black Ethnic Disparities.......................................................... 105 B. White Interest and Black Ethnic Disparities....................................................... 108 C. Hypotheses.......................................................................................................... 117 D. Data and Methods............................................................................................... 118 E. Results................................................................................................................. 126 F. Discussion........................................................................................................... 131 G. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 139 H. Cited literature.................................................................................................... 141 V. CONCLUSION: BLACK IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT A MODEL MINORITY......................................................................... 146 A. Differences Between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans......................... 147

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) B. Explaining Black Ethnic Disparities................................................................... 148 C. Limitations.......................................................................................................... 158 D. Racialization, Racism and Racial Inequality in the United States...................... 160 CITED LITERATURE................................................................................................... 163 CURRICULUM VITA................................................................................................... 176 TABLES......................................................................................................................... 182 APENDICIES................................................................................................................. 208 Appendix A2.1.................................................................................................... 208 Appendix A3.1.................................................................................................... 209 Appendix A4.1.................................................................................................... 210 Appendix A4.2.................................................................................................... 211 Appendix A4.3.................................................................................................... 212

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.................................................................... 182 Table 2.2: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Attributes...................................................................... 183 Table 2.3: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Self-Selection and Selectivity Attributes by Black Ethnicity......................................... 184 Table 2.4: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on Black Ethnicity, Self-Selection and Selectivity Factors................................................. 185 Table 2.5: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on Black Ethnicity, Self-Selection and Selectivity Factors................................................. 186 Table 2.6: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on Black Ethnicity, Self-Selection and Selectivity Factors................................................. 187 Table 3.1: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.................................................................... 188 Table 3.2: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attribute............................................................... 189 Table 3.3: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes............................................................. 190 Table 3.4: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes............................................................. 191 Table 3.5: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes............................................................. 192 Table 3.6: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Socioeconomic Status........................................... 193 Table 3.7: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 194

vii

LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 3.8: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 195 Table 3.9: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 196 Table 3.10: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 197 Table 4.1: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.................................................................... 198 Table 4.2: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favoritism.............................................. 199 Table 4.3: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Comfort................................................. 200 Table 4.4: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Responses to Everyday Discrimination......................................... 201 Table 4.5: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favoritism and Comfort....................................................................................... 202 Table 4.6: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favoritism and Comfort....................................................................................... 203 Table 4.7: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favoritism and Comfort....................................................................................... 204 Table 4.8: Threefold Multivariate Decomposition of Current Employment by Black Ethnicity................................................................... 205 Table 4.9: Threefold Multivariate Decomposition of Occupational Prestige by Black Ethnicity.................................................................. 206 Table 4.10: Threefold Multivariate Decomposition of Log Personal Income by Black Ethnicity................................................................... 207

viii

SUMMARY Social science research has consistently documented that Afro Caribbeans outperform African Americans in terms of labor market outcomes and socioeconomic status. Explanations for these disparities have typically focused on the human capital and cultural differences between the two groups. Unfortunately, these explanations do not consider how racial dynamics might shape these disparities. Thus, the primary goal of this dissertation is to systematically investigate the roles of human capital, culture and racial dynamics in influencing socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the United States. In order to do this, I draw upon data from the National Survey of American Life, which includes a representative sample of whites (N=1,006), African Americans (N=3,570) and the first national oversample of Afro Caribbeans (N=1,623). First, I assess the role of immigrant selectivity. Next, I examine the degree to which black ethnic disparities are a result of Afro Caribbeans having higher levels of model minority cultural attitudes and behaviors than African Americans. Finally, I explore the role of US race relations. I find that attributes associated with immigrant selectivity and attitudes and behaviors associated with being a model minority explain as much as 20 percent of the black ethnic disparities. Unexpectedly, controlling for these factors often results in an increase in black ethnic disparities. Finally, I find that as much as 54 percent of the disparity is due to the labor market rewarding these two groups differently for having the same levels of the attributes under study. I offer, the differential racialization thesis as a possible motive or explanation for this differential treatment. Specifically I argue that despite having the same racial phenotype, African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are racialized differently in the US. Accordingly, employers are less critical and more accepting of Afro Caribbeans than they are of African Americans. I conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for our understanding of race, ethnicity and social mobility.

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Are Black Immigrants A Model Minority?

Arguably, the key distinguishing feature of American sociology is its concern with race, ethnicity and migration (Du Bois 1899, Du Bois 1903, Park 1950a). That is, while European sociology provided early understandings of class and capital (Marx 1890), American sociology offered some of the earliest insights into the peculiarities of race, culture and national origin. Indeed, many of the canonical studies of race and ethnicity studied the rising tides of immigration at the dawn of twentieth century America. However, despite these origins, much of contemporary sociological research has not fully investigated the conceptual tensions and overlaps between race, ethnicity and migration (Jung 2009, McKee 1993, Pierre 2004, Sanchez 1999). In this dissertation, I offer three contributions to the literature on race, ethnicity and migration. First, I continue the effort to insert notions of ‘blackness’ into the literature on immigration and migration (Foner 2001, Kasinitz 1992, Model 2008e, Reid 1939, Rogers 2006, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a). That is, despite the long history and recent upsurges in black immigration, immigration scholars have either ignored or only made passing comments on the presence of black immigrants in the United States (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Reid 1939). Second, I contribute to the debate on the ‘causes of racial disparities in the US’ by offering the black ethnic comparative1 as an analytic

1

I use the term ‘black ethnic comparative’ broadly to refer to social, political and economic comparisons between African Americans and black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean or South America. In this dissertation, I compare African Americans and Afro Caribbeans on select measures of socioeconomic status. I refer to this kind of comparison as the study of ‘black ethnic disparity’ or ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity.’

1

stratagem that allows the researcher to better parse the relative roles of ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘cultural pathology’ in the manufacture of persistent racial inequality. Finally, I employ the black ethnic comparative as a way of moving away from studies of race that are based strictly on physiognomy and toward more nuanced considerations of how race works in twenty-first century America which go beyond notions of the ‘racial phenotype’ (Goldberg 1993, Hesse 2007, Kim 1999, Ngai 2004). That is, some have promoted the use of the black ethnic comparative as a means of ‘holding race constant,’ in order to advance our understanding of how cultural values and practices shape racial disparities (Sowell 1978). In this dissertation, I reintroduce the comparative as a way to better understand the multilayered and changing ways in which race and racism continue to matter in debates concerning racial and ethnic disparities in the US (Almaguer 1994, Bonilla-Silva 2004, Bryce-Laporte 1973, Kim 1999, Ngai 2004). In recent decades, the black ethnic comparative has become a more viable site of social inquiry as the proportion of blacks living in the US that are Caribbean-born has increased sharply (i.e., Afro Caribbeans; Kent 2007, Model 2008a). While some thinkers have been primarily concerned with what this population shift portends for the meaning of ‘blackness’ in the US (Butterfield 2003, Kasinitz 1992, Kasinitz 2001, Rogers 2001, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a), others have been primarily concerned with black ethnic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e, Sowell 1978).2 That is, since the first waves of 2

I use the term ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’ to refer to disparate rates, levels or outcomes between blacks across national-origin. In this paper, I am specifically interested in disparate outcomes on various measures of socioeconomic attainment – e.g., labor market participation and earnings. Although this term generally includes African Americans and black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, in this study I use this term to refer to disparities between African Americans and black immigrants from the Caribbean only. I occasionally use the term ‘black ethnic disparity,’ to refer to black ethnic socioeconomic disparity.

2

immigration from the Caribbean to the US, Afro Caribbeans have outperformed African Americans on various measures of socioeconomic status (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1978, Chiswick 1979, Model 1991, Model 1995, Model 2008e, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). According to the most recent estimates, Afro Caribbeans have earnings that are approximately 16 percent higher than African Americans and they are as much as 15 percent more likely to be employed than African Americans (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).3 Despite much speculation on the matter, the sources of these black ethnic disparities are not well understood (Model 2008e). Scholars have met findings on black ethnic disparities with three different explanations, two of which focus on endogenous differences in the group level characteristics of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. For instance, some have argued that the cultural attitudes and behaviors of Afro Caribbeans are more in line with the Protestant work ethic than are the cultural attitudes and behaviors of African Americans (Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). This argument has been most vigorously countered by the ‘immigrant self-selection thesis’ which argues that to compare native-born blacks to foreign-born black immigrants is not to compare ‘African American culture’ to ‘Afro-Caribbean culture’, but to compare the human capital differences of ‘movers’ and ‘non-movers’ (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008c, Winston 2002). Although the majority of scholarship has focused on these group level differences, some analysts have also pointed to race relations as a potential exogenous factor – i.e., 3

These percentages reflect group averages at the margins. After adjustments for age, education, time since migration, census year, cohort of arrival and marital status, Afro Caribbeans continue to outpace African Americans. See Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

3

stemming from issues outside of the black body politic (Bryce-Laporte 1973, Model 2008d, Waters 1999a). Specifically, they argue that white comfort, or the idea that because Afro Caribbeans do not ‘represent’ or ‘bring up’ the tragic history of US race relations in the same way that African Americans do, white employers hire and promote them at greater rates than they do African Americans (Waters 1999a). White comfort is an exogenous factor because it implicates the interests of whites in the manufacture of black ethnic disparities. This kind of racial project does not rely on ‘racial phenotype,’ per se, but it remains nonetheless motivated by white supremacy and the current state of US race relations. Although these scholars do well to begin considering more exogenous factors they have not adequately considered the potential role of differential treatment as a key exogenous factor in shaping black ethnic disparities (Bryce-Laporte 1973). That is, while this work has considered the role of white interests, it has assumed that there are in fact large differences in the racial attitudes of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. In making this assumption it has overlooked the possibility that differences between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans are small and that whites are discriminating against African Americans in order to propagate the idea that Afro Caribbean success is due to their hard work and disinvestment in race and racism. This oversight represents the failure of the social scientific literature to capture the more multilayered and complex ways that race and racism influence social inequality in the US (Bonilla-Silva 2004, Bryce-Laporte 1973, Kim 1999, Pierre 2004). The goal of this dissertation is to provide a more nuanced and complex understanding of how race and ethnicity continue to matter in the manufacture of social inequality in the United States. In order to do this, I examine the causes of socioeconomic

4

disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Specifically, the dissertation investigates the roles of human capital, culture and race relations in shaping black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. The three empirical chapters in which I investigate these issues are: “‘Can’t Knock the Hustle’: Black Ethnicity, Immigrant Selectivity and Social Inequality in the United States,” “A Test of the Afro Caribbean ‘Model Minority Myth’: Black Ethnicity and Social Inequality in the United States,” and “Exploring the Role of White Interest in Black Ethnic Disparities.” All three chapters use data from the National Survey of American Life in order to assess the role of these three factors – human capital, cultural attitudes and race relations – in shaping black ethnic disparities in employment, occupational prestige and annual personal income. In Chapter 2, “Can’t Knock the Hustle,” I investigate the role of immigrant selectivity in producing socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the United States (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008c). Briefly, the immigrant selectivity thesis posits that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because they are movers and those who move have higher levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy than those who do not move. Therefore, in this Chapter I test if Afro Caribbeans have higher levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy than African Americans. I also test if those who move from state-to-state (either African Americans or Afro Caribbeans) or country-to-country (foreign born Afro Caribbeans) have greater levels of these selectivity attributes than those who do not move. Finally, I assess if differences in these selectivity attributes account for black ethnic disparities in employment, occupational prestige and annual personal income. I find that Afro Caribbeans have higher levels of ability and motivation than African Americans but that

5

they are no more efficacious than African Americans. Although those who move tend to have more ability, I find little support for the idea that movers have higher levels of motivation and self-efficacy. Unexpectedly, I found that comparing African Americans and Afro Caribbeans with the same levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy generally resulted in no reduction in black ethnic disparities, in fact controlling for these attributes leads to a slight increase in disparities. I speculate on potential reasons for this unexpected finding – namely, that Afro Caribbeans may be deriving greater returns for possessing the same attributes as African Americans. In Chapter 3, “A Test of the Afro Caribbean ‘Model Minority Myth’”,” I investigate the degree to which cultural attitudes and behaviors that are associated with the ‘model minority myth’ are in fact responsible for socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell 1978). That is, I explore whether or not Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because they ‘work harder’ and are ‘less invested in racial politics.’ Specifically, I test for the relative roles of protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional posturing, family structure and function, race consciousness and ethnic identification in the manufacture of disparate socioeconomic outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. I find little support for the notion that Afro Caribbeans have greater levels of model minority attributes than African Americans. Although disparities in occupational prestige and personal income are generally explained by social background characteristics, model minority attributes provide a partial explanation for disparities in employment. I discuss the implications of these findings for arguments that

6

suggest African Americans can ‘do better’ if they work harder and complain less about race and racism in the US. In Chapter 4, “Exploring the Role of White Interest in Black Ethnic Disparities,” I extend thinking on the role that race plays in the production of disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the United States (Bryce-Laporte 1973, Model 2008d, Waters 1999a). That is, I examine the relative roles of white favoritism, white comfort, and differential treatment as key race-related exogenous factors in the manufacture of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. The white favoritism hypothesis argues that whites prefer to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans because Afro Caribbeans are better workers than African Americans (Dominguez 1975, Foner 1985, Sowell 1978, Waters 1999g). On the other hand, the white comfort hypothesis argues that whites are more likely to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans because they do not ‘represent’ or ‘bring up’ the history of racial injustice in America in the same way as African Americans (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Grosfoguel and Georas 2003, Waters 1999b). My argument for ‘race related differential treatment’ proposes that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because they are treated more favorably than African Americans even when holding the same human capital, cultural and racial attitudinal characteristics (Bryce-Laporte 1973). I indirectly test this explanation and find strong support for it. I conclude Chapter 4 with a call for further research and provide an alternative explanation for racial and ethnic disparities in general and black ethnic disparities in particular. That is, recent theorization on race has noted that – in addition to ‘racial phenotype’ – perceived foreignness, national origin, and language are key attributes used

7

in the assignment of racial meaning (Kim 1999, Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998, Urciuoli 1996). Building on this insight, I develop the concept of differential racialization in order to argue that societies and localities assign different racial meanings to the black body based on perceived foreignness.4 Perceived regional origin is identified by language accent and personal or network ethnic identification. When actors identify the black body as descending from the Caribbean, they assign it racial meanings that are most often associated with industriousness and lower investments in racialized system blame (see Chapter 2). These racial meanings are different from the notions of laziness and high investment in racialized system blame that social actors often prescribe to the block body when they perceive it to be of American origin. These racial meanings then inform national debates concerning black ethnic socioeconomic disparity, such that Afro Caribbeans are thought to do better than African Americans because they work harder and are less race conscious (Pierre 2004, Prashad 2000). Given this discursive context, employers are lead to discount the poor work performance and race consciousness of Afro Caribbeans – when present – while remaining hypersensitive and vigilant when these same attitudes and behaviors are observed among African Americans (Waters 1999f). These social processes encourage employers to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans at greater rates than African Americans and result in black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. I conclude that while endogenous factors (i.e., human capital and cultural attitudes) certainly play a role in shaping black ethnic disparities, exogenous factors (i.e., 4

Although in discussions regarding immigrants in general and black immigrants in particular, scholars conflate national origin and regional origin. I maintain that these two concepts are interrelated but distinct. For example, being a black immigrant from Jamaica is different from being a black immigrant from Guyana; and being a black immigrant from the Caribbean is different from being a black immigrant from Africa. In this paper, I focus on regional origin.

8

race relations and differential treatment) also play an important role and should therefore garner greater attention within the social sciences. In the concluding chapter, I discuss the limitations of the current study and propose future directions for research on black ethnic disparities in the United States. I also examine the implications of this project for how we understand race and ethnicity in twenty-first century America.

9

RFERENCES Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2004. ""We Are All Americans" The Latin Americanization of Race Relations in the United States." Pp. 149-183 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M. Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56. —. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J. Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284. Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. "The Effects of Americanization on the Earnings of ForeignBorn Men." Journal of Political Economy 86:897-921. —. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program. Du Bois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. —. 1903. Souls of Black Folks. New York, New York: Penguin Books. Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City." International Migration Review 19:708-727. —. 2001. "Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York." Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

10

Goldberg, David Theo. 1993. Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Grosfoguel, Ramon and Chloe S. Georas. 2003. ""Coloniality of Power" And Racial Dynamics: Notes on a Reinterpretation of Latino Caribbeans in New York City." Pp. 144-175 in Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in Global Perspective. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Hesse, Barnor. 2007. "Racialized Modernity: An Analytics of White Mythologies." Ethnic and Racial Studies 30:643-663. Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298. Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams. 2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:196-207. Jung, Moon-Kie. 2009. "The Racial Unconscious of Assimilation Theory." Du Bois Review 6:375-395. Kasinitz, Philip. 1992. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. —. 2001. "Invisible No More: West Indian Americans in the Social Scientific Imagination." Pp. 257-275 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16. Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics & Society 27:105-138. Marx, Karl. 1890. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. New York, New York: Humboldt Publicatons. Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes." Tallahassee, Florida. McKee, James B. 1993. Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

11

Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International Migration Review 25:248-276. —. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems 42:535-553. —. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008b. "Testing the Hypothesis of Selectivity." Pp. 71-88 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008c. "Testing the White Favoritism Hypothesis." Pp. 116-142 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008d. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Ogbu, John U. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success." Theory Into Practice 31:287-295. Park, Robert Ezra. 1950. "Our Racial Frontier on the Pacific." Pp. 138-151 in Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96. Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press. Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

12

—. 2006. Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and the Politics of Incorporation: Ethnicity, Exception or Exit. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Sanchez, George J. 1999. "Race, Nation and Culture in Recent Immigration Studies." American Ethnic History 18:66-84. Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers. —. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press. Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1996. "Racialization and Language." Pp. 15-40 in Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Exeriences of Language, Race and Class. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999c. "Segregated Neighborhods and Schools." Pp. 243-284 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999d. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. Winston, James. 2002. "Explaining Afro-Caribbean Social Mobility in the United States: Beyond the Sowell Thesis." Comparative Studies in Society and History:218-262.

13

CHAPTER 2 “CAN’T KNOCK THE HUSTLE”5 Black Ethnicity, Immigrant Selectivity and Social Inequality in the United States “… [T]he foreign-born black men and women, more so even than other groups of immigrants, are the hardiest and most venturesome of their folk. They were dissatisfied at home, and it is to be expected that they would not be altogether satisfied with limitation of opportunity here when they have staked so much to gain enlargement of opportunity” (Domingo 1925: 347).

Since the 1965 immigration reform, the US has witnessed rapid growth in the Afro Caribbean population (Farley and Allen 1987, Kent 2007). Indeed, the annual rate of black immigration from the Caribbean nearly doubled between 1967 and 2004 (Model 2008a). This trend has brought increased interest in the ‘stock’ of this growing population and in socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and black immigrants from the Caribbean (Butcher 1994, Daneshvary and Schwer 1994, Kalmijn 1996, Mason 2009, Model 1991, Model 1995, Model 2008a, Sowell 1978, Woodbury 1991). That is, Afro Caribbeans tend to outperform African Americans in terms of both labor market participation and socioeconomic status (Mason 2009, Model 2008a). According to the most recent studies, Afro Caribbeans have earnings that are approximately 16 percent higher than African Americans and they are as much as 15 percent more likely to be employed than African Americans6 (Mason 2009, Model 2008a). One of the more prominent explanations for this disparity comes from the literature on the general quality of the immigrant labor force in the US (Borjas 1985, 5

This is not a quote from interviewees from the study. I am quoting a folk saying often used by African Americans. 6 These percentages reflect group averages at the margins. After adjustments for age, education, time since migration, census year, cohort of arrival and marital status, Afro Caribbeans continue to outpace African Americans. (see Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.)

14

Borjas 1987, Chiswick 1978, Chiswick 1979, Hanson 1940). Specifically, immigration scholars find that, some time after migrating to the US all immigrants tend to outperform their native born ‘peers’7 (Chiswick 1979). The rationale associated with this finding has been that immigrants represent a population that is generally more able, motivated and efficacious than both those left behind in the country of origin and the native-born they have joined in the US. In fact, within the literature on black ethnic disparities8, the current consensus is that immigrant selectivity – both observable and unobservable differences in ability, motivation and self-efficacy – is responsible for better socioeconomic outcomes among Afro Caribbeans as compared to African Americans (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1978, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e). There are several limitations to the existing body of work on immigrant selectivity and black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. First, much of the current research has provided an analysis of all black immigrants as opposed to a more focused analysis on black immigrants from the Caribbean. A more fundamental limitation of this body of work is that the proposed selectivity attributes (i.e., ability, motivation and self-efficacy) thought to explain the relative success of migrants are very rarely directly measured (for an exception see, Kaestner and Malamud 2010). Instead, scholars have almost entirely relied upon indirect measures on the concepts under study.

7

In this literature, the term ‘peers’ refers to within race comparisons. That is, comparing immigrants from Europe to whites and immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean to blacks; see, Chiswick, Barry R. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 8 In general, I use the term ‘black ethnic disparities’ to refer to literature that compares US blacks of different national origins on various indices of social, political and economic status. In this particular paper, my working definition of the term is in reference to comparisons in labor market participation and socioeconomic status between African Americans (i.e., the descendents of North American slavery) and Afro Caribbeans (i.e., black immigrants from the Caribbean Islands of the North Atlantic).

15

To address these limitations I draw upon a nationally representative sample of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans and ask three interrelated questions: (1) Are Afro Caribbeans a more ‘selective’ population than African Americans? (2) Are those who move a more selective population than those who do not move? And (3) Does the more selective nature of the Afro Caribbean population account for socioeconomic disparities between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans? I begin my analysis by directly testing for differences in selectivity attributes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Then I explore the association between moving and levels of selectivity attributes. Next, I empirically investigate the degree to which ‘selectivity attributes’ account for socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Specifically, I use data from a recent national multistage area probability sample in order assess the roles of ability, motivation and self-efficacy (i.e., selectivity attributes) in the development of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities in the US (Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). I evaluate black ethnic disparities in terms of employment rates, occupational prestige scores and annual personal incomes. Although Afro Caribbeans are a somewhat more selective population than African Americans, I find that the selectivity attributes proposed to account for black ethnic socioeconomic disparities, at best, are only partially responsible. More importantly, I find that when I compare African Americans and Afro Caribbeans with similar levels of these selectivity attributes, more often than not, the Afro Caribbean advantage increases. This suggests differential treatment of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans for the same levels of selectivity attributes. Finally, I conclude by speculating on the significance of this finding and this line of

16

research for debates on racial and ethnic inequality in the United States (following, Pierre 2004).

BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Interest in investigating disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans dates back to the late 1970s (Chiswick 1979, Sowell 1978). Most national studies that explore this issue have used data collected by the federal government (e.g., the US Census or the American Community Survey). Although the extent of disparity has varied over the years and across studies, over the past four decades, Afro Caribbeans have maintained better outcomes than African Americans on nearly all measures of socioeconomic status (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).9 Scholars have generally focused their study of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities on employment rates, occupational prestige and personal income. The most recent studies of black ethnic disparities in employment continue to show that Afro Caribbeans attain employment at greater rates than African Americans, by as much as 21 percent (Kent 2007, Mason 2009, Model 2008a). Afro Caribbeans have also been shown to be as much as 50 percent less likely than African Americans to be unemployed (Kent 2007, Model 2008a). Also, African Americans are as much as 35 percent more likely to be out of the labor force than are Afro Caribbeans (Kent 2007). Studies of occupational 9

Differences in reports on disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans vary for several reasons. The primary reason for these differences is not attributable to the use of different data, but mostly because of differences in the social demographics used to filter respondents in each study. For instance, while almost all studies use data from the US Census or American Community Survey, some studies only focus on males, while others include males and females. Still others include all adults over the age of 18 while some choose to only compare those who are likely to be in the labor market, ages 25 to 64. Finally, some compare all Afro Caribbeans to African Americans while others separate respondents by the dominant language spoken in the sending country (i.e., English, Spanish or French). While it is important to consider the sources of these differences, I report disparities in the marginal means in order to set a baseline for comparisons made in this study.

17

prestige also favor Afro Caribbeans by about 5 percent (Model 2008a). Finally, studies report that Afro Caribbeans have annual earnings that are as much as 16 percent greater than African Americans (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).10

IMMIGRANT SELECTIVITY AND BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES Scholars have provided a number of explanations for black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status. The most prominent explanations focus on the selectivity of immigrants. The literature on immigrant selectivity proposes that all migrants have greater levels of certain selectivity attributes than non-migrants. Selectivity attributes that have been proposed include: ability (i.e., skill, intelligence, talent, mastery and creativity), motivation (i.e., diligence, ambition and entrepreneurism) and self-efficacy (i.e., optimism, future orientation and delayed gratification). That is, immigration scholars propose that migrants have greater levels of these attributes than their nativeborn ‘peers’ and that these differences explain socioeconomic disparities between the two groups. These scholars generally refer to disparate levels of selectivity attributes in terms of the direction of selectivity bias. That is, when immigrants have greater levels (vis-à-vis natives) of any given selectivity attribute, they are exhibiting ‘positive bias’ on that attribute. However, despite great interest in these selectivity attributes and their directionality, rarely have scholars measured the selectivity attributes they claim are

10

There is one exception to the overall trend in greater Afro Caribbean earnings. In 1980, at least one study shows that African Americans had annual incomes that were 13 percent higher than Afro Caribbeans (see Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International Migration Review 25:248-276.) However, other studies show that Afro Caribbeans continued to outpace African Americans in 1980 but by the lowest percentages on record: as low as 3 percent. (see —. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.)

18

responsible for disparities (for an exception to this general rule see; Kaestner and Malamud 2010). I address this limitation in this chapter. The idea that Afro Caribbean migrants are positively self-selected (or that selfselection leads to a positive bias on selectivity attributes) vis-à-vis both their African American ‘peers’ and native countrymen began in 1925 with Jamaican immigrant Wilfred Domingo positing that Afro Caribbean migrants in the US are the “hardiest and most venturesome” of West Indians (1925: 347). Although Domingo implied that this phenomenon might be unique to black immigrants from the Caribbean, second generation Scandinavian immigrant Marcus Hanson would later make the more general claim that, “[c]ountries of origin were dismayed by their loss when they saw their ports thronged with the sturdiest of their peasantry.” (Hanson 1940: 212). Barry Chiswick is widely noted for providing the first formal test of positive selfselection within the immigrant labor supply. He argued that (Chiswick 1978: 901): Economic theory suggests that migration in response to economic incentives is generally more profitable for the more able and more highly motivated. This self-selection in migration implies that for the same schooling, age, and other demographic characteristics immigrants to the United States have more innate ability or motivation relevant to the labor market than native-born persons.

Like those before him, the basic idea driving Chiswick’s thinking on self-selection is that, “[i]f distributions of ability are similar across countries and if immigrants are favorably selected on the basis of ability, then immigrants will, on average, have a higher level of ability than … the population in the destination.” (Chiswick 1986: 7). Chiswick published two papers that provided early support for these claims (Chiswick 1978, Chiswick 1979). Using an all male sample, he found that although black

19

immigrants11 did not make as much as African Americans upon arrival in the US, after about 11 years black immigrants surpassed the earnings of African Americans (Chiswick 1979). Chiswick concluded that, “[i]f economic migrants have greater ability than the native population, they would be expected to have higher earnings once the disadvantages of a foreign origin becomes sufficiently small” (Chiswick 1986: 7). That is, although immigrants would experience a ‘lag-time’ during their adjustment to the new society, after sufficient acculturation to the US, their higher levels of “innate ability or motivation” would allow them to outpace their native-born ‘peers.’ For Chiswick, the shrinking earnings gap – net age, education, work experience and other important labor market characteristics – reflects the greater ability, motivation and self-efficacy of black immigrants vis-à-vis African Americans. This finding has been replicated for women and other racial/ethnic groups (Carliner 1980, Long 1980). Suzanne Model (2008c) recently replicated the Chiswick study. She finds that the time it takes for Afro Caribbeans to catch up to and surpass African Americans in hourly wages was about 12 years in 1980, about 9 years in 1990 and approximately 15 years in 2000 (Model 2008c). According to Chiswick and Model, this finding provides evidence that once Afro Caribbeans are able to acclimate to the US; their positive bias on selectivity attributes allows them to out earn African Americans.12

11

Chiswick did not separate black immigrants according to national origin. He used data from the 1970 US Census. It should be noted that the vast majority – at least 80 percent or more – of black immigrants in the US in 1969 were from the Caribbean (see Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16.) 12 Model also reports lag times for labor market participation. When considering employment rate, unemployment rate and occupational prestige, there is no lag time for labor market participation.

20

Isolating Moving as the Key Moderator in Selectivity Some of the most compelling evidence for positive self-selection comes from the comparison of African Americans who moved from state-to-state to Afro Caribbean immigrants in the US (Butcher 1994). The basic idea driving this comparison is the view that those who move from state-to-state are positively self-selected in the same way that people who move from country-to-country are positively self-selected. That is, if “movers” – either international migrants or state migrants – possess higher levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy than “non-movers” do, all movers should out perform non-movers. In her study, Butcher (1994) not only compares African American non-movers to Afro Caribbean immigrants but she also compares both of these groups to African American movers. Her findings show that, “[African American] movers earn 35 percent higher wages than [African American] non-movers” (Butcher 1994: 267). More convincingly still, she found that “[Afro Caribbean] immigrants in the highest earnings group earn substantially less than the [African American] movers” (Butcher 1994: 267). According to Butcher, this shows that movers have more ability, motivation and efficacy than non-movers generally (i.e., whether African American or Afro Caribbean) and that there is some penalty for international movers associated with the time it takes to acculturate. Butcher indirectly observes differences in ability and motivation in terms of earnings differentials net specific labor market characteristics. She concludes that her findings lend “credence to the [positive] self-selection argument” (Butcher 1994: 267).

21

SUMMARIZING ARGUMENTS From these findings, several analysts have concluded that positive self-selection is the most viable explanation for black ethnic disparities (e.g., Butcher 1994, Model 2008e). However, none of the above studies actually measures ability, motivation or selfefficacy. That is, a review of the work on positive self-selection and black ethnic disparities reveals that the selectivity attributes thought responsible for the relative success of Afro Caribbeans are not actually measured. Instead, using only indirect measures, scholars have speculated on the role that these characteristics play. Therefore, while the empirical record is compelling, it remains less than conclusive. In fact, some provide alternative theories for the shrinking earnings gap and/or raise serious methodological questions (e.g., Duleep and Regets 1999). For instance, Harriett Duleep and Mark Regets (1999) argue, for Afro Caribbeans “with the same initial level of human capital [as African Americans,] the opportunity cost per unit of investment for immigrants will be less than that for natives… the lower the initial skill transferability, the lower is the opportunity cost for investment” (p. 186). Accordingly, the fact that Afro Caribbeans often have higher rates of education and income than African Americans may reflect different incentives to acquire additional education between the two black ethnic groups instead of unequal levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy. Also, research on Mexican migration to the US has proposed that selfselection leads to either negative or intermediate selection bias in the migrant labor pool (Borjas 1987, Borjas 1991, Chiquiar and Hanson 2005, Kaestner and Malamud 2010). These scholars also do not directly measure the selectivity attributes for which they are primarily concerned. Given this stasis in the literature, I advance the debate by providing

22

the first direct test of the role of three selection attributes (i.e., ability, motivation and self-efficacy) in determining socioeconomic disparities between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans.

HYPOTHESES Black Ethnicity and Bias in Selectivity Attributes 1a. Afro Caribbeans will have higher levels of ability than African Americans. 1b. Afro Caribbeans will have higher levels of motivation than African Americans. 1c. Afro Caribbeans will have more efficacy than African Americans. Moving and Selectivity Attributes 2a. African American movers have greater levels of ability, motivation and selfefficacy than do African American non-movers. 2b. Afro Caribbean movers have greater levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy than do Afro Caribbean non-movers. Explaining Black Ethnic Disparities 3a. Controlling for selectivity attributes (i.e., ability, motivation, efficacy and religiosity) will partially explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. 3b. Controlling for the effects of moving (i.e., state-to-state or country-to-country) will fully explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. DATA AND METHODS To explore these hypotheses I use survey data from the National Survey of American Life (NSAL; Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). The NSAL is uniquely suited for this study because it contains a range of information on racial, ethnic and cultural factors as well as measures of socioeconomic status. Further, it provides the first

23

nationally representative study of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. The survey is comprised of two parts: the first was a face-to-face household survey. After completing the face-to-face interview, respondents were left with a self-administered questionnaire to complete and submit by mail. The total sample includes 3,464 African Americans, 1,599 Afro Caribbeans and 855 whites. The response rate for the face-to-face interview was approximately 71 percent for African Americans and approximately 78 percent for Afro Caribbeans (Jackson et al. 2004b: 204). The response rate for the selfadministered questionnaire was 61 percent for African Americans and 43 percent for Afro Caribbeans. The analytic sample for this study includes 3,009 African Americans, and 1,406 Afro Caribbeans.13

DEPENDENT VARIABLES There are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige and annual personal income. I measure employment status in terms of whether or not the respondent had a job at the time of the survey. I measure occupational prestige by assigning occupational prestige scores to US Census occupational codes (Frederick 2010, Hauser and Warren 1997). Annual personal income is measured according to self-reports. I use these three indicators of socioeconomic status because they are the ones most often assessed in the literature (Model 2008e).

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES The literature on immigrant selectivity has generally argued that immigrants do

13

I used multiple imputation to address missing data (see Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.)

24

better than their native ‘peers’ because they possess greater levels of certain selectivity attributes. These attributes are ability, motivation and efficacy. The literature has also argued that self-selection or the act of moving from state-to-state or country-to-country moderates levels of selectivity attributes (Butcher 1994). Those who move are said to be more selective than those who do not move. In this subsection, I define these concepts and review my measurement strategy.

Selectivity Attributes I define ability as the capacity to do something. Arguably, ability is therefore a construct that also captures related notions of skill, intelligence and talent. Indeed, authors use these terms interchangeably in the literature on immigrant labor quality. In this chapter, I measure ability using a modified version of the traditional human capital model (Mincer 1974). The items for this measure include: age, age squared, years of education, work experience (age – years of education – 6), years of experience squared (to account for diminishing returns) and whether or not the respondent had additional schooling beyond high school and different from college. The question for additional schooling was asked after asking the respondent about high school and college. The question was, “Have you completed any additional schooling?” The response options were yes or no. I define motivation as the general desire or willingness of someone to do something. Scholars have often referred to motivation with concepts such as diligence, ambition and entrepreneurism. The relation between motivation and diligence is less intuitive. For instance, those that are highly motivated will be more likely to demonstrate

25

diligence or “care and conscientiousness in one’s work or duties.”14 I measure motivation in two ways: personal enterprise (or John Henryism) and personal ambition. John Henryism has been described as a coping mechanism that many blacks have employed for dealing with racialized blocks to social mobility (James 1983, James et al. 1983). In essence, the response involves expending ‘high effort’ as a means of dealing with social adversity. According to the authors of the John Henryism Scale for Active Coping, “items in this scale emphasize three mutually reinforcing themes: efficacious mental and physical vigor; a commitment to hard work; and a single-minded determination to achieve one’s goals” (James et al. 1983: 666). That is, John Henryism refers to a willingness to exert high effort in order to get something done in adversity. The survey presented respondents with 12 statements. The response options were: completely true, somewhat true, somewhat false or completely false. Three example statements are: “I’ve always felt that I could make of my life pretty much what I wanted to make of it,” “Once I make up my mind to do something, I stay with it until the job is completely done,” and “I don’t let my personal feelings get in the way of getting a job done.” The Cronbach alpha for all 12 items in this scale is .82 for African Americans and .81 for Afro Caribbeans. I measure personal ambition by creating a difference score between where respondents locate themselves on a social mobility ladder (1 to 10) and where would the respondent like to be ‘in a few years.’ Those that expect to be further up the ladder in a few years have more ambition than those who think they will not move very far in the next few years.

14

It should be noted that diligence is more closely related to motivation than it is to ability in that without motivation or interest one is not likely to employ their abilities with “care and conscientiousness” in their duties. Indeed, a person is more likely to express ability without diligence than they are diligence without motivation.

26

In this chapter I operationalize self-efficacy using a measure of personal mastery (Pearlin and Schooler 1978) and two indicators regarding future orientation. The index of personal mastery includes seven statements. Response options were: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly agree. Three example statements are: “There is really no way I can solve some of the problems I have,” “Sometimes I feel that I’m being pushed around in life,” and “I have little control over the things that happen to me.” The Cronbach alpha for all seven items of the index of personal mastery in this is .73 for African Americans and .72 for Afro Caribbeans. I measure future orientation with two indicators. Respondents were asked if they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following two questions: “I feel that it is impossible to reach the goals I would like to strive for” and “The future seems hopeless to me and I can’t believe that things are changing for the better.” The Pearson correlation coefficient for these two items is .47 for African Americans and .42 for Afro Caribbeans.

Self-Selection I measure self-selection in terms of the propensity to migrate or move. A dummy variable for propensity to migrate is constructed to denote whether or not the respondent is a mover or non-mover (Butcher 1994). For all native-born respondents (both African Americans and second generation Afro Caribbeans), those who currently live in a state that is different from the state they were born in are movers and those who currently live in their birth state are non-movers. All Afro Caribbean first generation immigrants are considered movers.

27

CONTROL VARIABLES I control for several variables relevant to the study of socioeconomic status. These variables are: gender, region, marital status, parental educational attainment and whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean. First, I control for gender because not only are men employed at greater rates and earn more than women, but because black immigration from the Caribbean has generally favored women (Model 2008a, Watkins-Owens 2001). Region is a particularly important control variable because the majority of Afro Caribbeans live in the Northeast (Mason 2009). Therefore, I include a dummy variable for those respondents living in the Northeast. Married people tend to do better in the labor market than single people, so I control for the marital status of the respondent (Chiswick 1978). I also control for the educational attainment of the respondents’ parents because more highly educated parents are often better able to assist their children in successfully navigating their own social mobility. Finally, I control for whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean because research shows that they are a distinct population group from first-generation Afro Caribbean immigrants and African Americans (Bennett and Lutz 2009, Butterfield 2003, Butterfield 2004, Deaux et al. 2007, Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993).

ANALYSIS PLAN There are three stages to the analysis plan. First, I assess differences between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans in selectivity attributes (e.g., ability, motivation and self-efficacy; see table 2.2 below). I rely upon one-tailed tests of statistical significance to examine my directional hypotheses (see hypotheses 1a through 1c). I use eta scores – a

28

standardized measure of effect size – to the assess the magnitude of difference across selectivity attributes (Grissom and Kim 2005). Effect sizes (ES) provide a common metric for evaluating results both within and across studies. For substantive interpretations I rely on the standards described by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991).15 Second, I examine the relationship between movers and selectivity attributes separately for African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in order to asses the degree to which movers have better outcomes on model minority attributes than non-movers. Again, I use one-tailed tests of statistical significance and eta scores to test hypotheses 2a and 2b. The third stage of my analysis is focused on accounting for black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status (employment status in Table 2.4, occupational prestige in Table 2.5 and log annual personal income in Table 2.6). To address this question I estimate a series of regression models. The first multivariate regression model that I estimate is a baseline model that adjusts the black ethnic employment disparity by social background characteristics (Table 3.3, Model 1). Next, I estimate 7 additional nested regression models adding sequentially: mover or non-mover (for self-selection in Model 2); education, work experience and additional training (for ability in Model 3); self-selection, ability and the interaction for these two constructs (in Model 4); John Henryism and ambition (for personal motivation in Model 5); self-selection, personal motivation and the interaction for these two constructs (in Model 6); sense of mastery and future orientation (for self-efficacy efficacy in Model 7); and self-selection, self-efficacy and the interaction for these two constructs (in Model 8). The final Model 9 is a full model that includes measures for self-selection and all three selectivity attributes and

15

For ES: ES < .10 are considered small or trivial, ES .11 to .20 are considered small, effects .21 to .50 are considered medium, and effects > .50 are considered large.

29

their interactions. Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria for testing mediation, once I add self-selection, each selectivity attributes and the interaction terms for self-selection and selectivity to the nested regression models I examine the change in the size and statistical significance of the black ethnicity coefficient, marked “Afro Caribbean” (see hypotheses 3a and 3b). The “Afro Caribbean” variable denotes the degree to which Afro Caribbeans outpace African Americans on each indicator of socioeconomic status (see tables 2.4 through 2.6). If after controlling for self-selection, selectivity attributes or the interactions between these terms (e.g., ability or the interaction between ability and self-selection), the coefficient for black ethnicity is reduced but remains statistically significant; I conclude that that self-selection and/or ability provides a partial explanation for disparities between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. The magnitude of this partial explanation will be denoted in terms of the percentage change in the black ethnicity coefficient before and after controlling for the relevant variable. On the other hand if, after controlling for relevant variables, the black ethnicity coefficient is no longer statistically significant, I conclude that the attribute under consideration fully explains the disparity between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. Finally, if the coefficient for black ethnicity increases, I conclude that differential treatment may be driving this suppression effect.

RESULTS The findings in Table 2.1 show that – as expected – Afro Caribbeans outperform African Americans in terms of both labor market participation and socioeconomic status. For instance, in terms of mean levels in employment, Afro Caribbeans are more likely to

30

be employed than African Americans (with a mean difference score of .20 standard deviations). In addition, Afro Caribbean occupational prestige scores are greater than the scores for African Americans (with a mean difference score of .25 standard deviations). Finally, disparities in earnings are also in favor of Afro Caribbeans. Afro Caribbeans earn about $6,200 more per year than African Americans (with a mean difference score of .27 standard deviations). According to eta and mean difference scores, differences in earnings are the most pronounced and differences in employment are the least.

Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Attributes According to the literature, Afro Caribbeans should compare favorably to African Americans on all three selectivity attributes under study. Table 2.2 presents unadjusted means for the association between black ethnicity and selectivity attributes. Afro Caribbeans have favorable scores on four of the seven indicators considered. African Americans are favored on two of the seven. Preliminarily, this shows that biases in selectivity attributes favor Afro Caribbeans. However it should also be noted that this bias is not uniform. In terms of ability, Afro Caribbeans have more education and are more likely to attain some form of additional schooling than African Americans. According to the eta scores, the educational disparity is medium and the disparity in additional training in small. African Americans have about two and a half years of work experience. While Afro Caribbeans are slightly favored on the most widely used measure of ability – education – this difference is not stark – approximately one more year of education. Moreover, the larger picture for differences in ability is that they are small and mixed. As

31

expected, both measures of motivation favor Afro Caribbeans – although the magnitude of this favor is somewhat small. That is, according to Table 2.2, Afro Caribbeans have scores on John Henryism and personal ambition that are only slightly greater than African Americans (with mean score differences of .27 and .09 standard deviations, respectively). Based on eta scores, these differences are small and somewhat small (Rosenthal and Rosnow 1991). These differences stand in stark contrast to those proposed in the literature. Therefore, while motivational differences that favor Afro Caribbeans do exist, they are not likely the source of disparities in employment, occupational prestige and earnings. Like findings for ability and motivation, differences in self-efficacy are also contrary to expectations. Given the discussion of efficacy in the literature, one would expect Afro Caribbeans to have higher scores than African Americans on both personal mastery and future orientation. However, African Americans have slightly better scores than Afro Caribbeans on personal mastery and the two groups are even on the measure of future orientation. Taken together, both groups are comparable in terms of their efficacy, certainly more comparable than some have suspected.

Moving and Selectivity Attributes In order to test the assumption that moving (from state-to-state or country-tocountry) is associated with greater levels of selectivity attributes, Table 2.3 presents unadjusted means for the association between moving and selectivity attributes by black ethnicity. Moving is most strongly associated with personal ability. For both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, those who have moved or migrated have more ability

32

than those who have not moved or migrated. Although personal motivation is not associated with moving for African Americans, Afro Caribbean movers have scores on John Henryism that are slightly greater than Afro Caribbean non-movers. Finally, there is no relationship between personal efficacy and moving among either group. Thus, with the exception of ability, there is virtually no empirical support for the connection between moving (i.e., self-selection) and selectivity attributes among African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Indeed, in several cases the effects of moving go in the opposite direction than would be expected (e.g., ambition for both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans; and sense of mastery, future orientation and years of education for Afro Caribbeans).

Exploring the Link Between Selectivity Attributes and Black Ethnic Socioeconomic Disparities In Table 2.4, I report the role of selectivity attributes and self-selection in producing unequal employment outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. In Model 1, I regress the likelihood of current employment on black ethnicity, self-selection and selectivity attributes. In the baseline model, Model 1, controls do not fully reduce the disparity in employment between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. The act of moving (in Model 2) did not reduce disparities any further. Counter to expectations, differences in ability do not explain disparities in the likelihood of employment between African American and Afro Caribbeans. Adding interaction terms for moving and ability resulted in a slight increase or suppression in the employment disparity coefficient (about 4 percent). Although accounting for motivation is associated with no real change in employment disparities, controlling for self-efficacy (in Model 7) is associated with a

33

modest increase in the Afro Caribbean advantage in employment. According to Models 5 and 6, controlling for motivation is not associated with any change in the employment disparity. In line with findings from Table 2.3, there is no support for moving operating as a moderator. Controlling for differences in self-efficacy in Models 7 and 8 results in a fairly sizeable suppression effect in employment disparities. That is, when Afro Caribbeans and African Americans with similar levels of self-efficacy are compared, Afro Caribbeans are about 17 percent more likely to be employed. The suppression is even greater when the model is adjusted for the interactive effects of self-selection and self-efficacy (about 21 percent). These findings are not expected in the literature. Table 2.5 presents findings for an OLS regression of occupational prestige on black ethnicity, self-selection and selectivity attributes. In line with expectations, those who move have greater occupational prestige than those who do not move. Indeed, controlling for self-selection is associated with a 35 percent reduction in occupational prestige disparity. Also in line with expectations, adjusting for ability in Model 3 results in a full reduction in occupational prestige disparities. Interestingly, controlling for ability in Model 4 explains a portion of the previous association between moving and occupational prestige, suggesting that one of the reason why movers have higher occupational prestige scores than non-movers is because they have more ability. Since Afro Caribbeans have better ability scores and are more likely to move, controlling for these differences results in a full explanation of higher levels of occupational prestige among Afro Caribbeans. Findings for motivation and self-efficacy are somewhat mixed relative to expectations. That is, controlling for motivation alone in Model 5 results in a slight

34

suppression effect (about 7 percent) in black ethnic occupational disparity. However, controlling for the effect of moving on motivation results in a decrease in the size of this disparity (about 26 percent). When taken together with findings from Tables 2.2 and 2.3, this suggests that Afro Caribbeans’ occupational disparities are not due to disparities in motivation, but that part of the reason why moving is associated with a reduction in occupational disparities is because movers are more motivated. This ‘mixed’ finding suggests that the increase in motivation among Afro Caribbean movers is large enough that when it is accounted for we observe a reduction in the occupational prestige disparity. So there is something unique to motivated-movers that is not just about being motivated. This pattern also holds for self-efficacy. While controlling for self-efficacy in Model 7 is associated with a modest increase in the occupational prestige disparity (about 9 percent), controlling for the joint effects of higher self-efficacy and moving is associated with a slight decrease in the occupational prestige disparity (about 23 percent). Given findings from Tables 2.2 and 2.3, this is likely not attributable to something unique about self-efficacy among movers and is instead more likely the result of the effect of moving, net self-efficacy. Table 2.6 presents findings from an OLS regression of log annual personal income on black ethnicity, self-selection and selectivity factors. After I account for differences in social background, disparities in personal income disappear. Therefore, income disparities are not primarily a result of the selectivity factors that have been pointed to in the literature.

35

DISCUSSION In this chapter, I have attempted to review and test the expectations made in the literature on immigrant selectivity and black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. According to this literature, Afro Caribbean immigrants do better than African Americans because they are positively selected (or biased) on several selectivity attributes, namely: ability, motivation and efficacy. To date, most studies in this area have not actually tested the various selectivity mechanisms they have speculated upon. Instead scholars have mostly studied indirect associations between selectivity mechanisms (e.g., self-selection) and black ethnic socioeconomic disparity. Findings in this chapter suggest that Afro Caribbeans are not consistently ‘positively biased’ on the selectivity attributes under study, and accounting for differences in selectivity attributes often does not explain differences in socioeconomic status between these two black ethnic groups. Instead, on many occasions, accounting for ‘bias’ in selectivity attributes results in increased disparities in socioeconomic status. The most likely reason for this ‘suppression effect’ is that African Americans and Afro Caribbeans receive different treatment for the same selectivity attributes. In almost every case, controlling for either selectivity attributes or self-selection resulted in either no change or an increase in socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. This pattern holds true across two different measures of socioeconomic status (i.e., employment status and occupational prestige). The exception to this more general pattern has to do with the role of ability in explaining black ethnic differences in occupational prestige. That is, different levels of ability between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans fully explain black ethnic disparities in occupational

36

prestige. Therefore, while differences in ability might help one move up the occupational ladder, greater ability does not help in securing a job or attaining a higher income. The other general pattern that requires comment is that in almost every other case outside of ability, the selectivity attributes I consider result in either no change in socioeconomic disparities or slight to modest increases in these disparities. This suggests a larger pattern of differential treatment for the same characteristics (see Chapter 4). For instance, controlling for self-selection and all selectivity attributes simultaneously (in Table 2.4) results in a 17 percent increase in the employment disparity. That is, when African Americans are compared to Afro Caribbeans with the same social background characteristics and selectivity attributes, black ethnic disparities in employment and occupational prestige actually increase (see Chapter 4 for an extended discussion of differential treatment).

CONCLUSION Findings in this chapter shed new light on the debate concerning disparities between the immigrant and native population in the United States. Counter to expectation (with the exception of occupational prestige) the hypothesized selectivity factors do not account for disparities between immigrants and natives. In the case of occupational prestige, it appears that greater levels of selectivity factors are responsible for this disparity. When taken together this suggests that while selectivity factors do not help in gaining employment or better pay, they do help in moving up the occupational later. As to the importance of this chapter for larger debates on racial inequality, it appears that encouraging racial minorities to invest more in ability, motivation and self-efficacy will

37

likely not result in the undoing of racial inequality.

38

CITED LITERATURE Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182. Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks, and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99. Borjas, George J. 1985. "Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants." Journal of Labor Economics 3:463-489. —. 1987. "Self-Selection and the Earnings of Immigrants." American Economic Review 77:531-553. —. 1991. "Immigration and Self-Selection." Pp. 29-76 in Immigration, Trade and the Labor Market, edited by J. M. Abowd and R. B. Freeman. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284. Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. —. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Carliner, Geoffrey. 1980. "Wages, Earnings, and Hours of First, Second, and Third Generation American Males." Economic Inquiry 18:87-102. Chiquiar, Daniel and Gordon H. Hanson. 2005. "International Migration, Self-Selection and the Distribution of Wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States." Journal of Political Economy 113:239-281. Chiswick, Barry. 1986. "Human Capital and the Labor Market Adjustment of Immigrants: Testing Alternative Hypothesis." Research in Human Capital Development 4:1-26.

Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. "The Effects of Americanization on the Earnings of ForeignBorn Men." Journal of Political Economy 86:897-921. —. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Daneshvary, Nasser and R. Keith Schwer. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market: An Earnings Analysis." Review of Black Political Economy 22:77-98. Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A. Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404. Domingo, Wilfred A. 1925. "Gift of the Black Tropics." Pp. 341-349 in The New Negro: An Interpretation, edited by A. Locke. New York: Johnson Reprint. Duleep, Harriet Orcutt and Mark C. Regets. 1999. "Immigrants and Human-Capital Investment." American Economic Review 89:186-191. Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. "Race, Ancestry and Socioeconomic Status: Are West Indian Blacks More Successful?" in The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:173-192. Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs." Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hanson, Marcus Lee. 1940. The Immigrant in American History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298. Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298.

40

Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams. 2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:196-207. James, Sherman. 1983. "The Narrative of John Henry Martin." Southern Cultures 1:83106. James, Sherman, Sue Hartnett, and William Kalsbeek. 1983. "John Henryism and Blood Pressure Difference among Black Men." Journal of Behavioral Medicine 6:259-278. Kaestner, Robert and Ofer Malamud. 2010. "Self-Selection and International Migration: New Evidence from Mexico." NBER Working Paper Series. Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1996. "The Socioeconomic Assimilation of Caribbean American Blacks." Social Forces 74:911-930. Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16. Long, James E. 1980. "The Effect of Americanization on Earnings: Some Evidence for Women." Journal of Political Economy 88:620-629. Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes." Tallahassee, Florida. Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press. Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International Migration Review 25:248-276. —. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems 42:535-553. —. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008b. "Testing the Hypothesis of Selectivity." Pp. 71-88 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008c. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

41

Pearlin, Leonard I. and Carmi Schooler. 1978. "The Structure of Coping." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19:2-21. Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96. Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill. Sowell, Thomas. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Woodbury, Stephen A. 1991. "Earnings of Black Immigrants: Implications for Racial Discrimination." Pp. 295-330 in New Approaches to Economic and Social Analyses of Discrimination, edited by R. R. Cornwall and P. V. Wunnava. New York, Westport and London: Praeger.

42

CHAPTER 3 A TEST OF THE AFRO CARIBBEAN ‘MODEL MINORITY MYTH’: Black Ethnicity and Social Inequality in the United States “West Indians in the United States are significant not only because of their overrepresentation among prominent or successful blacks, but also because their very different background makes them a test case of the explanatory importance of color, as such, in analyzing socioeconomic progress in the American economy and society, as compared to the importance of the cultural traditions of the American Negro” (Sowell 1978: 42).

One of the distinguishing features of American sociology is the degree to which scholars have been simultaneously concerned with – and perplexed by – the concept of race and the causes of racial inequality (Du Bois 1899, Du Bois 1903, Park 1950b).16 Despite widespread agreement that racial stratification17 remains a distinctive feature of American society, and more than a century of vigorous and often contentious academic and public debate on the issue, there is little consensus concerning the causes of this pernicious social ill. Broadly speaking, there are two well-developed perspectives on the matter. There are those who contend that racial discrimination is the primary cause of persistent racial inequality (e.g., Bobo 1999, Bonilla-Silva 1997, Darity 2005, Feagin 2000). On the other hand, there are those who argue that African American cultural attitudes and behaviors are responsible for unrelenting racial disparities (e.g., Cosby and Poussaint 2007, Lewis 1965, McWhorter 2000, Moynihan 1965, Patterson 1998, Thernstrom and Thernstrom 1997). In this paper, I take the presence of a growing Afro

16

The other distinguishing contribution of American sociology has been its focus on empiricism which, has been driven by the need to substantiate various racial claims; see Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. And Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, New York: Norton & Company. 17 I use the term ‘racial stratification’ to refer to racial inequality that persists over generations. This relates to, but is not the same as ‘racial inequality,’ which refers to the presence of racial disparities at any given moment of time.

43

Caribbean immigrant population in the US as a unique opportunity to contribute to our understanding of race and racial inequality. Black immigrants from the Caribbean18 (or Afro Caribbeans) have long outperformed African Americans (or the decedents of American slavery) on nearly all measures of socioeconomic attainment (Model 2008a, Reid 1939).19 Social scientists have taken note that Afro Caribbeans have maintained this advantage despite sharing the same ‘racial phenotype’20 as African Americans (e.g., Sowell 1978). While many remain more squarely focused on how Afro Caribbean success helps us to re-think what constitutes ‘blackness’ (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Foner 2001, Kasinitz 2001, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a), some have taken to speculation on the causes of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities21 (Butcher 1994, Model 2008e, Sowell 1978, Waters 1999g). However, few recognize the ways in which these disparities can serve as a natural experiment whereby one can ‘hold race constant’ and observe the degree to which variation in cultural attitudes and behaviors contributes to unequal outcomes (i.e., net 18

The Caribbean is composed of English, French and Spanish-speaking nations. Many scholars have noted that this distinction is important when considering Afro Caribbean social mobility in the US (for an example, see Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press.). Scholars have also made the argument that Caribbean nations have more in common with one another than they do with other regions in the world and can therefore be conceptualized in the aggregate (see Knight, Franklin W. 1990. The Caribbean: The Genesis of a Fragmented Nationalism. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.). Given the nature of my data, I use the term Afro Caribbean to refer to all African-descendent people living throughout the Caribbean. 19 This historical trend has been recently accompanied by a fairly sharp increase in the Afro Caribbean population living in the US, post-1965 immigration reforms (see Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16. 20 I use the term ‘racial phenotype’ to refer to the biophysical markers that are used in the construction of racial categories and the assignment of racial meaning to specific subsets of human population groups. These include: skin color, bone structure and hair type. I use ‘’ to reference the fact that these racial markers are often more imagined than real. 21 I use the term ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’ to refer to a wide range of disparate rates, levels or outcomes between blacks across national-origin. In this chapter, I am specifically interested in disparate outcomes on various measures of socioeconomic attainment – e.g., labor market participation and earnings. Although this term generally includes African Americans and black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, in this study I use this term only to refer to disparities between African Americans and black immigrants from the Caribbean.

44

racial discrimination; save Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). For those interested in race, the relevance is that if Afro Caribbeans are able to ‘do better’ than African Americans while sharing the same stigmatized ‘racial phenotype,’ more widespread and disparate trends in (black-white22) racial stratification might also be a result of African American cultural attitudes and behaviors (Sowell 1975). When taken together, the cultural attributes used to explain Afro Caribbean success represent various dimensions of a larger ‘racial narrative’23 concerning the requirements for racial minority success in the United States (Glantz 1977, Glantz 1978, Glazer and Moynihan 1970a, Light 1972, Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell 1975, Truab 1981). The principle claim of the model minority myth is that racial minority groups (usually with specific reference to Asian Americans) can overcome racial stratification mechanisms if they ‘work hard’ and ‘disinvest in racial consciousness and contestation’ (Chou and Feagin 2008, Prashad 2000, Sue and Kitano 1973, Suzuki 1977). Specifically, some argue that Afro Caribbeans have a work ethic that is ‘more protestant’ than African Americans and therefore they are more likely to do well in the labor market (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975). Others assert that Afro Caribbeans have a higher value for economic autonomy than African Americans and are therefore less likely to be unemployed or dependent on the welfare state and when employed, more likely to be self-employed (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Sowell 1978). Still others speculate that Afro Caribbeans are less likely to develop an oppositional posture toward mainstream values and authority figures

22

I make note of black-white racial stratification in particular because there are various ways to evaluate racial stratification – e.g., Hispanic-white. 23 I use the term ‘racial narrative’ to refer to a set of popular arguments concerning the causes of racial inequality that often appear in the media.

45

and that this results in better socioeconomic outcomes throughout their lives (Foner and Napoli 1978, Ho 1995, Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993). Several have concluded that the structures and functions of African American families are less traditional and supportive than Afro Caribbean families (Paris 1981, Portes and Zhou 1993). Then there are those who assert that Afro Caribbeans are less likely to believe that race will be a block to their social mobility than African Americans and that this lower level of race consciousness24 provides for greater labor market success than African Americans (Raphael 1964, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1994, Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d, Waters 1999g). Finally, some argue that Afro Caribbean ethnic identification allows for the maintenance of values and views that are distinct from African Americans and associated with social mobility in the United States – e.g., a greater value for economic autonomy (Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Waters 1994, Waters 1999c, Zhou 1997). There are several limitations to this body of research. Principally, the vast majority of these studies do not directly measure the cultural attitudes and behaviors – or model minority attributes – that they propose account for disparate socioeconomic outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. That is, prior research has speculated on the potential causes of differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors (i.e., differences in systems of slavery and racial composition between America and the Caribbean) and the relationship between these causes and various socioeconomic outcomes, without a systematic analysis of the actual role that cultural attitudes and behaviors play (Model 2008b, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). Therefore, there is very little empirical support for the connection between cultural factors and black ethnic

24

I use the term race consciousness broadly to refer to the degree to which racial politics and inequality shape the worldview.

46

socioeconomic disparities. The limited research that provides support for a cultural explanation for black ethnic disparities is qualitative. This has meant that much of this work is based on a particular city and/or neighborhood (e.g.,Vickerman 1998, Waters 1999a). Finally, most studies that have argued for the existence of cultural differences have measured exposure to Afro Caribbean culture not actual levels of cultural identification and practice (e.g., being born in the Caribbean or having parents that were born in the Caribbean as opposed to how strongly one identifies with being Afro Caribbean). To address these limitations, using a nationally representative social survey, I answer three questions: (1) are Afro Caribbeans a model minority, (2) do model minority attitudes and behaviors explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities and - focusing only on the Afro Caribbean sub-sample - (3) are model minority attributes responsible for Afro Caribbean socioeconomic success? I begin the chapter with a review of the nature of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. Next, I argue that scholars and social commentators have cast Afro Caribbeans as a model minority. I begin my analysis by empirically testing for differences in model minority attributes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. I proceed to empirically investigate the degree to which attitudes and behaviors that are associated with being a model minority account for socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Specifically, I explore the degree to which differences in Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional posturing, family structure and functioning and low race consciousness account for black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status. I complete my analysis by testing for the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and socioeconomic

47

status among Afro Caribbeans. Given the proposed moderating role of Afro Caribbean ethnic identity in determining levels of model minority attributes, I explore the degree to which model minority attributes account for the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and socioeconomic status. I find that there are only a few instances when model minority attributes vary by black ethnicity in ways that favor Afro Caribbeans. In addition, model minority attributes do not provide for a full account of black ethnic disparities – they do however provide for a partial explanation. I find little support for the link between model minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of how these findings might inform larger discussions on racial inequality and stratification in the US. In short, racial inequality is unlikely to be undone with the adoption of model minority attitudes and behaviors among racial minority groups.

BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Interest in investigating disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans dates back to the late 1970s (Chiswick 1979, Sowell 1978). Most national studies that explore this issue have used data collected by the federal government (e.g., the US Census or the American Community Survey). Although the extent of disparity has varied over the past four decades and across studies, Afro Caribbeans have maintained better socioeconomic outcomes than African Americans.25 25

Differences in reports on disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans vary for several reasons. The primary reason for these differences is not attributable to the use of different data, but mostly because of differences in the social demographics used to filter respondents in each study. For instance, while almost all studies use data from the US Census or American Community Survey, some studies only focus on males, while others include males and females. Still others include all adults over the age of 18 while some choose to only compare those who are likely to be in the labor market, e.g., ages 25 to 64. Finally, some compare all Afro Caribbeans to African Americans while others separate respondents by the

48

The recent work of Susanne Model (2008a) shows that black ethnic disparities in both labor market participation and socioeconomic status have consistently favored Afro Caribbeans between 1970 and 2000. For instance, in 2000 Afro Caribbeans were about 10 percent more likely to have a job than African Americans, and took in about 13 percent more in annual earnings (Model 2008a). More recent data from the American Community Survey reveals that Afro Caribbean weekly earnings were about 16 percent greater than African American weekly earnings between 2001 and 2007 (Mason 2009). According to the same study, Afro Caribbeans were about 6 percent more likely to have had full time employment during the same period (Mason 2009). Given these recent studies, it is not only clear that Afro Caribbeans have tended to out perform African Americans but that this trend continues into the present.

THE MODEL MINORITY MYTH AND AFRO CARIBBEAN IMMIGRANTS I define the model minority myth,26 as a lay theory and social discourse that assigns model minority status to particular racialized minorities in ways that often do not reflect the facts. The model minority myth is therefore a ‘racial trope’ that is deployed in order to argue that if one minority group can do well, others can do just as well or better;

dominant language spoken in the sending country (i.e., English, Spanish or French). While it is important to consider the sources of these differences, I report disparities in the marginal means in order to set a baseline for comparisons made in this study. 26 I define a model minority as a specific ethno-racial minority group perceived to have achieved greater success than African Americans (or the decedents of American slavery) because of their greater work ethic and lack of concern with US race relations and racism (see Lee, Stacey J. 1996. "Asian Americans: The Absent/Silenced/Model Minority." Pp. 1-16 in Unraveling the 'Model Minority' Stereotype: Listening to Asian American Youth. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University. See also, Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. See also, Suzuki, Bob H. 1977. "Education and the Socialization of Asian Americans: A Revisionist Analysis of the 'Model Minority' Thesis." Amerasia Journal 4:23-52.)

49

and to the extent that other groups do not succeed, this is due to their lack of effort and too much time spent worrying about the prospect of racial discrimination (Prashad 2000). Ultimately, the model minority racial trope works to maintain white supremacy by attributing racial inequality and stratification to the cultural attitudes and behaviors of racial minority groups instead of social structures (e.g., law, social customs and wealth disparities) that work in favor of white supremacy and racial inequality in the US (Bonilla-Silva 1997, Kim 1999, Kim 2004, Pierre 2004).

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NARRATIVE The Afro Caribbean model minority narrative began shortly after the modern civil rights movement (Glazer and Moynihan 1963, Pierre 2004, Sowell 1975).27 Although Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan foreshadow him by at least a decade (Glazer and Moynihan 1963),28 Thomas Sowell is heralded as chief among those who have made the argument that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because of differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors (Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978, Sowell 1981a, Sowell 1981b, Sowell 1983, Sowell 1984). Sowell begins this argumentation in 1975 in his widely cited monograph, Race and Economics. Early in the book he states the position of much of his research in the following decade (Sowell 1975: 97): … [Afro Caribbeans] are a group of great importance, not only in terms of their past achievements and their current roles, but perhaps even more as a means of gauging the socioeconomic effect of being black, as 27

In a forthcoming paper, I trace the historical development of Afro Caribbeans being framed as a model minority. Although this process began in the early 1940s it to not take hold in the national discourse until shortly after the civil rights movement. 28 In their widely cited book Beyond the Melting Pot Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan (1963) observe that, “The West Indians’ most striking difference from the Southern Negroes was their greater applicability to business, education, buying homes and in general advancing themselves… The ethos of the West Indian, in contrast to that of the Southern Negro, emphasized saving, hard work, investment, education” (p. 35).

50

such, as compared to the effect of the many cultural and institutional factors historically associated with the evolution of the American Negro. West Indians in the United States have long had a distinctive life style, set of values, and educational, economic, and cultural achievements very different from those of American Negroes.

Later he would add (Sowell 1975:130-1), … West Indian Negros emphasized such traits as work, thrift and education – more generally achievements involving planning and working for the future, implying the emotional control for self-denial in the present and emphasizing the logical and mundane over the emotional, the imaginative, and the heroic. The opposite characteristics can be seen among the … Negros, where advancement can be achieved in emotional and imaginative areas, such as oratory, lyric literature, and music, and which have produced many dramatic ‘leaders’ and heroes.

In these passages, Sowell asserts that black ethnic socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are due to differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors.29 He does so by explaining black ethnic disparities in terms of Afro Caribbean cultural forms like having a ‘distinctive life style, set of values and cultural achievements.’ He also asserts that Afro Caribbeans exercise more forethought and exhibit a greater ability to delay gratification than do African Americans. In order to drive his point home, he speculates that Afro Caribbeans are less racially ‘dramatic’ than African Americans. In essence, Sowell argues that the reason why Afro Caribbeans do better than African Americans is because they work harder and suffer from lower levels of what has recently been referred to as ‘racial paranoia’ (Jackson 2008, Metzl 2009). It is also important to note that these views would later appear in the writing of other academics (Ogbu and Simons 1998, Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Zhou 1997) and

29

It is important to note that although many characterize Thomas Sowell as a conservative social scientist today, the arguments that he made in the mid to late 1970s were relatively liberal for this period. That is, Sowell was employing the black ethnic comparative as part of an effort to undermine notions of biological or genetic race. In effect, he was arguing that it was culture, not biology, which made the ‘races’ different.

51

in the pages of local and national periodicals throughout the close of the twentieth century.30

SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS OF THE MODEL MINORITY MYTH I parse the model minority myth into several specific dimensions. At the most general level of abstraction, the model minority myth posits that racial minorities succeed in the United States when they ‘work hard’ and ‘divest in racial consciousness and contestation.’ Yet, proclamations about the value of hard work are associated with related claims, like: economic autonomy (or a preference to not be dependent on the welfare state for resources and a propensity for self-employment), lower tendencies to exhibit oppositional posturing (or a willingness to abide by mainstream rules and authority figures) and certain aspects of traditional family structure and functioning (e.g., having married parents that are very supportive of child development). Like ‘work ethic,’ the idea of ‘race consciousness’ is also multidimensional. That is, Afro Caribbean ethnic identification results in adopting a different racial consciousness through which to view the world that is rooted in the history of race and slavery from the Caribbean (as opposed to the US). Indeed, it is ethnic identification that also facilitates the development of the Afro Caribbean Protestant work ethic, value for economic autonomy, disinvestment in oppositional posturing and the value of a more traditional family structure and functioning.

30

For an especially insightful review and critique of this trend in the social science literature and in national periodicals, see Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170.

52

Protestant Work Ethic Max Weber asserts that the rise and eventual success of capitalism was at least partially attributable to the development of a Protestant ethic in Western economies (1930). This ethic assigned a moral value to ‘hard work’ and re-conceptualized working as a calling that provides greater meaning in the lives of individuals (Weber 1930: 54-5). That is, people who work hard derive greater satisfaction from their employment and from contributing their labor to the development of society. Several scholars have identified Afro Caribbeans as having greater levels of the Protestant work ethic than African Americans (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Bryce-Laporte 1973, Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glantz 1978, Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975). For instance, Nathan Glazer and Patrick Moynihan commented that, “[t]he ethos of the West Indians, in contrast to that of the Southern Negro, emphasized saving, hard work, investment, education” (italics added; 1970b: 35). Later, Roy Simon Bryce-Laporte (1973: 58) commented that, given their history and context of migration, “the average black immigrant becomes an ardent practitioner of what Americans call the Protestant Ethic.” Similarly, Dennis Forsythe (1983: 65) remarked that, “[Afro Caribbeans]… have historically emerged with a highly secularized Protestant ethic.” For these scholars, a major reason why Afro Caribbeans do better than African Americans is that they value and practice a work ethic that is more in line with American capitalism (i.e., the Protestant work ethic). Evidence in support of the idea that Afro Caribbeans value work or work harder than African Americans is sparse and regionally specific. The earliest indirect support for the idea that Afro Caribbeans work harder comes from the assumption that if they were

53

doing better than African Americans, they simply must be working harder (Dominguez 1975, Reid 1939). Outside of this assertion, however, there is very little empirical evidence on the matter. Some of the early ethnographic research shows that (white) apple orchard owners thought Afro Caribbeans worked harder than African Americans.31 According to Nancy Foner and Richard Napoli (1978: 492), these employers held the view that: … black-American migrant farm laborers were generally not very productive, that they were frequently apathetic on the job, and that they spent a good part of their wages on liquor and gambling. By contrast, the Jamaican migrant workers we studied worked very hard, were extremely productive and saved most of their earnings.

Another source of evidence comes from in-depth interviews with white employers and Afro Caribbean workers in New York.32 Based on her ethnographic observations and interviews, Waters (1999g: 121) reported that, “… whites saw the West Indians as more ambitious [and] more hard-working… than the African Americans.” Afro Caribbeans have also reported that they value hard work more than African Americans (Vickerman 1999a, Waters 1999g). However, beyond these perceptions, there is no systematic evidence for the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and greater levels of the Protestant work ethic.

31

It is important to note that these farmers also thought that Afro Caribbeans worked harder than Americans in general. 32 Others have alluded to the observation of a Protestant work ethic but do not provide data beyond reports from ethnographic field notes and references to ‘common wisdom.’

54

Economic Autonomy Thomas Sowell is the principle advocate of the idea that Afro Caribbeans value economic autonomy more than African Americans and that this is one of the cultural attitudes responsible for their greater success (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Johnson 1930, Light 1972, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1981a, Sowell 1984). According to Sowell, the reason Afro Caribbeans have a greater appreciation for economic autonomy than African Americans is that Caribbean countries often lack a social welfare system and were allowed more self-sufficiency during slavery. Speaking to this historical context, Sowell (1975: 98-9) states: … even under slavery, West Indian Negroes had direct personal responsibility for an important part of their own well-being, and also acquired experience in economic activity on their own, since they cultivated their individual plots without supervision and were usually allowed to sell any surplus in the market. American plantations, by contrast, were not forced to rely on such methods nearly as much, because their food needs could be supplied or supplemented through the market…

James Weldon Johnson also once commented that Afro Caribbeans “…are characteristically sober-minded and have something of a genius for business, differing almost totally in these from the average rural Negro from the South” (1930: 153). Economic autonomy is closely related to the Protestant work ethic but is specifically identified by less dependence on the social welfare state, higher rates of labor market participation and when employed, a higher likelihood of self-employment. For Sowell, Johnson and others, a unique disposition for self-employment and aversion to the welfare system are primary causes for greater Afro Caribbean success. Despite these broad claims, evidence of greater Afro Caribbean economic autonomy in the contemporary period remains limited. For example, without providing a

55

source, Mary Waters (1999g: 98) remarks in passing that “… West Indians are less likely to be on welfare … [than African Americans].” According to the white and Afro Caribbean informants that Waters interviewed, African Americans prefer welfare dependence to working – a trait they do not observe among Afro Caribbeans. According to Waters, white managers believe that African Americans prefer welfare to working. That is, “[white managers] claimed that [African Americans] preferred welfare to applying for entry-level jobs…” (Waters 1999g: 118). Several Afro Caribbean workers shared this perception of African Americans. According to one, “[African Americans] find that it's better to go in line and wait for a welfare check… that’s one of the things that I am totally against…” (Waters 1999g: 113). There is more evidence for greater rates of self-employment among black immigrants (Bogan and Darity 2007, Borjas 1986, Mason 2009).33 However, all immigrant populations are more likely than their native-born ‘racial peers’ to be selfemployed – including white European immigrants (Bogan and Darity 2007, Borjas 1986). That said, according to at least one report, Afro Caribbeans were over represented among the black business owners in New York as early as 1920 (Walker 1998). While they represented 25 percent of the black population, they owned 50 percent of black businesses (Walker 1998). According to historical trend data from the US Census, black immigrants have been more likely to be self-employed than African Americans in every decennial year between 1910 and 2000, except 1970 (Bogan and Darity 2007).34 Another 33

I use the term black immigrants purposefully. Studies that report on the self-employment of immigrants divide immigrants by race but not by national origin. However, during the periods reviewed, Afro Caribbeans represent the vast majority of black immigrants (see Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16.) 34 In 1970, rates were about the same between black immigrants and natives (see Bogan, Vicki and William Darity. 2007. "Culture and Entrepreneurship? African American and Immigrant Self-Employment in the United States." Ithaca, New York.)

56

study reports that Afro Caribbeans were 62 percent more likely to be self-employed than African Americans between 2001 and 2007 (Mason 2009).

Oppositional Posturing The concept of oppositional posturing has its roots in the literature on black-white racial disparities in education (Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007, Ogbu 2003, Ogbu 1978).35 However, it has also been applied in explaining disparities between black natives and immigrants (Ogbu and Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993). Oppositional posturing refers to the idea that African American students have lower levels of academic achievement – and by inference, less labor market success – because they have developed a set of attitudes and behaviors that run counter to educational and social mobility (Ogbu 2003, Ogbu 1978). That is, in a racist society, African Americans expect few returns for adopting mainstream attitudes and behaviors and are therefore more likely to disinvest in these attitudes and behaviors and actively ‘oppose’ mainstream authority figures. This oppositional posturing is then associated with lower levels of success in school and the labor market (Foner and Napoli 1978, Ogbu 2003, Ogbu 1978, Portes and Zhou 1993, Zhou 1997).

35

Although generally referred to as ‘oppositional culture’ or ‘adversarial stance,’ I use the term ‘oppositional posture’ in order to undo the implied link between ‘oppositional’ attitudes and behaviors and devaluation. That is, most writers assume that being defiant or appearing to be disinterested means that students in fact do not value educational or labor market success. However, developing oppositional attitudes and behaviors may not reflect underlying devaluations but could instead result from feeling rejected by people and institutions that one values. Indeed, scholarship in this area shows that despite claims of an ‘oppositional culture,’ African Americans actually report valuing education more than whites (see Downey, Douglas B., James W. Ainsworth, and Zhenchao Qian. 2009. "Rethinking the AttitudeAchievement Paradox among Blacks." Sociology of Education 82:1-19.) The term oppositional posturing concedes that defiant attitudes and behaviors may exist even without implying underlying devaluations.

57

John Ogbu and colleagues hypothesize that those who voluntarily migrate to a society with known high levels of racial discrimination are less likely to develop an oppositional posture (Ogbu 1987, Ogbu and Simons 1998, Ogbu 1992). Also, Afro Caribbeans come from nation-states where they are the majority and when they come to the U.S. they are more likely to identify with and acquiesce to the politics of the majority (Foner and Napoli 1978, Ho 1995). That is, Afro Caribbeans may “tend to acquiesce in their relationship with school personnel and white authorities in other societal institutions” in ways that African Americans do not (Ogbu 1992: 291). In comparing Afro Caribbeans and African Americans, Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou describe this behavior in the following way (1993: 81): An adversarial stance toward the white mainstream is common among inner-city minority youths who, while attacking the newcomers ways, instill in them a consciousness of American-style discrimination. A common message is the devaluation of education as a vehicle for advancement of all black youths, a message that directly contradicts the immigrant parents' expectations.

Although several have asserted that oppositional posturing among African Americans contributes to racial disparities in education (McWhorter 2000, Ogbu 1987, Ogbu 2003, Ogbu and Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993, Zhou 1997), studies that empirically test this idea have produced findings that do not support this speculation (Bennett and Lutz 2009, Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007). Moreover, there is no systematic evidence for the idea that African Americans are any more ‘oppositional’ than Afro Caribbeans.

58

Family Structure and Functioning There is a long tradition of locating the cause of black-white racial disparities in the ‘maladaptive’ family structure and function of African American families (e.g., Cosby and Poussaint 2007, Moynihan 1965, Wilson 1987). That is, in addition to speculation on negative outcomes associated with non-traditional family structures (e.g., homes headed by single mothers), there have also been those that argue that African American families are not as supportive as Afro Caribbean families (Paris 1981). Several have speculated that Afro Caribbeans do better than African Americans because Afro Caribbeans are more likely raised in two parent families and have families that are more generally supportive. According to Sowell (1975: 133): One of the more remarkable contrasts between ethnic groups is that between the family patterns of American Negroes and those of West Indian Negroes living in the United States. The high incidence of broken homes, and the greater influence of the black woman… in the family have been major features of studies of American Negroes… By contrast, the family life of Negroes who emigrated from the West Indies is both highly stable and highly patriarchal.

Much of the evidence supports the claim that the structure and functioning of Afro Caribbean families is indeed more traditional than African American families. However, we know less about the extent to which differences in family structure contribute to socioeconomic disparities. For instance, Afro Caribbeans are as much as 50 percent more likely to be married than African American families (Butcher 1994, Kent 2007, Model 2008a). Afro Caribbeans also report that their families are more supporting and “close-knit” than African American families (Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d).36

36

Waters makes an assertion about the structure of Afro Caribbean families without data or citations. She states, “[Afro Caribbeans] are more likely to be employed, less likely to be on public assistance, and more likely to have husband-wife two-earner households” (p. 99). She later asserts that Afro Caribbeans have more “close-knit families,” but this claim is followed by a quote from a respondent that does not support

59

Although early studies reported that African American families were about 30 percent more likely to be headed by a single mother (Farley and Allen 1987), more recent studies show that African American households are just 2 percent more likely than Afro Caribbean households to be headed by a single mother (Model 2008a). Conversely, there is some evidence that Afro Caribbean families suffer from the effects of serial migration; that is, single mothers often migrate first with the children and find it difficult to juggle work and parenting responsibilities (Waters 1999d). Although there is support for the claim that Afro Caribbean families are more traditional than African American families, no studies report on differences in support nor have any examined the degree to which familial differences contribute to black ethnic disparities.

Race Consciousness According to some researchers, Afro Caribbeans are less likely to believe that race will be a block to their social mobility (Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g).37 Scholars argue that this lower race consciousness leads to greater Afro Caribbean success because it removes the perception of a ‘racial ceiling’ and results in less antagonistic relations with white employers (Vickerman 1999c, Waters 1999b). Lower Afro Caribbean race consciousness comes primarily from being the racial majority in their country of origin. That is, Afro Caribbeans are less likely to be concerned with a ‘racial ceiling’ – in part – because her claim (p. 292). (see Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.). 37 Much of the literature that provides cultural explanations for black ethnic inequality frames “the race question” in cultural terms. That is, race is thought of as an ideology that is at best loosely connected to inequality; race is an ideological artifact of cultural norms not social forces that structure societies and cultures (see Fields, Barbara. 1990. "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America." New Left Review 181:95-118.).

60

historically, “[t]he absence of a white working class meant that ‘free persons of color,’ and later the whole free black population could not be restricted to the most menial occupations or the more skilled and more responsible positions would have gone unfilled” (Foner 1985, Sowell 1978: 46, Vickerman 1998). Therefore, many Afro Caribbeans have a “… long-standing belief that opportunities exist in the United States and that their own black skin has not, and will not, prevent them from taking advantage of those opportunities” (Waters 1999b: 150). Many Afro Caribbeans also report that race is not a major issue in the Caribbean and therefore they are less concerned with race relations than African Americans (Vickerman 1999a, Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g). Research that compares the race consciousness of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans is mixed. Ethnographic work reveals that these two groups think about race differently (Rogers 2001, Waters 1999b). Other work indicates that African Americans have higher levels of race consciousness (Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999b). Finally, some report comparable levels of race consciousness (Benson 2006, Rogers 2001). Those who support the latter argue that Afro Caribbeans simply do not associate their blackness with limitations in the way that African Americans do (Rogers 2001). While these ethnographic studies offer a comparison between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans on various dimensions of race consciousness (i.e., racial identity and attitudes) they generally only investigate Afro Caribbean views; comparing these to ‘the literature’ on race consciousness among African Americans.38 The one study that explicitly

38

Mary Waters comes close to breaking with this trend but ultimately her study is centered on Afro Caribbeans and therefore she asks Afro Caribbeans to comment on Afro Caribbean and African American race consciousness and asks African Americans to comment on Afro Caribbean race consciousness. She does not ask the question that allows for a comparison between Afro Caribbean and African American race consciousness – i.e., African Americans about African American race consciousness.

61

compares these two groups in terms of racial consciousness finds no difference (Benson 2006). While some argue that a raceless identity promotes black/Afro Caribbean achievement (Fordham and Ogbu 1986, Fordham 1988, Fordham 1996)39, others contend that a higher level of race consciousness is associated with greater success among African Americans (Anderson 1988, Arroyo and Zigler 1995, Bowman and Howard 1985, Edwards and Polite 1992, Hemmings 1998, Weinberg 1977). A recent study did not find support for the idea that low race consciousness supports social mobility for African Americans (Harris and Marsh 2010).

Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identification Arguably, investments in a Caribbean ethnic identity on the part of Afro Caribbeans allows for the maintenance of cultural attitudes and behaviors that are distinct from African Americans and associated with social mobility in the United States (Portes and Zhou 1993, Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d, Waters 1999e, Zhou 1997). According to proponents of this view, ethnic identification provides access to certain “moral and material resources” that are associated with social mobility (Portes and Zhou 1993: 86). Indeed, some scholars have argued that participation in ethnic organizations and social networks protects Afro Caribbeans from the cultural pathology and downward social mobility associated with African Americans (Portes and Zhou 1993). Importantly, it is not the state of being Afro Caribbean by way of national origin, but the process and depth of ethnic identification, which triggers the ‘buffering effect’ for Afro Caribbeans (Nagel 39

I use the term ‘black/Afro Caribbean’ here because these studies have argued that racelessness results in greater mobility for all blacks and some have specifically argued that it results in greater mobility among Afro Caribbeans.

62

1994, Yancey et al. 1976). Theoretically, investments in strong Afro Caribbean ethnic identity results in a greater Protestant work ethic, a preference for economic autonomy, lower levels of oppositional posturing, more supporting family structures and a lower if not different racial consciousness. That is, Afro Caribbean ethnic identification moderates certain cultural attitudes and behaviors in ways that promote social mobility. However, there is no systematic evidence to support these claims.

SUMMARIZING ARGUMENTS Much of the literature on disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans has attributed unequal outcomes to differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors. When taken together, these arguments fit neatly within the more general model minority narrative. That is, racial and ethnic minority groups (i.e., Afro Caribbeans) who ‘work hard’ and ‘disinvest in racial contestation’ will not experience the restricted social mobility that is often experienced by African Americans. Conversely, racial and ethnic minority groups (i.e., African Americans) that do not work hard and instead choose to ‘see race’ and racial discrimination at every turn will suffer the consequences of maladaptive cultural attitudes and behaviors. The goal of this study is to provide a systematic and generalizable investigation into the degree to which black ethnic socioeconomic disparities are a result of inequality in the ‘model minority attributes’ that scholars have referenced in the literature.

63

HYPOTHESES Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes 1a. Afro Caribbeans have a greater Protestant work ethic than African Americans. 1b. Afro Caribbeans have higher levels of economic autonomy than African Americans. 1c. Afro Caribbeans express lower levels of oppositional posturing than African Americans. 1d. Afro Caribbeans have families that are more traditional in their structure and supportive in their function than African Americans. 1e. Afro Caribbeans have lower levels of race consciousness than African Americans. Explaining Black Ethnic Socioeconomic Disparities 2. The indirect effects of Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional posturing, familial structure and functioning and race consciousness will account for disparities in socioeconomic status between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. Linking Model Minority Attributes to Afro Caribbean Socioeconomic Status 3a. Afro Caribbeans with high ethnic identification will be more likely to be employed, have higher levels of occupational prestige, and have higher personal incomes than Afro Caribbeans with low ethnic identification. 3b. Afro Caribbeans with high ethnic identification will have a greater work ethic, more economic autonomy, less oppositional posturing, better familial structure and functioning and less race consciousness than Afro Caribbeans with low ethnic identification. 3c. The indirect effects of Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional posturing, familial structure and functioning, and race consciousness will account for the link between ethnic identification and socioeconomic status among Afro Caribbeans. DATA AND METHODS To explore these hypotheses I use survey data from the National Survey of American Life (NSAL; Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). The NSAL is uniquely

64

suited for this study because it contains a range of information on racial, ethnic and cultural factors as well as measures of socioeconomic status. Further, it provides the first nationally representative study of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. The survey is comprised of two parts: the first was a face-to-face household survey. After completing the face-to-face interview, respondents were left with a self-administered questionnaire to complete and submit by mail. The total sample includes 3,464 African Americans, 1,599 Afro Caribbeans and 855 whites. The response rate for the face-to-face interview was approximately 71 percent for African Americans and approximately 78 percent for Afro Caribbeans (Jackson et al. 2004b: 204). The response rate for the selfadministered questionnaire was 61 percent for African Americans and 43 percent for Afro Caribbeans. The analytic sample for this study includes 3,009 African Americans, and 1,406 Afro Caribbeans.40 There are three sets of variables in this study. First, there are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige and annual personal income. Second, there are six sets of independent variables for model minority attributes: Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional posturing, family structure and functioning, race consciousness and Afro Caribbean ethnic identification. Finally, there are control variables. All measures are imperfect approximations of the true concepts under study but they are either equal to or better than what has been previously available.

40

I used multiple imputation to address missing data (see Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.)

65

DEPENDENT VARIABLES There are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige and annual personal income. I measure employment status in terms of whether or not the respondent had a job at the time of the survey. I assessed occupational prestige by attaching occupational prestige scores to US Census job codes (Frederick 2010, Hauser and Warren 1997). I measure annual personal income with the personal reports of respondents. I chose these particular measures of socioeconomic status because they are the indicators that are most frequently used in the literature (e.g., Model 2008e).

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Protestant Work Ethic There are three dimensions of the Protestant work ethic: willingness to work, satisfaction derived from working and enjoying the job. First, a single item measured the respondents’ willingness to work. Respondents answered yes or no to the statement, “At times I refuse to hold a job, even when I am expected to.” This item was reverse-coded to assess ‘willingness to work.’ As the Protestant work ethic is not only about being willing to work but also about deriving a sense of purpose and meaning from the work one does (Weber 1930), I include measures of job satisfaction and enjoyment: “How satisfied are (were) you in doing this work?” and “How much do (did) you enjoy doing the work you do (did)?” Both questions provided 5-point Likert scale response sets that allowed for either positive or negative responses. Arguably, if other job characteristics are held constant (e.g., employment status and/or occupational prestige) those who hold a Protestant work ethic will not only be more willing to work, but more likely to be

66

satisfied with and or enjoy their employment. The Cronbach alpha for these three items is .62 for African Americans and .60 for Afro Caribbeans.

Economic Autonomy I measure economic autonomy in terms of participation in the welfare state and the tendency to be entrepreneurial. There are two indicators for participation in the welfare state, “Did your family ever receive public assistance when you were growing up?” and “Have you ever received public assistance since turning 18.” I measure entrepreneurialism in terms of whether or not respondents are currently, or have ever been, self-employed. If the respondent has never been self-employed they are coded zero for non-entrepreneurial. If the respondent is currently, or has ever been self-employed they are code one for entrepreneurial. Those who are entrepreneurial and have never taken welfare payments are more economically autonomous than those who have taken welfare payments or never been self-employed.

Oppositional Posturing There is a single item indicator for oppositional posture. The preamble for oppositional posture reads: “Earlier in the interview you mentioned a period of time of six months or longer in your childhood or adolescence when you often did things that got you in trouble with adults. Which of the following things did you do during that time?” The three items for this scale are: “Did you often argue with or ‘talk back’ to adults?” “Did you frequently disobey rules at home, school, or work?” and “Did you annoy people

67

on purpose by doing or saying things just to bother them?” The Cronbach alpha for this measure is .90 for both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.41

Family Structure and Functioning There are three measures of family structure and functioning: marital status, frequency of familial contact and familial support. There are two indicators of family formation or marital status: “Have you ever been married?” and “Are you currently married, living with a partner, separated, divorced, [or] widowed?” I observe these separately. I measure frequency of familial contact with responses to the question: “How often do you see, write or talk on the telephone with family or relatives who do not live with you? Would you say nearly everyday, at least once a week, a few times a month, at least once a month, a few times a year, hardly ever or never? I use an 8-item index to assess familial support. Some example questions from the index include: “How often do people in your family - including children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on - help you out?” “How often do you help out people in your family – including children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on?” and “Other than your (spouse/partner), how often do your family members make you feel loved and cared for?” (see appendix for complete list). The Cronbach alpha for the full 8-item measure is .65 for African Americans and .60 for Afro Caribbeans.

Racial Consciousness This construct has four sets of indicators: a measure of minority blame for racial inequality and measures of linked fate, racial salience and racial centrality. I observe 41

I note that oppositional posturing concerns opposing all authority figures – not just whites.

68

minority blame for racial inequality with responses to the question, “If racial minorities don’t do well in life they have no one to blame but themselves.” The measure of linked fate is a single indicator composed from two questions: “Do you think what happens generally to Black people in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life?” and the follow-up question, “Will it affect you a lot, some, or not very much?” Results from these two questions were combined to create four response options: none, not very much, some and a lot. One item measures racial salience or the frequency with which one thinks about being black. Respondents answered the question, “How often do you think about being black?” The response options were: never, rarely, several times a week, once a day, several times a day and all the time. I measure racial centrality using the shortened racial centrality subscale of the Multidimensional Measure of Racial Identity (Sellers et al. 1997). The three items that compose this subscale are: “Being a Black person is a large part of how I think of myself” “What happens in my life is largely the result of what happens to other Black people in this country” and “Being Black is not an important part of who I am as a person.”42 The Cronbach alpha for this subscale is .35 for Afro Caribbeans.43

Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity This construct is assed with three indicators: closeness to Afro Caribbeans, consumption of Afro Caribbean media, and an index of Afro Caribbean ethnic 42

I understand that the second question in this subscale is very similar to the questions used to measure linked fate and I retain all three measures in the racial centrality subscale because both constructs and measures were developed in separate literatures. 43 I am aware that these Cronbach alphas are low. I retain the index given tests of construct validity in previous work on the Multidimensional Measure of Racial Identity (see Cokley, Kevin O. and Katherine Helm. 2001. "Testing the Construct Validity of Scores on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity." Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development 34:80-95.).

69

identification. I only assess Afro Caribbean ethnic identity among the Afro Caribbean sub-sample. First, I asses closeness to Afro Caribbeans with the question, “Now I am going to ask you some questions about how close you feel in your ideas and feelings about things to different groups of people… How about Black people from the Caribbean, like people from Jamaica, Bermuda or Haiti?” I measure Afro Caribbean media consumption with two questions, “In an average week, how often do you do the following things… Listen to Caribbean radio?” and “… Read Caribbean newspapers?” The Cronbach alpha for these two items is .76. Finally I use an eight-item index of ethnic identification. Three example items for the index include (see appendix for complete list): “I associate with Caribbeans,” “My contact with Caribbeans has been…” and “I like to identify myself as Caribbean.” The response options for all eight questions were: not at all, very little, moderately, very often and always. The Cronbach alpha for all eight items is .90.

CONTROL VARIABLES I control for several variables relevant to the study of socioeconomic status. These variables are: gender, region, parental educational attainment, human capital characteristics and whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean. First, I control for gender because not only are men employed at greater rates and earn more than women, but also because black immigration from the Caribbean has generally favored women (Model 2008a, Watkins-Owens 2001). Region is a particularly important control variable because the majority of Afro Caribbeans live in the Northeast where wages are often higher than other parts of the country (Mason 2009). Therefore, I include

70

a dummy variable for those respondents living in the Northeast. I also control for the educational attainment of the respondents’ parents because more highly educated parents are often better able to assist their children in successfully navigating their own social mobility. I control for characteristics associated with the classic ‘human capital model’ including indicators for age, age squared, work experience, work experience squared and educational attainment (Mincer 1974). Finally, I control for whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean because research shows that they are a distinct population group from first-generation Afro Caribbean immigrants and African Americans (Bennett and Lutz 2009, Butterfield 2003, Butterfield 2004, Deaux et al. 2007, Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993). Although all multivariate tables are adjusted for these control variables, I do not show the coefficients. These findings will be made available upon request.

ANALYSIS PLAN There are three stages to the analysis plan. First, I assess differences between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans in model minority attributes (e.g., Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, family structure and functioning and race consciousness; see table 3.2 below). I rely upon one-tailed tests of statistical significance to examine my directional hypotheses (see hypotheses 1a through 1e). I use eta scores – a standardized measure of effect size – to the assess the magnitude of difference across model minority attributes (Grissom and Kim 2005). Effect sizes (ES) provide a common metric for evaluating results both within and across studies. For substantive interpretations I rely on

71

the standards described by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991).44 The second stage of my analysis is focused on accounting for black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status (employment status in Table 3.3, occupational prestige in Table 3.4 and log annual personal income in Table 3.5). To address this question I estimate a series of regression models. The first multivariate regression model that I estimate is a baseline model that adjusts the black ethnic employment disparity by social background characteristics (Table 3.3, Model 1). Next, I estimate 5 additional nested regression models adding sequentially: willingness to work, satisfied with work and work enjoyment (for Protestant work ethic in Model 2); received welfare before turning 18, received welfare since 18 and entrepreneurialism (for economic autonomy in Model 3); oppositional posturing (in Model 4); currently employed, ever married, familial contact and familial support (for family structure and functioning in Model 5); and minority blame for racial inequality, linked fate, racial salience and racial centrality (for race consciousness in Model 6). The final Model 7 is a full model that includes measures for all model minority constructs. Following Baron and Kenny's (1986) criteria for testing mediation, once I add each model minority attribute to the nested regression model I examine the change in the size and statistical significance of the black ethnicity coefficient, marked “Afro Caribbean” (see hypotheses 2). This variable denotes the degree to which Afro Caribbeans outpace African Americans on each indicator of socioeconomic status (see tables 3.3 through 3.5). If after controlling for a model minority attribute (e.g., Protestant work ethnic), the coefficient for black ethnicity is reduced but remains statistically 44

For ES: ES < .10 are considered small or trivial, ES .11 to .20 are considered small, effects .21 to .50 are considered medium, and effects > .50 are considered large.

72

significant; I conclude that that model minority attribute provides a partial explanation for disparities between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. The magnitude of this partial explanation will be denoted in terms of the percentage change in the black ethnicity coefficient before and after controlling for the relevant variable. On the other hand if, after controlling for a model minority attribute, the black ethnicity coefficient is no longer statistically significant, I conclude that the attribute under consideration fully explains the disparity between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. The final stage of my analysis focuses on exploring the link between model minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status (see tables 3.6 through 3.10 below). This portion of the investigation proceeds in three parts and focuses solely on the Afro Caribbean sub-sample. First, I assess the relationship between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and socioeconomic status (see hypothesis 3a). Next, I examine the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identification and model minority attributes. Again, I rely upon one-tailed tests of statistical significance to explore my directional hypothesis that Afro Caribbeans with high ethnic identification will have higher levels of model minority attributes (see hypothesis 3b). The final analysis estimates a series of multivariate regression models in order to assess the degree to which the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and socioeconomic status is accounted for by the model minority attributes proposed in the literature (see hypothesis 3c). I use the same strategy described above.

73

RESULTS Table 3.1 reports the unadjusted means for association between the three indicators of socioeconomic status and black ethnicity (i.e., between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans). In line with expectations, Afro Caribbeans outpace African Americans in all three cases. For instance, Afro Caribbeans are more likely to have a job than African Americans. After attaining a job, Afro Caribbeans have occupational prestige scores that are higher than African Americans. In terms of personal income, Afro Caribbeans earn more annually than African Americans. According to the associated eta scores associated with these findings, the most pronounced disparity in socioeconomic status is the disparity in annual personal income.

Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes Relative to expectations in hypotheses 1a through 1e, findings in Table 3.2 provide little support for the expectations found in the literature on black ethnic socioeconomic disparity. There are only a few instances when model minority attributes vary by black ethnicity in ways that favor Afro Caribbeans. First, findings for Protestant work ethic run counter to expectations. One cannot make a clear distinction between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of their Protestant work ethic. That is, there are no (statistical) differences in willingness to work and work enjoyment between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. However, counter to expectations, African Americans are slightly more satisfied with their work than Afro Caribbeans. Findings for economic autonomy are in line with expectations. Afro Caribbeans are more economically autonomous than African Americans. That is, African Americans are much

74

more likely than Afro Caribbeans to have received welfare during their childhood. African Americans are also much more likely to have been on welfare during adulthood. Yet, it is important to note that many Caribbean countries do not provide welfare and that this likely shapes their experience with state support during childhood. In addition, some immigrants – especially those who are undocumented – do not qualify for state payments. Therefore, more Afro Caribbeans may have chosen to take state benefits if they were available. Afro Caribbeans are also more likely to be entrepreneurial than African Americans. Findings for oppositional posturing are not in line with expectations found in the literature. There are no differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. With the exception of Afro Caribbeans being more likely than African Americans to be currently married, findings for black ethnic differences in family formation and functioning are generally not in line with expectations. There are no (statistical) differences between being married previously and relative amounts of familial support. Finally, Table 3.2 presents findings for black ethnic differences in race consciousness that generally do not support predictions. With the exception of race being less salient among Afro Caribbeans, there are no black ethnic differences in minority blame or linked fate. Unexpectedly, Afro Caribbeans have higher scores on racial centrality than African Americans. In general, these differences are not in the order of magnitude inferred by the literature.

Explaining Black Ethnic Socioeconomic Disparities Tables 3.3 through 3.5 present findings from a series of nested multivariate regression models that regress employment status, occupational prestige and log annual

75

personal income on black ethnicity and model minority attributes. Counter to expectations presented in the second hypothesis, these tables reveal that – model minority attributes do not provide for a full account of black ethnic disparities – they do however provide for a partial explanation. Specifically, findings from these tables reveal that accounting for model minority attributes separately (e.g., either Protestant work ethic or race consciousness) provides for a partial explanation that averages about 5 percent and ranges between no change and a 14 percent reduction. Accounting for all model minority attributes simultaneously in Model 7 of Tables 3.3 (predicting the likelihood of current employment) and 3.5 (predicting log annual personal income), provides for a partial reduction of about 20 percent in each black ethnic disparity. Importantly, Table 3.4 reveals that black ethnic disparities in occupational prestige are fully explained by differences in social background characteristics (see control variables in the preceding section).45 Table 3.3 presents findings from a series of LOGIT regression models that regress the likelihood of current employment on black ethnicity and model minority attributes. The table reveals that accounting for any potential differences46 in Protestant work ethic results in about a 5 percent reduction in the black ethnic disparity in employment (down from .887 in Model 1 to .844 in Model 2). Those who have a willingness to work and enjoy their work are more likely to be employed than others. Accounting for the Afro Caribbean advantage in economic autonomy results in a 14 percent reduction in the employment disparity (from .887 in Model 1 to .764 in Model 3). Those who have 45

The full model accounts for 31 percent of variation in occupational prestige for blacks generally. I use the phrase ‘potential differences’ because even though findings from Table 3.2 reveal that there are no differences in Protestant work ethic between these two black ethnic groups, there may be mean differences after adjusting the means for social background characteristics. In addition, this phrase leaves open the possibility of different associations between Protestant work ethic and the likelihood of current employment between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. 46

76

received welfare payments since turning 18 are less likely to be currently employed while those who are entrepreneurial are more likely to be employed. As there are no black ethnic differences in oppositional posturing, accounting for this attribute in Model 4 provides for no change in the employment disparity. Accounting for differences in family structure and functioning in Model 5 results in a 4 percent reduction in the employment disparity (down from .887 to .852). This reduction appears to be driven by the Afro Caribbean advantage in being currently married, which is associated with a greater likelihood of employment. Accounting for black ethnic differences in race consciousness in Model 6 results in a 3 percent reduction in the employment disparity (down from .887 to .860). Paradoxically, even though African Americans have greater levels of racial salience and those with greater racial salience are more likely to be employed, accounting for the difference in racial salience results in a reduction in the disparity. Given findings in Table 3.2, this finding is unexpected. Finally, accounting for differences in all model minority attributes simultaneously in Model 7, results in a 20 percent reduction in the black ethnic disparity in employment. This reduction is less than what would be predicted if the explanatory power of model minority attributes was ‘perfectly additive’ and suggests some conceptual overlap between these factors. The full model accounts for 19 percent of variation in the overall black employment rate. Table 3.5 presents findings from a series of OLS regression models that regress the log of annual personal income on black ethnicity and model minority attributes. Similar to the case of employment disparities in Table 3.3, accounting for potential differences in Protestant work ethic results in a 5 percent reduction in the disparity in annual earnings (down from .298 in Model 1 to .282 in Model 2). Those who report a

77

willingness to work have higher earnings than those who do not. Accounting for the fact that Afro Caribbeans are more economically autonomous results in a 12 percent reduction in the earnings disparity (down from .298 in Model 1 to .263 in Model 3). This reduction is driven by the fact that Afro Caribbeans are less likely to take welfare payments after turning 18 and because those who have taken such payments earn less than those who have not. As is the case above, controlling for oppositional posturing results in no change in the disparity. Black ethnic differences in family structure and functioning account for 7 percent of the Afro Caribbean earnings advantage (down from .298 to .276). Again, this reduction is primarily driven by the greater likelihood of Afro Caribbean marriage. Controlling for black ethnic differences in race consciousness accounts for 4 percent of the earnings disparity between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. This reduction is mostly attributable to linked fate and racial salience. Again, as above, the role of racial salience is counter-intuitive. The full model accounts for about 13 percent of variation in annual personal income for blacks generally.

Linking Model Minority Attributes to Afro Caribbean Socioeconomic Status I now turn to a focus on ethnic identity, model minority attributes and socioeconomic status among Afro Caribbeans. Taken in the aggregate, findings presented in the following tables provide little support for the link between model minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status. This is not to say that there are no connections to be made. Instead, a review of Tables 3.6 through 3.10 provide some, but not much, support for hypotheses 3a through 3c. I begin with findings presented in Table 3.6, which reveal essentially no association between ethnic identity and socioeconomic

78

status among Afro Caribbeans. That is, Afro Caribbeans that feel closer to other Afro Caribbeans, that take in high levels of Afro Caribbean media and who have high scores on the index of ethnic identification are generally no more likely to be employed, have no greater occupational prestige, and earnings that are no higher than Afro Caribbeans who have a low Afro Caribbean ethnic identity. The one exception to this general pattern is that Afro Caribbeans that have a high sense of closeness to other Afro Caribbeans earn more than those who have low closeness. However, this difference is not stark. Findings from Table 3.7 present unadjusted means for the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes. More often than not, high Afro Caribbean ethnic identity is not associated with greater levels47 of model minority attributes. For instance, there is no association between any of the three measures of Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and the Protestant work ethic or race consciousness. There is minimal support for the expectation that high Afro Caribbean ethnic identity is associated with lower levels of oppositional posturing. Those who have high levels of ethnic identification (see column 3, row 7 of Table 3.7) have scores on oppositional posturing that are lower than those with low ethnic identification. The association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and family structure and functioning is more consistent. Those Afro Caribbeans that feel closer to other Afro Caribbeans and consume more Afro Caribbean media have more familial contact and familial support than those who do not feel as close to other Afro Caribbeans or consume as much media. However, given the above guidelines for interpreting eta scores, although these associations are more constant the magnitude of the association is generally small (Rosenthal and Rosnow 47

I use the phrase ‘greater levels’ as a way to summarize these findings even though in some cases having a high ethnic identity is expected to be associated with lower levels of a given model minority attribute (e.g., high Afro Caribbean ethnic identity is expected to be associated with lower scores on race consciousness).

79

1991). The association between ethnic identity and Afro Caribbean economic autonomy is the most consistent and in some cases not small. In general, Afro Caribbeans with high ethnic identity are less likely to have taken welfare payments. Table 3.8 presents findings from LOGIT models that regress the likelihood of current employment on Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes. These findings reveal that when ethnic identity is associated with a greater likelihood of employment it is not because of the association between ethnic identity and model minority attributes. In fact, greater model minority attributes provides only a partial explanation for the link between ethnic identity and employment among Afro Caribbeans (a 19 percent reduction at best; see the coefficient for ethnic identification in Models 3 and 7). Although closeness to Afro Caribbeans and consumption of Afro Caribbean media are not associated with employment, Afro Caribbeans that have higher scores on the index of ethnic identification are more likely to be employed – net social background characteristics (see row 3 of Model 1). Although having a greater willingness to work is associated with a higher likelihood of employment, it appears that this does not explain the association between ethnic identification and employment.48 Model 3 reveals that about 19 percent of the association between ethnic identification and employment is due to economic autonomy. Counter to expectations, Afro Caribbeans with greater oppositional posturing are more likely to be employed. However, controlling for oppositional posturing results in a 5 percent increase in the association between ethnic identification and employment. Better family structure and functioning is responsible for about 13 percent of the association between ethnic identification and employment. This is driven by the fact that married Afro Caribbeans are more likely to be employed. The 48

In fact, it is associated with a 2 percent increase or ‘suppression effect.’

80

association between ethnic identification and employment is not connected to race consciousness. The full model accounts for just 3 percent of variation in the employment rate for Afro Caribbeans. Table 3.9 presents findings from OLS models that regress occupational prestige on Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes. As reported in Table 3.6, there continues to be no association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and occupational prestige, net social background characteristics. However, there is some support for the association between economic autonomy, family structure and functioning, race consciousness and occupational prestige. Those who have taken welfare payments have lower occupational prestige; married couples have higher occupational prestige; those for whom race is more salient have higher occupational prestige and those for whom race is more central have lower occupational prestige. Paradoxically, racial salience and centrality work in different directions. The full model accounts for about 5 percent of variation in occupational prestige among Afro Caribbeans. Finally, Table 3.10 presents findings from OLS models that regress the log of annual personal income on Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes. The association between closeness to other Afro Caribbeans and income is positive and is fully explained by model minority attributes in the aggregate. That is, it appears that those who feel closer to Afro Caribbeans have better levels of model minority attributes and therefore have greater annual income. With the exception of family structure and functioning, when taken separately, each model minority attribute provides a partial reduction in the association (averaging a 4 percent) between Afro Caribbean closeness and earnings. In Model 2, the Protestant work ethic accounts for about 4 percent of the

81

association between Afro Caribbean closeness and personal income. Economic autonomy accounts for about 8 percent of this association. Again, taking welfare payments during childhood has negative implications for income. Oppositional posturing is responsible for about 4 percent of the link between closeness to other Afro Caribbeans and earnings. Although married Afro Caribbeans have higher incomes than those who are not currently married, generally, family structure and functioning does not account for the connection between closeness and income. Though it is not clear which measure of race consciousness is responsible, overall controlling for race consciousness is associated with a 4 percent decrease in the relationship between Afro Caribbean closeness and annual personal earnings. The full model accounts for just 3 percent of variation in annual personal income among Afro Caribbeans.

DISCUSSION In this chapter I attempted to test the idea that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because they exhibit cultural attitudes and behaviors that are more conducive to attaining social mobility in the United States. In so doing, I posed three specific questions: (1) are Afro Caribbeans a model minority, (2) do model minority attitudes and behaviors explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities and (3) are model minority attributes responsible for Afro Caribbean socioeconomic success generally? I find that there are only a few instances when model minority attributes vary by black ethnicity in ways that favor Afro Caribbeans. In addition, model minority attributes only provide a partial account for black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. I find little support for the link between model minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status.

82

There are two principle limitations to the findings in this chapter: the data under study is cross-sectional and is therefore not well suited for making conclusions on causality and – although the measures offered generally exceed prior measurement – there remain some important concerns. Next, I discuss the findings in this chapter, consider alternative explanations for the black ethnic disparities under study and comment on the implications these findings hold for theorization on racial inequality and stratification in the US.

ARE AFRO CARIBBEANS A MODEL MINORITY? Given the above findings, it is not accurate to describe Afro Caribbeans as a ‘model minority.’ That is, although Afro Caribbeans have favorable outcomes on several model minority attributes, it is more often the case that there is either no difference between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans or African Americans actually have more favorable levels on these attributes. That is, of the 15 indicators considered, Afro Caribbeans have favorable outcomes on 5, a figure that represents just 33 percent of all instances. Moreover, the magnitude of favor rarely obtained an effect size that was more than small (Rosenthal and Rosnow 1991). In 7 cases – almost half – there were no differences between these two black ethnic groups. Most unexpected by the literature, there were 3 instances where African Americans outpaced Afro Caribbeans. In one case, this ‘African American advantage’ was not small. According to findings presented in this chapter, Afro Caribbeans do not have a greater Protestant work ethic than African Americans. This was unexpected by many in the literature on black ethnic disparities (Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glantz 1978, Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975). Although this is the first known case of a

83

direct empirical test of black ethnic differences in Protestant work ethic, the most likely explanation of this finding is that the measure is less than ideal. First, it relies on a single item dichotomous indicator of ‘willingness to work’ where the distribution is largely skewed in the positive direction for both black ethnic groups. Also, job satisfaction and enjoying work are not ideal indicators of the meaning of work referenced by Max Weber in his description of the Protestant ethic. That said, these measures provide an important contribution to the empirical record. They provide nationally generalizable insight into disparities in ‘willingness to work’ and related factors between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Therefore, in lieu of future research, it is difficult to conclude that Afro Caribbeans have any greater value for the protestant work ethic than African Americans. In the main, findings for black ethnic differences in economic autonomy favor Afro Caribbeans and approach a medium effect size. Many predict this finding in the literature (Johnson 1930, Light 1972, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1981a, Sowell 1984). However, the magnitude of support for greater Afro Caribbean economic autonomy is undercut by the limited role of the social welfare state in many Caribbean counties and restrictions on access to social welfare for many immigrants living in the US. That is, for those who were born in the Caribbean, it is unlikely that they had access to social welfare payments before turning 18. Then, after migrating to the US and reaching adulthood, they may not have qualified for welfare payments. It is important to note that differences in relationships to the social welfare state provide for the more medium effect sizes for black ethnic differences in economic autonomy. In some ways, these results leave open the question, if more Afro Caribbeans had access to the social welfare state, would more

84

seek support? That said, Afro Caribbeans still outpace African Americans in entrepreneurialism. However this difference is certainly small. I find no support for the idea that Afro Caribbeans display any less oppositional posturing than African Americans. Although this outcome was not expected by the literature reviewed for this chapter (Ogbu and Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993), it is muted by the less than ideal nature of the measure. Certainly, a more nuanced assessment of oppositional posturing or even oppositional culture would provide more clear insight (e.g., Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007). With this limitation in mind, this measure allows for the only nationally representative direct assessment of black ethnic differences in oppositional posturing. Black ethnic differences in family structure and functioning are mixed but slightly favor African Americans. This runs against the expectations of some in the literature (Paris 1981, Sowell 1975, Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d) and provides further empirical support for the prior findings of others (Butcher 1994, Kent 2007, Model 2008a). Unexpectedly, African Americans have families that function better or are more “close knit” than Afro Caribbean families (Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d). That is, African Americans keep in closer contact with family members and derive more support from their families than Afro Caribbeans. However, Afro Caribbeans are more likely to have traditional familial structures. That is, they are more likely to be married than African Americans (Butcher 1994, Kent 2007, Model 2008a). Importantly, none of the effect sizes for these differences are large or even medium. Nonetheless they reveal that while Afro Caribbeans are more likely to be married, it is inaccurate to argue that Afro

85

Caribbeans have families that function any better than African Americans. An assessment that is not in line with model minority status of Afro Caribbeans. Again, findings for black ethnic differences in race consciousness are mixed. There are no differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of the view that if racial minorities are to blame for racial inequality or in terms of linked fate. Although race is a less salient factor for Afro Caribbeans than it is for African Americans, race is more central to Afro Caribbeans than it is for African Americans. This finding is quite paradoxical and warrants further investigation. However, in lieu of further research, it is important to remember the low Cronbach alpha for racial centrality and that racial salience is only measured with a single item. In addition, the effect sizes involved suggest that these differences are small. This is not represented by the general thrust of the literature reviewed in this study (Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g).

DO MODEL MINORITY ATTRIBUTES EXPLAIN BLACK ETHNIC SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES? Black ethnic differences in model minority attributes provide for a partial explanation of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. However, this partial explanation is not of the magnitude that has often been portrayed in the literature on black ethnic disparities. When considered separately, model minority attributes provide for a 5 percent reduction in black ethnic disparities on average. When taken in the aggregate, these attributes account for about 20 percent of the

86

black ethnic disparity in employment and annual wages. Social background characteristics are responsible for the entire disparity in occupational prestige.49

Protestant Work Ethic The above findings provide support for the notion that black ethnic differences in the Protestant work ethnic are partially responsible for socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glantz 1978, Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975). Specifically, differences in the Protestant work ethic explain about 5 percent of the disparity in both employment and personal income. In particular, those who have a greater willingness to work are more likely to be employed and have higher personal incomes than those who have refused to work at times when they have had the opportunity. Workplace enjoyment also plays a role in accounting for employment disparities. Those who enjoy their work are more likely to be employed. However, another interpretation of this finding is that those who are employed are simply happy to be employed and therefore report more workplace enjoyment. Although differences in the Protestant work ethic provide a partial accounting of black ethnic disparities in employment and personal income, the magnitude of this explanation is certainly less than has been depicted in the literature.

Economic Autonomy I find support for the notion that black ethnic differences in economic autonomy account for a portion of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro

49

I also note that the factors considered in this chapter account for no more than 20 percent of the variation in socioeconomic status for blacks generally.

87

Caribbeans. Specifically, economic autonomy is responsible for 14 and 12 percent of the disparity in employment and personal income, respectively. The fact that economic autonomy explains the largest portion of these disparities is muted by limitations that are inherent to the measure (as discussed above). That said, those who have received welfare after adulthood are less likely to be employed and have lower personal incomes than those who have not taken state assistance as an adult. Conclusions regarding the role of state assistance in adulthood are restricted by the potential that those who have taken assistance since becoming an adult may be currently on state assistance. It should be noted that acceptance of welfare payments during childhood does not help explain black ethnic disparities. Entrepreneurialism also plays a role in employment disparities. The fact that Afro Caribbeans are more likely to be self-employed is partially responsible for the greater employment rate among Afro Caribbeans. Given cautions associated with the measurement of economic autonomy, the partial explanation provided by economic autonomy is not well reflected in the literature.

Oppositional Posturing Oppositional posturing provides almost no account for disparities in employment or personal income. This finding does not support previous speculation on the link between oppositional posturing and black ethnic socioeconomic disparities (Ogbu and Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993). This is most likely a result of limitations associated with the measure. Future research should employ a more nuanced and multidimensional measure of oppositional posturing or oppositional culture that also assesses this construct in the current moment (Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007). In lieu of further

88

research, it appears that oppositional posturing during childhood does not determine adult socioeconomic performance. Since there are no difference in oppositional posturing between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, it is not a useful explanation for black ethnic disparities.

Family Structure and Functioning Differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in family structure and functioning are partially responsible for black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status. Accounting for differences in this model minority attribute between the two black ethnic groups results in a 4 and 7 percent reduction in the employment and personal income disparity, respectively. In both cases this reduction is driven by the fact that Afro Caribbeans are more likely to marry. This suggests that family structure is more important in accounting for black ethnic disparities than is family functioning. Again, although I find support for the idea that differences in African American and Afro Caribbean families are partially responsible for black ethnic disparities, this explanation is not as viable as has been portrayed in the literature (Sowell 1975).

Race Consciousness Differences in the race consciousness of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans provides for a partial account of black ethnic disparities. These differences explain 3 and 4 percent of disparities in employment and personal income, respectively. Interestingly, these reductions are associated with different indicators of race consciousness. In the context of employment, the reduction is driven by differences in racial salience. In the

89

context of personal income, the reduction is driven by differences in linked fate with racial salience contributing. The role of racial salience is inline with expectations that race is less salient for Afro Caribbeans and therefore adjusting for it in the model predicting employment reduces the disparity. However, given the literature, it is somewhat perplexing that greater levels of racial salience are associated with a greater likelihood of employment. Given this association, African Americans should gain a slight advantage in employment on account of their greater racial salience. This advantage appears not to be obtained (if it were, the coefficient for the black ethnic disparity in employment would increase after controlling for salience). Although there appears to be no difference between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in linked fate, controlling for linked fate is driving the reduction in the disparity in income. This reduction is also supported by differences in racial salience that work in the same way as they did for employment.

ARE MODEL MINORITY ATTRIBUTES RESPONSIBLE FOR AFRO CARIBBEAN SOCIOECONOMIC SUCCESS? There is little support for the link between model minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status. First, Afro Caribbeans with stronger ethnic identities generally do not have higher levels of socioeconomic status than Afro Caribbeans with lower ethnic identity. There is limited support for the idea that greater Afro Caribbean ethnic identity is associated with better levels of model minority attributes. Although there is no link between ethnic identity and protestant work ethic or race consciousness, Afro Caribbeans with greater ethnic identities are more economically autonomous and have better functioning families. Connections between model minority attributes and

90

ethnic identity do not appear to be a central factor in Afro Caribbean socioeconomic success. The above findings show that these factors account for no more than 5 percent of the overall variation in Afro Caribbean employment rates, occupational prestige and annual personal income. Moreover, the limited link between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and socioeconomic status is not fully accounted for by model minority factors. The one exception to this pattern is that model minority factors explain the association between closeness to other Afro Caribbeans and greater personal income.

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS Given that the hypotheses tested in this chapter provide only partial explanations for black ethnic disparities or relative Afro Caribbean success and that multivariate models generally account for less than 20 percent of the variation in the outcomes considered, I consider some alternatives explanations. As I have focused my consideration of the immigrant selectivity hypothesis (in Chapter 2) and the role of race and white interest (in Chapter 3), I do not review those alternatives here. I focus my alternative explanation on the limited link between Afro Caribbean ethnic identification and socioeconomic status. That is, when the link is observed in the multivariate context, it is generally not accounted for by model minority attributes. If model minority attributes do not account for this link, what does? Vilna Bashi (2007) proposes that Afro Caribbeans benefit from a network of “hubs and spokes” and that this network is determined by and promotes Caribbean ethnic identity. Therefore, one alternative explanation for this finding is that Afro Caribbeans with greater ethnic identity also have better labor market networks than African Americans.

91

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Findings presented in this chapter are limited and therefore further investigation is required (more general limitations to the dissertation are discussed in the conclusion to the dissertation). First, my findings are from a cross-sectional social survey. Since I only have findings for associations I cannot prove causality (e.g., I cannot conclude that Afro Caribbean ethnic identity causes Afro Caribbeans to have better functioning families). In addition, some of the measures employed in this chapter are less than ideal. I have reviewed the potential for measurement error above. Given these limitations, future research should employ better measures and a longitudinal survey. That is, findings from this study could be strengthened or overturned with better data. In addition, given limited support for the idea that Afro Caribbeans are a model minority and the limited explanatory power of model minority attributes in black ethnic disparities and Afro Caribbean success, the question must be raised: why have scholars and social commentators so often cast Afro Caribbeans as a model minority? Where, when and how did the model minority trope begin to be applied to the Afro Caribbean body politic? These and related questions should be addressed in future research.

CONCLUSION Conclusions reached in this chapter can contribute to the existing debate on race, ethnicity and social inequality in the United States. Specifically, Thomas Sowell (1975, 1978) has proposed that the black ethnic comparative provides the opportunity for unique

92

insight into the relative roles of racial discrimination and cultural pathology in the manufacture of black-white racial inequality. In this chapter, I am able to ‘hold race constant’ while observing the role of cultural attitudes and behaviors in black ethnic disparities. I find that cultural factors account for no more than 20 percent of this disparity. Therefore, it is not likely that cultural attitudes and behaviors account for the lion share of racial inequality. Further, my findings suggest that encouraging blacks (and other racial minority groups) to adopt such attitudes and behaviors will not likely result in the extinction of racial inequality in the United States. As cultural factors are not a major cause of black ethnic disparities, future research should consider the role of US race relations.

93

CITED LITERATURE Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Anderson, James D. 1988. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Arroyo, Carmen G. and Edward Zigler. 1995. "Racial Idenity, Academic Achievement and the Psychological Well-Being of Economically Disadvantaged Adolescents." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 69:903-914. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182. Bashi, Vilna. 2007. Survival of the Knitted: Immigrant Social Networks in a Stratified World. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks, and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99. Benson, Janel F. 2006. "Exploring the Racial Identities of Black Immigrants in the United States." Sociological Forum 21:219-247. Bobo, Lawrence D. 1999. "Prejudice as Group Position: Microfoundations of a Sociological Approach to Racism and Race Relations." Journal of Social Issues 55:445472. Bogan, Vicki and William Darity. 2007. "Culture and Entrepreneurship? African American and Immigrant Self-Employment in the United States." Ithaca, New York. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. "Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation." American Sociological Review 62:465-480. Borjas, George J. 1986. "The Self-Employment Experience of Immigrants." The Journal of Human Resources 21:485-506. Bowman, Phillip J. and Cleopatra Howard. 1985. "Race-Related Socialization, Motivation and Academic Achievement: A Study of Black Youths in Three-Generation Families." Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24:134-141. Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56.

94

—. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J. Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284. Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. —. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chiswick, Barry R. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Chou, Rosalind S. and Joe R. Feagin. 2008. The Myth of the Model Minority:Asian Americans Facing Racism. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers. Cokley, Kevin O. and Katherine Helm. 2001. "Testing the Construct Validity of Scores on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity." Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development 34:80-95. Cosby, Bill and Alvin F. Poussaint. 2007. Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Darity, William. 2005. "Stratification Economics: The Role of Intergroup Inquality." Journal of Economics and Finance 29:144-153. Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A. Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404. Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program. Downey, Douglas B., James W. Ainsworth, and Zhenchao Qian. 2009. "Rethinking the Attitude-Achievement Paradox among Blacks." Sociology of Education 82:1-19.

95

Du Bois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. —. 1903. Souls of Black Folks. New York, New York: Penguin Books. Edwards, Audrey and Craig K. Polite. 1992. Children of the Dream. New York, New York: Doubleday. Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. "Race, Ancestry and Socioeconomic Status: Are West Indian Blacks More Successful?" in The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Feagin, Joe R. 2000. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities and Future Reparations. London, England: Routledge. Fields, Barbara. 1990. "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America." New Left Review 181:95-118. Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City." International Migration Review 19:708-727. —. 2001. "Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York." Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Foner, Nancy and Richard Napoli. 1978. "Jamaican and Black-American Migrant Farm Workers: A Comparative Analysis." Social Problems 25:491-503. Fordham, S. and John U. Ogbu. 1986. "Black Students' School Success: Coping with the 'Burden of Acting White'." Urban Review 19:176-206. Fordham, Signithia. 1988. "Racelessness as a Factor in Black Success: Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory." Harvard Educational Review 58:54-84. —. 1996. Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity and Success at Capital High. Chicago, Illiniois: University of Chicago. Forsythe, Dennis. 1983. "Black Immigrants and the American Ethos: Theories and Observations." Pp. 55-82 in Caribbean Immigration to the United States, edited by R. S. Bryce-Laporte and D. M. Mortimer. Washington, DC: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution. Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

96

Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:173-192. Glantz, Oscar. 1977. "Locus of Control and Aspiration to Traditionally Open and Traditionally Closed Occupations." Journal of Negro Education 46:278-290. —. 1978. "Native Sons and Immigrants: Some Beliefs and Values of American-Born and West Indian Blacks at Brooklyn College." Ethnicity 5:189-202. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press. —. 1970a. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press. —. 1970b. "The Negroes." Pp. 24-85 in Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, New York: Norton & Company. Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs." Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Harris, Angel L. 2006. "I (Don't) Hate School: Revisiting Oppositional Culture Theory of Blacks' Resistance to Schooling." Social Forces 85:797-828. Harris, Angel L. and Kris Marsh. 2010. "Is Raceless Identity an Effective Strategy for Academic Success among Blacks?" Social Science Quarterly 91:1242-1263. Harris, Angel L. and Keith Robinson. 2007. "Schooling Behaviorsor Prior Skills? A Cautionary Tale of Omitted Variable Bias within Oppositional Culture Theory." Sociology of Education 80:139-157. Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298. Hemmings, Annette. 1998. "The Self-Transformations of African-American Achievers." Youth & Society 29:330-368. Ho, Christine G.T. 1995. "The Twin Processess of Racialization and Ethnification among Afro-Trinidadian Immigrants in Los Angeles." Caribbean Quarterly 41:99-122.

97

Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298. Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams. 2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:196-207. Jackson, John L. 2008. Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness: Basic Civitas Books. Johnson, James Weldon. 1930. Black Manhattan. New York, New York: A. A. Knopf Publishers. Kasinitz, Philip. 2001. "Invisible No More: West Indian Americans in the Social Scientific Imagination." Pp. 257-275 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16. Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics & Society 27:105-138. —. 2004. "Imagining Race and Nation in Multiculturalist America." Ethnic and Racial Studies 27:987-1005. Knight, Franklin W. 1990. The Caribbean: The Genesis of a Fragmented Nationalism. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, Stacey J. 1996. "Asian Americans: The Absent/Silenced/Model Minority." Pp. 1-16 in Unraveling the 'Model Minority' Stereotype: Listening to Asian American Youth. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University. Lewis, Oscar. 1965. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty - San Juan and New York. New York, New York: Vintage Books. Light, Ivan. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare among Chinese, Japanese and Blacks. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes." Tallahassee, Florida.

98

McWhorter, John. 2000. Loosing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York, New York: The Free Press. Metzl, Jonathan M. 2009. The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease. Boston: Beacon. Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press. Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008b. "Testing the Cultural Hypotheses." Pp. 89-115 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008c. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for Naitonal Action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor (Office of Policy and Planning Research). Nagel, Joane. 1994. "Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Culture." Social Problems 41:152-177. Ogbu, John. 1987. "Variability in Minority Performance: The Problem in Search of Explanation." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18:312-334. —. 2003. Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ogbu, John and H.D. Simons. 1998. "Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A CulturalEcological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29:155-188. Ogbu, John U. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in CrossCultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press. —. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success." Theory Into Practice 31:287-295. Paris, D. Elliott. 1981. "The Contributions of the Caribbean Immigrant to the United States Society." Journal of Caribbean Studies 2:10.

99

Park, Robert Ezra. 1950. "Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups." in Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Patterson, Orlando. 1998. The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America's "Racial" Crisis. Washington, DC: Counterpoint. Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96. Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Raphael, Lennox. 1964. "West Indians and Afro-Americans." Freedomways 4:438-445. Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press. Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill. Sellers, Robert M., Stephanie A.J. Rowley, Tabbye M. Chavous, J. Nicole Shelton, and Mia A. Smith. 1997. "Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A Preliminary Investigation of Reliability and Construct Validity." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 73:805-815. Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers. —. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. —. 1981a. "The Blacks." Pp. 183-224 in Ethnic America: A History. New York, New York: Basic Books. —. 1981b. "Webber and Bakke, and the Presuppositions of Affirmative Action." Pp. 3797 in Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, edited by W. E. Block and M. A. Walker. New Jersey, New York: The Fraser Institute.

100

—. 1983. The Economics and Politics of Race. New York, New York: William Morrow and Co. —. 1984. "The Special Case of Blacks." Pp. 73-90 in Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? New York, New York: William Morrow and Company. Sue, S. and H.H.L. Kitano. 1973. "Stereotypes as a Measure of Success." Social Issues 29:83-98. Suzuki, Bob H. 1977. "Education and the Socialization of Asian Americans: A Revisionist Analysis of the 'Model Minority' Thesis." Amerasia Journal 4:23-52. Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom. 1997. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster. Truab, James. 1981. "You Can Get It If You Really Want." Harpers 264:27-31. Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999a. "Attitudes toward African Americans." Pp. 137-164 in Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999b. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999c. "Race in Jamaica." Pp. 23-57 in Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Walker, J.E. 1998. The History of Black Business in America: Capitalism, Race, Entrepreneurship. New York, New York: Twayne Publishers. Waters, Mary C. 1994. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New York City." International Migration Review 28:795-820. —. 1996. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New York City." Pp. 171-196 in The New Second Generation, edited by A. Portes. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. —. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.

101

—. 1999c. "Identities of the Second Generation." Pp. 285-326 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999d. "Intergenerational Dynamics." Pp. 192-242 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999e. "Racial and Ethnic Identity Choices." Pp. 44-93 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999f. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, New York: Allen and Unwin; Rutledge Classics. Weinberg, Meyer. 1977. A Chance to Learn: A History of Race and Education in the United States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and Public Policy. Chicago, Illinois, IL: University of Chicago Press. Yancey, William L., Eugene P. Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani. 1976. "Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation." American Sociological Review 41:391-403. Zhou, Min. 1997. "Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation." International Migration Review 31:975-1008. Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

102

CHAPTER 4 EXPLORING THE ROLE OF ‘WHITE INTEREST’ IN BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES “The white landlord, the white shopkeeper, the white ‘boss’ will also tell [Afro Caribbeans] of their moral superiority over the [African American] and the distinctiveness of their accent – leaving them to believe that they are the recipients of exceptional favors, when in fact they are being exploited no less than [African Americans]” (BryceLaporte 1973: 57).

In recent decades the proportion of blacks living in the US that are Caribbeanborn has increased sharply (i.e., Afro Caribbeans; Kent 2007, Model 2008a). This social demographic trend has called attention to black ethnic socioeconomic disparities50 between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans that consistently favor Afro Caribbeans (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e, Sowell 1978). For instance, according to the most recent studies, Afro Caribbeans have earnings that are approximately 16 percent higher than African Americans and are as much as 15 percent more likely to be employed than African Americans (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).51 Prior research has typically explained differences in the socioeconomic status of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans by focusing on endogenous factors like group level differences in attitudes and behaviors and human capital characteristics (e.g., 50

I use the term ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’ to refer to disparate rates, levels or outcomes between blacks across national-origin. In this paper, I am specifically interested in disparate outcomes on various measures of socioeconomic attainment – e.g., labor market participation and earnings. Although this term generally includes African Americans and black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and South America, in this study I use this term to refer to disparities between African Americans and black immigrants from the Caribbean only. Although I am interested in other disparities between black ethnic groups, in this paper I use the term ‘black ethnic disparity’ and ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’ synonymously. 51 These percentages reflect group averages at the margins. After adjustments for age, education, time since migration, census year, cohort of arrival and marital status, Afro Caribbeans continue to outpace African Americans. See Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

103

Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e, Sowell 1975). Unfortunately, these explanations only partially explain socioeconomic differences between the groups (see Chapters 2 and 3). In general, scholars have paid insufficient attention to the role that exogenous factors might play in the production of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. To date, there are two interrelated arguments that posit race as an important exogenous factor underlying socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. First, some argue that Afro Caribbeans do better than African Americans because they benefit from white favoritism. The white favoritism hypothesis argues that whites engage in a kind of ‘statistical discrimination’ (Phelps 1972) and prefer to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans in the because they perceive Afro Caribbeans to be better workers than African Americans (Dominguez 1975, Foner 1985, Sowell 1978, Waters 1999g). On the other hand, the white comfort hypothesis argues that whites are more likely to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans because they do not ‘represent’ or ‘bring up’ the history of racial injustice in America in the same way as African Americans (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Grosfoguel and Georas 2003, Waters 1999b). There are three major limitations to the work on race and black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. First, much of the research in this area is ethnographic and focused on the Northeastern region of the U.S (Foner 1985, Kasinitz 1992, Rogers 2001, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a). Second, the literature has not adequately considered the potential role of ‘differential treatment’ as a key exogenous factor in the production of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities (Bryce-Laporte 1973). Finally, the literature does not adequately capture the more multilayered and complex ways that race influences black ethnic disparity (Bryce-Laporte 1973, Kim 1999, Pierre 2004). Specifically, most

104

have not considered the ways in which black ethnic disparities and popular explanations for these disparities work to maintain racial inequality and white supremacy. The primary focus of this chapter is to extend thinking on the role that race plays in the production and maintenance of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the US. In this chapter I pose three questions: (1) to what extent are black ethnic disparities due to factors associated with white favoritism (i.e., differences in human capital and work ethic), (2) to what extent are these disparities a result of factors associated with white comfort (i.e., differences in racial attitudes and behaviors) and (3) to what extent are these disparities associated with the differential treatment of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the US labor market? In order to address the existing limitations, I use data from the first national survey that includes oversamples of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). I find little support for the white favoritism and comfort hypotheses. I find that about half of black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status are attributable to differential treatment, or differential rewards for the same levels of human capital, work ethic and race consciousness. I conclude by offering an alternative explanation that focuses on the role that race plays in the process of differential treatment and the production of black ethnic disparities in the United States.

EXPLANATIONS FOR BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES So far, scholars have mainly provided explanations for relative Afro Caribbean success that focus on endogenous factors like better ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors’ (Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell 1978) or greater ‘human capital

105

characteristics’ (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e).52 Thomas Sowell is the primary source for nativity arguments that point to group level differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors as the main cause of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). He argues that it is the social and historical context of the Caribbean that yields a greater work ethic and a deeper appreciation for educational attainment among Afro Caribbeans. Specifically, Sowell asserts that differences between the two slavery economies and the historical and contemporary racial compositions of the US and Caribbean result in different cultural attitudes and behaviors. With respect to the former, Sowell asserts that Afro Caribbeans were more likely to experience independence during slavery because Caribbean owners were more likely than US owners to allow slaves to maintain private crops and even trade surpluses with other slaves. This longer history of economic autonomy provides for greater incentives to work hard and invest in things that will increase productivity, like education. As for racial composition, Sowell posits that being in the racial majority in the country of origin shapes how Afro Caribbeans think about race and social mobility today. That is, being in the racial majority removes the appearance that race serves as a block to social mobility because blacks necessarily occupy many high ranking positions in Caribbean societies (Foner 1985, Sowell 1978, Vickerman 1998). Reductions in the observed correlation between race and social mobility result in greater aspirations among Afro Caribbeans. These aspirations encourage hard work and investments in education. Barry Chiswick is the primary source for selectivity arguments that point to group level differences in ability, motivation and self-efficacy between migrants and nonmigrants as the main cause of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and 52

Please refer to Chapters 2 and 3 for am extensive review of this literature.

106

Afro Caribbeans (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1986, Chiswick 1979, Model 1995, Model 2008e). The main contention of this line of research has been that those who move from state-to-state or country-to-country represent a unique population that has greater levels of ability and motivation than non-migrants and therefore are not representative of the populations at the point of origin or destination. As such, comparisons between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the US are not comparisons between African American and Afro Caribbean cultural forms writ large, but instead are comparisons between Afro Caribbean movers and African American non-movers (Butcher 1994). Although these two schools of thought often present themselves as very different from one another, they both evidence the same working assumption: Afro Caribbeans do better because they work harder and have more human capital than African Americans. That is, all are deeply inspired by the basic assumptions present in much of the literature on migration and labor economics and neither approach gives serious attention to the idea that socioeconomic disparities might be the result of exogenous factors, like ‘white interest.’ Moreover, despite the prominence of cultural and human capital arguments, recent work suggests these explanations are much less viable than previously thought (see Chapters 2 and 3). Given these recent developments, I turn to consider the role of the concept and politic of race and racialization in the production of black ethnic disparities.

107

WHITE INTEREST AND BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES53 One can parse perspectives that implicate race in the production and maintenance of black ethnic disparity into two different but related themes.54 Some have argued that since Afro Caribbeans work harder, white employers favor them in the labor market (Dominguez 1975, Foner 1985, Kasinitz et al. 2003, Sowell 1978, Waters 1999g). Others contend that white employers are more likely to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans because they are less likely to ‘bring up’ race and racism than are African Americans (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Grosfoguel and Georas 2003, Waters 1999b). Both perspectives privilege the role that whites play in producing black ethnic disparities. In particular, they consider the degree to which perceived differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans contribute to greater Afro Caribbean success. Given their focus on the interests and perceptions of whites, these perspectives are more exogenous than nativity and selectivity theories (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Sowell 1975).

White Favoritism The premise of the white favoritism thesis is that whites hold Afro Caribbeans in higher esteem than African Americans because they are perceived to be more efficient and reliable workers than African Americans (Foner 1985, Model 2008d, Waters 1999g).

53

In this section, I rely heavily on the book Black Identities by Mary Waters. The reason for my heavy reliance on this book is two-fold. Primarily, Mary Waters conducted the only ethnography that includes whites, African Americans and Afro Caribbeans operating in the same context. The majority of ethnographies that discuss relations between whites, Afro Caribbeans and African Americans rely only on interviews with Afro Caribbeans. While this provides insights into Afro Caribbean perceptions of race relations between Afro Caribbeans and whites, it leaves white perceptions out of the analysis. The second reason why I rely on Black Identities is because it is widely noted as one of the definitive texts in the study of black ethnicity in the US. 54 Scholars that have featured race in their explanations generally reference the literature on identity politics. This tradition contrasts with those who have focused on nativity and selectivity and the literatures of migration and immigration and labor economics.

108

Given the basis of this greater esteem, when compared to African Americans, whites prefer to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans (Waters 1999g). Indeed prior research reveals that white managers perceive Afro Caribbeans “as more ambitious, more hard-working, and less troublesome than… African Americans” (Waters 1999g: 121). Despite not having “concrete statistics,” white managers often report that they prefer to hire Afro Caribbeans because of “their reliability [and] their willingness to do the job” (Waters 1999g: 116). Conversely, many white employers feel as though African Americans have betrayed the “moral values embodied in the Protestant work ethic” (Kinder and Sears 1981: 414). According to some white employers, African Americans prefer welfare to working and “that people who come from the islands are more appreciative of their jobs… [and] consider themselves fortunate” to be employed (Waters 1999b: 172).55 Afro Caribbeans and African Americans also report being aware of white favoritism (Foner 1985, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999g). Afro Caribbeans concur with whites; that they are “more ambitious, harder workers, and greater achievers” (Foner 1985: 717). According to a study of workers in Northeastern Apple Orchards, 40 percent of Afro Caribbean workers reported that whites treat Afro Caribbeans better than African Americans (Foner 1985: 717). Milton Vickerman reported that according to one of the Afro Caribbean men that he interviewed, “Initially… the whites in the neighborhood… expressed hostility at the idea of a black family moving in” but this changed “when they discovered that the family was [Afro Caribbean]” (1999b: 114). That is, “[p]revious hostility melted away and was replaced by a very welcoming attitude” (Vickerman 55

Interestingly, one study shows that Afro Caribbean performance on academic tests increases when the person proctoring the exam is white (see Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A. Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404.) This suggests that Afro Caribbeans may exert greater effort to perform well in the labor market when working for white employers. This greater effort may be what white employers observe in the workplace.

109

1999b: 114). The white preference for Afro Caribbeans does not go unnoticed by African Americans (Waters 1999g: 130-2). According to one African American worker, her previous employer, “…said if it was up to him, he wouldn’t hire any [African Americans], and he’d hire [Afro Caribbeans]” (Waters 1999g: 131). To summarize, support for the white favoritism thesis rests on the perception that Afro Caribbeans are better workers than African Americans. Both white employers and Afro Caribbeans hold this perception. African Americans differ in their perceptions.

White Comfort Scholars have also argued that whites have developed a ‘racialized comfort’56 with Afro Caribbeans and therefore tend to hire and promote them at greater rates than African Americans (Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g). Describing the role that white comfort plays in the disparate hiring and promotion of Afro Caribbeans vis-à-vis African Americans, Mary Waters offers the following (1999b: 172): [Afro Caribbeans] provide a black face for whites to look into without seeing the sorry history of American race relations mirrored back. This puts whites at ease, and a cycle of expectations in created. [Afro Caribbeans] don’t expect strained relations with whites and whites don’t expect strained relations with [Afro Caribbeans].

More specifically, Waters notes that whites read Afro Caribbeans as “not being angry and blaming whites for historical wrongs” (174-5) and accepting of “the fact that even though you are white, it is not because you are white that you are dictating to them, but because you are the person in authority” (italics in the original; 1999b: 172). Conversely, whites describe African Americans in terms of having a “chip on their shoulder” (174) and being 56

I use the term ‘racialized comfort’ here to reference the fact that the comfort that whites feel toward Afro Caribbeans is rooted in their perception of the ‘racial consciousness’ of Afro Caribbeans. That is, white comfort with Afro Caribbeans is driven by racial factors.

110

“angry” and threatening (Foner 1985: 717, Waters 1999b: 174, 177). Moreover, many whites “thought [African Americans] unfairly saw racism where none exists” (Waters 1999b: 178). Referencing the racial tensions that exist between whites and African Americans, one white manager explained that, “… it’s more and more that the blacks are creating it, and I think it’s a shame… if they would stop blaming us, you know, for everything, then it would be a little easier” (Waters 1999b: 179-80). Given these perceptions, Waters concludes that, “[Afro Caribbeans] who do not see encounters with supervisors or customers as having racial overtones will no doubt be preferred by supervisors [and] employers… over [African Americans] who do” (Waters 1999b: 184). According to some Afro Caribbeans, “[m]erit, diligence, politeness, and respect rather than race thinking… [are] the keys to attaining upward mobility in America” (Vickerman 1999b: 114). Afro Caribbeans also echo the white perception that African Americans are too concerned with race and therefore do not move forward as quickly as Afro Caribbeans. One Afro Caribbean interviewee reported that he, “…can’t help them [African Americans] because they’re so wrapped up in racism, and they act it out so often, they interpret it as such so often that sometimes they are not even approachable…” (Waters 1999b: 171). Another Afro Caribbean immigrant speculates that, “You see, they believe that the white man took something from them, which he did, and they’re always thinking about how to beat the system to get it back” (Rogers 2001: 178). In addition, some African Americans report that Afro Caribbeans are racially docile and simply do not understand the nature of race and racism in the US (Waters 1999g). A social survey of middle schools in Dade County, Miami found that African Americans report scores that are 8 percent higher on racial pride and 33 percent higher for the cultural mistrust of

111

whites then Afro Caribbeans (Biafora et al. 1993).57 To sum, the white comfort thesis rests on the assumption that – on average – the racial attitudes and behaviors of Afro Caribbeans are less explicit and conflict bound than those of African Americans. Given its particular focus on racial factors in hiring and promoting, the white comfort thesis privileges race more than the white favoritism thesis. That is, not only does it feature the white interest, it privileges the white racial interest. However, it consigns the role of white interest in the manufacture of black ethnic disparities to the affective or emotive dimensions of intergroup relations (in much the same way as: Sears and Henry 2005). By focusing on the ways in which whites feel, it fails to consider the ways in which this particular form of ‘racialized comfort’ might be implicated in the maintenance of racial inequality in general and interest in the position of whites at the top of the US racial hierarchy in particular (Bobo 2006, Bryce-Laporte 1973). That is, white comfort might best be understood as an affective outcome that results from blacks (in this case Afro Caribbeans) complying with the racial status quo. It therefore promotes the idea that the current racial hierarchy is just and that if African Americans seek social mobility they can do so by reducing their investments in racial contestation.

Differential Treatment Although the literature on white favoritism and comfort does well to point toward exogenous factors in the promotion of black ethnic disparities, one exogenous factor that 57

Also, several studies report that Afro Caribbean ‘see’ more race and racism the longer they are in the United States. (See Vickerman, Milton. 1999b. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. See also, Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.)

112

has gone largely unconsidered is the possibility that employers treat Afro Caribbeans and African Americans differently and in ways that promote Afro Caribbean success (BryceLaporte 1973, Foner 1985). That is, white favoritism and white comfort assume that white employers hire and promote Afro Caribbeans at greater rates because they are – in fact – better workers that do not complain about American race relations. These explanations assume that behavioral accounts of white employers are in fact accurate and without perceptual bias or error. However, there are reasons to suspect that white employers are more lax when Afro Caribbeans do not work hard or do complain about race while remaining hypersensitive and vigilant when African Americans display the same attitudes and behaviors (Benson 2006, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a). For instance, Waters notes that white employers often grant Afro Caribbeans “slack” (Waters 1999g: 121) when their work performance is not up to par – a relief from expectations that is not granted to African Americans. With respect to work ethic, she observes (Waters 1999g: 121), … where [African Americans] are blamed for their lack of a work ethic and for not showing up to work on Mondays, the immigrants are often granted cultural or ethnic explanations for why they behave in a particular way. One manager explained that when new immigrants were late ‘on island time’ or did not show up for work when it rained, he understood that they just did not understand the ‘American way of work,’ and then cut them some slack.

There are also reasons to suspect that Afro Caribbean racial attitudes are very similar to the racial attitudes of African Americans but that they do not pay the same penalty that African Americans pay for holding theses attitudes. For instance, in reflecting on her interviews with white employers, Waters notes that (1999b: 175), … a significant number of the white managers describe [Afro Caribbeans] as being very outspoken, very aware of race, and very

113

likely to be blunt about what they want. Yet this did not seem to dampen relations between whites and [Afro Caribbeans] in the same way that it dampened relations between African Americans and whites.58

Others also find support for the notion that Afro Caribbean racial attitudes are not very different from African Americans (Benson 2006, Biafora et al. 1993, Vickerman 1999b). For instance, findings from a multi-city social survey reveal that Afro Caribbeans report levels of linked fate59 that are comparable to African Americans (Benson 2006). According to the same study, there are also no meaningful differences in perceived discrimination between the two groups (Benson 2006, Ho 1995). Milton Vickerman (1999b) reports that many of the Afro Caribbeans he interviewed try not to ‘see race’ but that most become vocal critics of American racial politics and a good portion are not shy about sharing their racial discontents in public. Further support for the differential treatment of Afro Caribbeans and African Americans comes from Afro Caribbeans who invest in making their ‘Caribbeanness’ known as part of an effort to maintain an advantage in the labor market (Foner 1985, Jackson 2010, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999g). Afro Caribbeans often work to make their different ethnic heritage known in order to procure favorable treatment by whites (Foner 1985, Model 2008d). Not only are Afro Caribbeans aware of their advantage, some even appear to be aware of a larger set of racial politics at play. According to one Afro Caribbean worker (Waters 1999g: 121),

58

Additional support for this inconsistency is found on pages 184-5 when Waters uses quotes from two different interviews with white employers who report that Afro Caribbeans are often “angry” and “push being black.” Waters also states that, “Whites held contradictory opinions of West Indians. They see them as more friendly, more approachable on an individual level, and more cooperative, and, at the same time, more aware of race, more likely to be angry and blunt about workplace race relations, and more demanding and arrogant” (186). 59 This is a racial linked fate and therefore is in reference to blacks generally, not African Americans or Afro Caribbeans in particular.

114

My ex-boss he was white and he would rather have a staff like this with a lot of [Afro Caribbeans] because of the problems [he had] when he would hire [African Americans]. He would say, ‘it’s a waste.’ On a Monday morning when he looking (sic) for his job to be done, they’re not here. And he always say (sic) he liked [Afro Caribbean] people. And I think I benefit from that. I think this is why I’m in this position right now through him, you know? And probably because I’m black, maybe wouldn’t appreciate me that much. If you’re working for a place and there’s openings for a job, them big firms, they like to take [Afro Caribbeans] faster than a [African American].

What is unique about this quote is that; in addition to the respondent appearing aware of the fact that her employer sees her as a hard worker vis-à-vis African Americans, she is also aware that this employer preference might be associated with a larger racial agenda.60 It is difficult to speculate on exactly what this respondent thinks this agenda is, but it is clear that she believes she is benefiting in a way that is unique to being simultaneously black and Caribbean. Findings from Chapter 3 also suggest that investments in Afro Caribbean identity are associated with greater socioeconomic success – net of social background factors and select cultural attitudes and behaviors. That is, Afro Caribbeans who have greater investments in a Caribbean identity do better than those who do not, and this association is not a result of any link between human capital, cultural factors and socioeconomic attainment. Pointing toward the idea of differential treatment, Bryce-Laporte – one of the seminal scholars on race and black ethnicity – once remarked (1973: 57), The white landlord, the white shopkeeper, the white ‘boss’ will also tell [Afro Caribbeans] of their moral superiority over the [African American] and the distinctiveness of their accent – leaving them to believe that they are the recipients of exceptional favors, when in fact they are being exploited no less than [African Americans].

60

I.e., she alludes to this when she says: “And probably because I’m black, maybe wouldn’t appreciate me that much.”

115

Therefore, the motivation for differential treatment of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans may be rooted in a societal interest to maintain current trends in blackwhite inequality in the US (Bashi and McDaniel 1997, Bryce-Laporte 1973). By allowing for the minimal advance of Afro Caribbeans vis-à-vis African Americans, whites can then point to greater Afro Caribbean success as proof that race and racism is not the cause of African American disadvantage. Instead, as other blacks have managed to ‘do better,’ African Americans should shift their focus from race and racism and toward working harder and complaining less, like their Afro Caribbean peers. This narrative does not acknowledge much larger and persistent gaps between Afro Caribbeans and whites and has the effect of muting claims of racial discrimination in ways that promote the current racial status quo – i.e., whites at the top. In sum, scholars have framed Afro Caribbeans as exceptional. Specifically, Afro Caribbeans are often thought to be exceptionally good workers who are exceptionally ‘racially polite’ vis-à-vis African Americans. However, a close read of this depiction results in contradictory evidence. Importantly, this imagined exceptionalism might lead to the differential treatment of Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. This differential treatment might then be an important source of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities in the US.

HYPOTHESES Although proponents of white favoritism and comfort might propose large differences in work ethic and race consciousness between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, I present expectations that draw on work which suggests that these attitudes

116

and behaviors are likely not that different (Bryce-Laporte 1973, Pierre 2004).61 Moreover, I expect that the same attitudes and behaviors garner different socioeconomic outcomes when expressed by African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. White Favoritism and Black Ethnicity 1a. Whites have more favorable feelings toward Afro Caribbeans than African Americans. 1b. There is no difference in work ethic between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. White Comfort and Black Ethnicity 2a. African Americans hold racial attitudes that are no more critical than the racial attitudes of Afro Caribbeans. 2b. African Americans are no more likely to perceive racial discrimination than Afro Caribbeans. 2c. African Americans and Afro Caribbeans respond to discrimination in the same way. White Favoritism, White Comfort and Black Ethnic Disparities 3a. Controlling for factors associated with white favoritism will partially explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. 3b. Controlling for factors associated with white comfort will partially explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. Differential Treatment and Black Ethnic Disparities 4a. The association between human capital, work ethic and socioeconomic status will be stronger for Afro Caribbeans than for African Americans (i.e., different treatment for shared characteristics). 4b. The association between racial attitudes and socioeconomic status will be weaker for Afro Caribbeans than for African Americans. (i.e., different treatment for shared characteristics).

61

Also see findings from Chapters 2 and 3.

117

4c. At the group level, different returns to the same levels of human capital, work ethic and racial attitudes explains more of the variance in socioeconomic disparity between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans than group level endowments for these attributes. DATA AND METHODS To explore these hypotheses I use survey data from the National Survey of American Life (NSAL; Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). The NSAL is uniquely suited for this study because it contains a range of information on racial, ethnic and cultural factors as well as measures of socioeconomic status. Further, it provides the first nationally representative study of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. The survey is comprised of two parts: the first was a face-to-face household survey. After completing the face-to-face interview, interviewers left respondents with a selfadministered questionnaire to complete and submit by mail. The total sample includes 3,464 African Americans, 1,599 Afro Caribbeans and 855 whites. The response rate for the face-to-face interview was approximately 71 percent for African Americans, approximately 78 percent for Afro Caribbeans and approximately 70 percent for whites (Jackson et al. 2004b: 204). The response rate for the self-administered questionnaire was 61 percent for African Americans, 43 percent for Afro Caribbeans and 68 percent for whites. The analytic sample for this study includes 3,009 African Americans, 1,406 Afro Caribbeans and 759 whites.62 There are three sets of variables in this study. First, there are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige and annual personal income. Second, there are several independent variables used to assess the relative roles of white

62

I used multiple imputation to address missing data (see Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.)

118

favoritism, white comfort and differential treatment in black ethnic socioeconomic disparity. Finally, there are control variables. All measures are imperfect approximations of the true concepts under study but they are either equal to or better than what has been previously available.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES There are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige and annual personal income. I measure employment status in terms of whether or not the respondent had a job at the time of the survey. I assessed occupational prestige by attaching occupational prestige scores to US Census job codes (Frederick 2010, Hauser and Warren 1997). I measure annual personal income with the personal reports of respondents. I concentrate on these three measures of socioeconomic status because they are the most consistently assessed constructs in the literature on black ethnic disparities (e.g., Model 2008e).

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES White Favoritism There are two parts to the white favoritism hypothesis. The first part states that whites prefer Afro Caribbeans to African Americans. The second proposes that this preference exists because Afro Caribbeans are actually better workers than African Americans. The nature of the data does not allow for a direct test of white favoritism. Therefore, I first test for differences in how close whites feel to Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. I then focus on the black portion of the sample and test for

119

differences in the human capital characteristics and orientations to work between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. To assess white attitudes, the survey asked white respondents about how close they feel in their “ideas and feelings” to “whites,” “black people in this country” and “black people from the Caribbean, like people from Jamaica, Bermuda or Haiti.” Interviewers asked the question regarding “black people in this country” before the question regarding “black people from the Caribbean.” Therefore, given the discourse on race and blackness in the US, I assume that when responding to the first question regarding “black people in this country” respondents were referencing African Americans. My measure of the degree of closeness whites feel toward African Americans and Afro Caribbeans is relative to their closeness to whites. In addition to white attitudes toward African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, I also compare levels of human capital and the Protestant work ethic between these two black ethnic groups. I measure human capital in terms of years of education, work experience (age – schooling – 6), work experience squared and whether or not the respondent has received additional training beyond their formal education – i.e., “Have you completed any additional schooling?” (Mincer 1974). There are two dimensions of the Protestant work ethic: willingness to work and satisfaction derived from working. First, a single item measured the respondents’ willingness to work. Respondents answered yes or no to the statement, “At times I refuse to hold a job, even when I am expected to.” This item was reverse-coded to assess ‘willingness to work.’ As the Protestant work ethic is not only about being willing to work but also about deriving a sense of purpose and meaning from the work one does, I include measures of job satisfaction: “How satisfied are (were) you in doing this work?” and “How much do (did)

120

you enjoy doing the work you do (did)?” Both questions provided 5-point Likert scale response sets that allowed for either positive or negative responses. Arguably, if other job characteristics are held constant (e.g., employment status and/or occupational prestige) those who hold a Protestant work ethic will not only be more willing to work, but more likely to be satisfied with and or enjoy their employment. The Cronbach alpha for these three items is .62 for African Americans and .60 for Afro Caribbeans.

White Comfort There are no direct measures of white comfort. Instead, I will use measures that tap the kinds of racial attitudes and behaviors – present among African Americans and Afro Caribbeans – that should be associated with varying degrees of racialized comfort among whites. There are four kinds of racial attitudes and behaviors that should matter in discussions of white comfort: attitudes toward whites, perceived race relations, black racial politics, perceived discrimination and responses to perceived discrimination. To assess black ethnic attitudes toward whites, I use two measures: how close does the respondent feel in their “ideas and feelings” toward whites (with response options: very close, fairly close, not too close, and not close at all) and “I would not mind if a suitably qualified White person was appointed as my boss” (with response options: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree and strongly agree). I use three indicators of perceived race relations: “Whites and racial minorities can never be really comfortable with each other, even if they are close friends,” “White people in this country do not respect Black people,” and “White people in this country do not think of Black people as important contributors to this country.” I consider the role of views on racial politics by

121

using three indicators: “I would not mind giving special preferences in hiring and job promotions to Blacks,” “The government should give reparations (compensation, payback) to African Americans for historical injustices and slavery” and two questions that reference ‘linked fate.’ The measure of linked fate is a single indicator composed from two questions: “Do you think what happens generally to Black people in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life?” and the follow-up question, “Will it affect you a lot, some, or not very much?” I combined results from these two questions to create four response options: none, not very much, some and a lot. There are two measures of perceived discrimination: everyday and major life. Everyday discrimination concerns daily hassles and irritations. The index for everyday discrimination includes 10 questions. Three example questions are: (“In your day-to-day life how often have any of the following things happened to you?): “…you are treated with less courtesy than other people?” “…you are treated with less respect than other people?” and “…you receive poor service compared with other people at restaurants or stores?” The Cronbach alpha for the complete index is .88 for African Americans and .89 for Afro Caribbeans. Major life discrimination is a measure of experiences of unfair treatment at moments in time when social mobility may be in jeopardy. There are nine measures of major life discrimination. Three examples include: “For unfair reasons, have you ever not been hired for a job?” “Have you ever been unfairly denied a promotion?” and “At any time in your life, have you ever been unfairly fired?” The Cronbach alpha for the complete index is .64 for African Americans and .61 for Afro Caribbeans.

122

CONTROL VARIABLES I control for several variables relevant to the study of socioeconomic status. These variables are: age, gender, region, parental educational attainment and whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean. First, I control for gender because not only are men employed at greater rates and earn more than women, but also because black immigration from the Caribbean has generally favored women (Model 2008a, Watkins-Owens 2001). Region is a particularly important control variable because the majority of Afro Caribbeans live in the Northeast where wages are often higher than other parts of the country (Mason 2009). Therefore, I include a dummy variable for those respondents living in the Northeast. I also control for the educational attainment of the respondents’ parents because more highly educated parents are often better able to assist their children in successfully navigating their own social mobility. Finally, I control for whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean because research shows that they are a distinct population group from first-generation Afro Caribbean immigrants and African Americans (Bennett and Lutz 2009, Butterfield 2003, Butterfield 2004, Deaux et al. 2007, Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993).

ANALYSIS PLAN My analysis proceeds in three stages. First, I examine mean level differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of Protestant work ethic, human capital, racial attitudes and perceived discrimination (see hypotheses 1a through 2c). Next, I assess whether these mean differences are responsible for black ethnic disparities in employment, occupational prestige and personal income (see hypotheses 3a

123

and 3b). Finally, I explore whether or not there are differential returns for the same attitudes and behaviors among African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (see hypotheses 4a through 4c).

White Favoritism and Comfort In order to test the hypotheses associated with white favoritism, I examine mean score differences in whites’ closeness to African Americans compared to Afro Caribbeans. Based on the white favoritism thesis I would expect whites to report feeling closer to Afro Caribbeans than African Americans. Next, I continue my investigation of the white favoritism thesis by examining mean score differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of Protestant work ethic and human capital characteristics. Based on the hypothesis we would expect Afro Caribbeans to have greater mean scores on both Protestant work ethic and human capital characteristics. I test the white comfort hypothesis by exploring mean score differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in attitudes toward whites, perceptions of race relations, views on racial politics, and perceived discrimination. The expectation is that if the white comfort hypothesis is correct then Afro Caribbeans will have more favorable attitudes toward whites, more positive perceptions of race relations and views on racial politics that provide for less support of affirmative action, less support for reparations and lower levels of linked fate than African Americans. Additionally, I use eta scores to ascertain the magnitude of the differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Grissom and Kim 2005, Rosenthal and Rosnow 1991). For substantive

124

interpretations I rely on the standards described by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991).63 I also estimate a series multivariate regression models in order to determine the degree to which controlling for differences in these attitudes and behaviors reduces black ethnic disparities in employment, occupational prestige and personal income. If after controlling for these intervening factors (e.g., Protestant work ethic or attitudes toward whites), the association between black ethnicity and socioeconomic status (e.g., occupational prestige) decreases or becomes non-significant I will conclude that there is some indirect support for the idea that these attributes account for black ethnic disparities (Baron and Kenny 1986).

Differential Treatment To evaluate the degree to which differential treatment is responsible for disparate socioeconomic outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, I draw upon multivariate decompositions to illustrate the degree to which African Americans and Afro Caribbeans receive different rewards for the same skills, attitudes and behaviors. Decomposition allows the analyst to parse group level disparities on some outcome (in this case: employment, occupational prestige and personal income) into two factors: endowment effects and treatment effects (Blinder 1973, Jann 2008, Oaxaca 1973). Endowment effects represent the portion of the disparity attributed to mean level differences on the independent variables between two groups. Treatment effects represent the portion of the disparity that is a result of differential rewards for having the same group means on the independent variables. That is, this component measures the expected

63

For ES: ES < .10 are considered small or trivial, ES .11 to .20 are considered small, effects .21 to .50 are considered medium, and effects > .50 are considered large.

125

change in lower group’s mean outcome on the dependent variable, if it had the same coefficients as the group with a higher mean on the dependent variable. If differential treatment is useful for explaining socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans then a large portion of socioeconomic disparities between these two groups should be attributable to the ‘treatment effect.’

RESULTS Table 4.1 presents unadjusted means for the association between black ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The findings in this table are in line with expectations. Afro Caribbeans have better outcomes on all three measures of socioeconomic status. Afro Caribbeans are more likely employed than African Americans. Similarly, Afro Caribbeans have occupational prestige scores that are greater than African Americans. The largest disparity is in personal income. Afro Caribbeans earn more income annually than African Americans.

Black Ethnicity and White Favoritism Table 4.2 presents unadjusted means for measures associated with the white favoritism hypothesis. First, counter to expectations, whites report feeling closer to African Americans than they do toward Afro Caribbeans. This is likely related to the fact that the African American population is larger than the Afro Caribbean population. However, in accordance with expectations, there are no meaningful differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of their Protestant work ethic – i.e., refusal to work and job satisfaction. Afro Caribbeans appear to have a slight edge on

126

African Americans in terms of their human capital characteristics. Afro Caribbeans report more education and training than African Americans but African Americans have greater levels of work experience than Afro Caribbeans. The only difference that exceeds triviality is years of education. In all, with the exception of two human capital characteristics, findings from this table are not consistent with expectations associated with the white favoritism hypothesis. That is, according to the white favoritism thesis, one would expect large differences in Protestant work ethic and skill. Instead, results from Table 4.2 reveal no differences in Protestant work ethic and mostly small differences in human capital that are not consistently in favor of Afro Caribbeans.

Black Ethnicity and White Comfort Tables 4.3 and 4.4 report unadjusted means for attitudes and opinions that are likely to be associated with levels of racialized white comfort. Table 4.3 reveals mixed support for the white comfort hypothesis. While there are no differences in the closeness that African Americans and Afro Caribbeans feel towards whites, Afro Caribbeans are ‘more okay’ with having a white boss. Findings for perceived race relations run counter to the white comfort hypothesis. That is, there are no differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of their perceived level of comfort between whites and minorities and the amount of respect whites have toward blacks, but African Americans are more likely to think that whites do not think that blacks add to the US. In general, there are no differences in the racial politics of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. However, African Americans are more likely to support reparations for US slavery. Findings for perceived discrimination are in line with the white comfort

127

hypothesis. African Americans report more major life discrimination and more everyday discrimination than Afro Caribbeans. Table 4.4 reports very little support for the idea that the two black ethnic groups respond differently to perceptions of discrimination. However, of the six measures, African Americans are more likely to talk to someone about discrimination than are Afro Caribbeans. In all, of the 10 measures of white comfort, just half are in favor of Afro Caribbeans. In addition, the magnitudes of the differences are mostly small and certainly not as large as one might expect from reading the literature. Moreover, there are three instances (i.e., closeness to whites, minority comfort with whites and white respect for blacks) in which African American attitudes should produce more white comfort than Afro Caribbeans.

White Favoritism, White Comfort and Black Ethnic Disparities Tables 4.5 through 4.7 present findings from multivariate regressions of socioeconomic status on race related factors. Table 4.5 reveals race related factors do not fully explain disparities in current employment. Of the two race-related factors considered, factors associated with the white comfort hypothesis appear to have greater importance. Specifically, controlling for support for reparations and the sense of linked fate appear to drive the 6 percent reduction in black ethnic employment disparity presented in Model 3. Adding behaviors associated with white comfort did not provide for any greater explanatory value. Interestingly, controlling for differences in factors associated with the white favoritism hypothesis was associated with a slight increase in the black ethnic employment disparity. This goes in the opposite direction of the white favoritism premise – i.e., Afro Caribbeans do better because they are better workers.

128

Indeed, it appears that Afro Caribbeans receive greater rewards for holding the same levels of human capital and work ethic as African Americans. In tables 4.6 and 4.7, differences in social background characteristics fully explain the black ethnic disparity in occupational prestige and log annual personal income. These findings provide less than convincing support for the two major racerelated perspectives on black ethnic disparities. Not only are group level differences on key attributes associated with white favoritism and comfort often not as stark as has been proposed in the literature, but it is often the case that there are either no differences or that the differences that exist actually favor African Americans. Additionally, results from multivariate models provide no support for the idea that the existing group level differences account for a meaningful portion of black ethnic disparities. As mentioned in the above review of the literature, scholars should begin to move in a different direction. Specifically, the potential for differential treatment requires exploration.

Differential Treatment and Black Ethnic Disparities Tables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 present findings from multivariate decompositions of socioeconomic status by black ethnicity.64 In general, findings from these tables provide strong support for the idea that a large portion of black ethnic disparity results from differential returns to the same characteristics. Table 4.8 presents estimates for a LOGIT multivariate decomposition of current employment on a set of control variables and measures for the two race related factors discussed previously.65 According to the table,

64

Regression models are run separately for all outcomes by black ethnicity in the Appendix, Tables A2-A4. This table does not show estimates for individual or grouped variables because the Stata commands that allow for non-linear decompositions does not report estimates for individual or grouped variables. (See Bauer, Thomas K. and Mathias Sinning. 2006. "An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition to 65

129

black ethnic disparities in the likelihood of employment are mostly the result of differential treatment for the same group level attitudes and behaviors. Approximately 47 percent of the group disparity in employment results from differential returns to group level characteristics. Table 4.9 and 4.10 present estimates from multivariate decompositions of occupational prestige and log annual personal income on four variable groups: controls, human capital, Protestant work ethic and racial attitudes. Control variables include: gender, age and region. Human capital variables include: education, additional training and work experience. Protestant work ethic includes: willingness to work, job satisfaction and job enjoyment. Racial attitudes includes: closeness to whites, being okay with having a qualified white boss, thinking minorities and whites are comfortable, support for affirmative action, support for reparations, linked fate and major life and everyday discrimination. According to Table 4.9, about 68 percent of the disparity in occupational prestige is a result of group level differences in controls, human capital, Protestant work ethic and racial attitudes. Approximately 34 percent of the disparity in occupational prestige is due to differential returns for the same levels of controls, human capital, Protestant work ethic and racial attitudes. Table 4.10 reveals that approximately 75 percent of the disparity of log annual personal income is due to differences in-group level characteristics. Approximately, 54 percent of the disparity in annual personal income is due to differential returns for the same group levels of the controls, human capital, Protestant work ethic and racial attitudes. These findings suggest that differential

Non-Linear Models." Pp. 1-12 in Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung: Discussion Papers. Essen, Germany. , Sinning, Mathias, Markus Hahn, and Thomas K. Bauer. 2008. "The Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition for Nonlinear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:480-492.)

130

treatment provides for a more full explanation of black ethnic disparities than results associated with white favoritism and comfort. However, these results do not uncover the reasons for differential treatment. I will provide a potential explanation (or ‘motive’) for differential treatment later in the discussion.

DISCUSSION In this chapter, I test for the viability of the white favoritism and white comfort hypotheses in the development of black ethnic disparities. I also speculated on the role of differential treatment. In general, I found little support for white favoritism and comfort. I found strong support for differential treatment. Given the indirect nature of the empirical tests in this chapter, we need more research in order to better assess the competing roles of white favoritism, comfort and differential treatment in accounting for black ethnic disparities. In particular, future studies should explore these relationships in the experimental context. That is, given the dynamic nature of the hypotheses reviewed, experimental data that allows for the manipulation of black ethnicity is required. Cross sectional observational studies are limited because they only allow for indirect tests of the basic causal assumptions.

White Favoritism, White Comfort and Black Ethnic Disparities According to the findings presented in this chapter, white favoritism and white comfort do not account for black ethnic disparities. That is, comparing African Americans and Afro Caribbeans with the same levels of factors associated with white favoritism and comfort does not produce socioeconomic disparity between these two

131

black ethnic groups. First, African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are not that different on these factors. Although Afro Caribbeans do outpace African Americans on several factors related to these hypotheses, the magnitude of difference is most often small. Moreover, there are instances when African Americans have levels that should be associated with greater white favoritism and white comfort. These findings reveal that reports by white employers and Afro Caribbean workers are more perception than reality. However, these findings are limited because they only provide an indirect assessment of white favoritism and comfort. That is, since I do not have data on whites, African Americans and Afro Caribbeans working in the same setting it was impossible to assess the actual role of white favoritism and comfort in the development of black ethnic disparities. Instead, I presented data on factors that should be associated with white favoritism and comfort. An assessment of the links between work ethic, human capital and racial attitudes and behaviors among African Americans and Afro Caribbeans provides only an indirect test of the white favoritism and comfort hypotheses. That said, the indirect tests presented in this chapter are not what one would expect if white favoritism and comfort were at play.

Differential Treatment and Black Ethnic Disparities The findings in the chapter provide strong support for the idea that African Americans and Afro Caribbeans procure differential rewards for the same characteristics in the labor market. That is, in contrast to the expectations of many, having a black racial phenotype does not result in uniform treatment. The fact that around half of the socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are

132

associated with the ‘treatment effect’ should shift attention to the study of exogenous factors in the development of black ethnic disparities. Findings in support of differential treatment are limited primarily because of the nature of the data under investigation and omitted variable bias. The nature of the data certainly restricts my ability to make causal statements. At best, when using cross sectional data, researchers can speak to associations. However, the associations presented in the chapter are in line with differential treatment. In addition, since multivariate decompositions leave no portion of the group disparity unexplained, not accounting for related variables can result in biased outcomes (Blank and Dabady 2004). For instance, not including a variable for a characteristic that is very important in determining the disparity (e.g., health) can result in a larger portion of the disparity being associated with the treatment effect. That said, the variables presented in this chapter represent an honest attempt at including variables presented in the literature in the most parsimonious fashion. The results certainly do not run against the idea that African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are treated differently in the US labor market.

Rethinking Differential Treatment: Notes on the Differential Racialization Thesis The ideas proposed here take the above findings in support of differential treatment as their departure point; however, they depart from the arguments of prior research about white favoritism and white comfort and offer a new approach that rests on different assumptions about the nature of differential treatment. In this way, they go well beyond the empirical data presented in this chapter. I begin by examining the role of nonphenotypical attributes in the process of racialization. Based on this assessment, I assert

133

that U.S. society assigns distinct racial meanings to the black body because of perceived foreignness – differential racialization (Kim 1999, Kim 2004, Tuan 1998). After outlining this perspective, I return to the data presented above and posit that this process of differential racialization plays a crucial role in understanding the differential treatment of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in hiring, promotion and socioeconomic success in the United States. Importantly, I note that differential racialization provides an explanation or motive for findings in support of differential treatment. Recent attempts to explain how US society assigns racial meanings to human population groups have speculated on the role of non-phenotyipical attributes in the process of racialization (Kim 1999, Kim 2004, Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998). For instance, in the book Impossible Subjects, historian Mae Ngai makes the argument that “the national origins quota system [of U.S. immigration law] created categories of difference that turned on both national origins and race, reclassifying Americans as racialized subjects simultaneously along both lines” (Ngai 2004: 36). That is, she asserts that a group’s social location within the racial hierarchy of the United States is not only determined by ‘racial phenotype’ but is also influenced by their perceived national origin. Sociologist Mia Tuan (1998) makes a similar claim in her book, Forever Foreigner or Honorary Whites?, arguing that the racial meaning often assigned to the Asian body in the U.S. is that of perpetual foreignness. In her book, she illustrates how despite having a long multigenerational history in the US and achieving social mobility, many in the US perceive Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans as foreigners. Claire Jean Kim (1999, 2004) provides a useful conceptual framework that explicitly incorporates foreignness into processes of racialization. She argues that

134

racialization and racial inequality happen simultaneously along two key dimensions. That is, in addition to the traditional dimension of inferior-superior ‘racial stock’ (e.g., racial phenotype), she adds the axis foreigner-insider to better understand the racialization of Asians in the United States as well as the triangulated nature of racial order. She posits that racialization is a process of ‘triangulating’ human population groups relative to one another and according to their perceived racial stock (or relative racial superiority) and perceived nativity (or relative foreignness). According to the racial triangulation thesis, Asians are situated in the US racial hierarchy vis-à-vis whites and blacks – not just whites. Accordingly, blacks are insiders in U.S. society but remain an inferior racial group to Asians. Asians are outsiders but remain a superior group to blacks. Whites are not only considered superior to Asians, they also benefit from the perception of being more ‘inside’ or native than are Asians. On the other hand, blacks benefit from being considered more native than Asians are, but Asians are depicted as racially superior to blacks. This triangulated mode of interaction between the three groups positions Asians as better than Blacks but never as well as Whites. Kim’s racial triangulation thesis is instructive in detailing how racialized groups develop differing interests that are, in part, defined by the unique ways that these groups are subjected to White supremacy. Herein is where racial triangulation is useful for an analysis of the predicament of Afro Caribbeans and African Americans in the U.S., and more broadly my differential racialization thesis. That is, an important extension of Kim’s work is a consideration of how US society racializes Afro Caribbeans and African Americans differentially and the consequences of this differential racialization for their social and economic success in the United States.

135

In particular, Kim’s framework provides two insights that are essential for my thinking on ‘differential racialization.’ The first is that – by offering the secondary axis of foreigner-insider – she allows for the idea that non-phenotypical features – like perceived foreignness – are important to consider when thinking about (a) how racial meanings are assigned to human population groups and (b) how groups are then positioned within the US racial hierarchy. The second major insight that Kim offers is that human population groups are racialized relative to one another and not just vis-à-vis whites. The notion that human population groups are racialized relative to multiple groups instead of just whites opens the door for considering the possibility that Afro Caribbeans are racialized relative to African Americans and Whites. Indeed, Sociologist Bryce-Laporte made a similar point, four decades ago, in his examination of relations between Afro Caribbeans and Blacks (1973: 57): The white landlord, the white shopkeeper, the white ‘boss’ will also tell [Afro Caribbeans] of their moral superiority over the [African American] and the distinctiveness of their accent – leaving them to believe that they are the recipients of exceptional favors, when in fact they are being exploited no less than [African Americans].

Thus, the idea that perceived foreignness can be an important factor in the process of racialization provides the opportunity for assigning different racial meanings to the ‘black body’ based on their perceived position along the insider-foreigner axis. Given these theoretical tenets, I argue that people identify and treat blacks differently according to the perception of foreignness. Blacks are identified as either ‘native’66 or foreign through the use of non-phenotypical racial markers like languageaccent and self-identification (Jackson 2010). Thus, I posit that the black body is not only 66

I use the term ‘native’ synonymously with the term African American to refer to blacks that are the decedents of American slavery. Even though second generation Afro Caribbean immigrants are indeed native to the US, they are often marked as foreign because their parents were born abroad.

136

marked racially because of its ‘blackness’ but also in terms of its language and proclaimed ethnic identity. Moreover, the perception of foreignness is associated with imagining fixed characteristics (e.g., motivation, ability) in such a way that Afro Caribbeans are viewed as ‘forever foreign’ and primordially different from African Americans (e.g., Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998). This perceived difference allows for disparate treatment in the workplace – and elsewhere. That is, the perception of fixed differences allows observers to respond differently to the same attitudes and behaviors when expressed by African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Ultimately, the process of ‘differential racialization’ exists to maintain racial inequality in the US and does so by promoting the idea that blacks can undo racial inequality by working hard and disinvesting in racial ideology and contestation. Indeed, scholars conducting research on the black ethnic comparative have often pointed our attention to the fact that Afro Caribbeans outperform African Americans in order to argue that the real driver of ‘racial inequality’ (in this case white/African-American inequality) are the pathological attitudes and behaviors of African Americans (for a review of this research, see Chapter 3). This assertion looks past the fact that socioeconomic disparities between Afro Caribbeans and whites far exceed disparities between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. Moreover, because this assertion works to naturalize or deproblematize racial inequality (by blaming it on the victims) it – in effect – supports the current racial status quo, thereby securing white supremacy and racial stratification in the United States.

137

FUTURE RESEARCH There are plenty of opportunities for future research to both reassess findings presented in the chapter and begin to investigate the viability of the differential racialization thesis. For instance, future research should explore the degree to which differential treatment is observed in controlled laboratory experiments. Ideally, the researcher should be able to randomly vary whether or not the black body is read as African American or Afro Caribbean. Participants would then be asked to evaluate the confederates on some task. The researcher would then assess the degree to which perceived foreignness moderates participant evaluations concerning task completion. Given the population concentrations of Afro Caribbeans, such experiments should be conducted in the Northeast, the Southeast and then places where the black immigrant population has traditionally been sparse (e.g., the West). Although these experiments will provide a more accurate assessment of differential treatment, they will not provide support for the differential racialization thesis. In order to ascertain the thinking behind differential treatment – arguably, differential racialization – investigators will need to incorporate in-depth interviews into their assessments. Among other things, such in-depth interviews should not only probe for ‘model minority-like’ descriptors of Afro Caribbeans and referents to cultural pathology among African Americans, but should also investigate the degree to which these attributes are perceived to be fixed or mutable. That is, if findings from such studies reveal that these characteristics are perceived to be fixed (even in the face of countervailing evidence) it is more likely that these disparate conceptions of the black

138

body are racialized. In addition, future research should investigate the origins of the model minority myth as applied to Afro Caribbeans.

CONCLUSION The findings presented in the chapter have important implications for thinking about the causes of black ethnic socioeconomic disparity and for how scholars conceptualize race in the United States. As to the former, findings in the chapter (and in Chapters 2 and 3) show that endogenous factors are not the primary factor driving black ethnic disparities. Instead, they reveal that exogenous factors are the primary reason for disparate socioeconomic outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Given my explanation for this differential treatment, it is important that scholars begin to re-think how race and racialization work in the United States. The notion that exogenous factors are the primary cause of black ethnic disparities goes against intuition. As scholars have generally conceptualized race in terms of ‘racial phenotype’ the idea that Afro Caribbeans and African Americans are treated differently because of race has remained counter-intuitive – to say the least. Now that there is evidence for differential treatment scholars working on the black ethnic comparative should begin to further explore causes for black ethnic disparities that lay outside of the black body politic. That is, differential racialization may not be the ‘motive’ for differential treatment, but it appears that differential treatment is a viable explanation for black ethnic disparities and therefore the phenomenon of differential treatment and its causes should be further investigated.

139

As noted previously, scholars are increasingly beginning to consider the way and degree to which non-phenotypical attributes are being incorporated into the process of racialization. Although many will no doubt continue to be uncomfortable with this argument, the evidence in support of this kind of thinking continues to grow. Surely, given myriad constructions of race in places other than the US and increasing trends in immigration and globalization, it is not impossible that the US ‘racialized social system’ will borrow ideas from other societies (Bonilla-Silva 1997, Bonilla-Silva 2004). It is time US scholars begin to re-think race.

140

CITED LITERATURE Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182. Bashi, Vilna and Antonio McDaniel. 1997. "A Theory of Immigration and Racial Stratification." Journal of Black Studies 27:668-682. Bauer, Thomas K. and Mathias Sinning. 2006. "An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition to Non-Linear Models." Pp. 1-12 in Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung: Discussion Papers. Essen, Germany. Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks, and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99. Benson, Janel F. 2006. "Exploring the Racial Identities of Black Immigrants in the United States." Sociological Forum 21:219-247. Biafora, Frank A. Jr., Dorothy L. Taylor, George J. Warheit, Rick S. Zimmerman, and William A. Vega. 1993. "Cultural Mistrust and Racial Awareness among Ethnically Diverse Black Adolescent Boys." Journal of Black Psychology 19:266-281. Blinder, Alan S. 1973. "Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates." The Journal of Human Resources 8:436-455. Bobo, Lawrence D. 2006. Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public Opinion and the Wisconsin Treaty Rights Dispute. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. "Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation." American Sociological Review 62:465-480. —. 2004. ""We Are All Americans" The Latin Americanization of Race Relations in the United States." Pp. 149-183 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M. Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56.

141

—. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J. Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284. Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. —. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chiswick, Barry. 1986. "Human Capital and the Labor Market Adjustment of Immigrants: Testing Alternative Hypothesis." Research in Human Capital Development 4:1-26. Chiswick, Barry R. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A. Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404. Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program. Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City." International Migration Review 19:708-727. Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:173-192. Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs." Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

142

Grosfoguel, Ramon and Chloe S. Georas. 2003. ""Coloniality of Power" And Racial Dynamics: Notes on a Reinterpretation of Latino Caribbeans in New York City." Pp. 144-175 in Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in Global Perspective. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298. Ho, Christine G.T. 1995. "The Twin Processess of Racialization and Ethnification among Afro-Trinidadian Immigrants in Los Angeles." Caribbean Quarterly 41:99-122. Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298. Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams. 2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:196-207. Jackson, Regine O. 2010. "Black Immigrants and the Rhetoric of Social Distancing." Sociology Compass 4:193-206. Jann, Ben. 2008. "The Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition for Linear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:453-479. Kasinitz, Philip. 1992. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Kasinitz, Philip, John Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters. 2003. "Becoming Americans/Becoming New Yorkers: Immigrant Incorporation in a Majority Minority City." in Host Societies and the Reception of Immigrants, edited by J. J. Reitz. La Jolla, California: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego. Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16. Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics & Society 27:105-138. —. 2004. "Imagining Race and Nation in Multiculturalist America." Ethnic and Racial Studies 27:987-1005.

143

Kinder, Donald R. and David O. Sears. 1981. "Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats to the Good." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 40:414431. Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes." Tallahassee, Florida. Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press. Model, Suzanne. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems 42:535-553. —. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008b. "Testing the White Favoritism Hypothesis." Pp. 116-142 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008c. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Oaxaca, Ronald L. 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets." International Economic Review 14:693-709. Ogbu, John U. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success." Theory Into Practice 31:287-295. Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. "The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism." American Economic Review 62:659-661. Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96. Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

144

Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill. Sears, David O. and P.J. Henry. 2005. "Over Thirty Years Later: A Contemporary Look at Symbolic Racism and Its Critics." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37:95150. Sinning, Mathias, Markus Hahn, and Thomas K. Bauer. 2008. "The Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition for Nonlinear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:480-492. Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers. —. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press. Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999c. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

145

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Black Immigrants Are Not A Model Minority

The goal of this dissertation was to examine the factors that account for disparities in socioeconomic status between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in order to derive further insight into the nature of racial inequality in the United States. First, like previous research, I found that black ethnic socioeconomic disparities do continue to exist (i.e., Afro Caribbeans do indeed outperform African Americans in terms of employment status, occupational prestige and personal income; Model 1995, Model 2008a, Sowell 1978). Second, I found mixed support for the two most prominent perspectives on these disparities: ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors’ and ‘self-selection.’ The ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors’ perspective has argued that Afro Caribbeans have better socioeconomic outcomes than African Americans because – among other things – they have a greater value for work, or Protestant work ethic (Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). Those arguing in favor of ‘self-selection’ have argued that those who move from country-to-country or state-to-state have greater levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy than those who do not move (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008c). In several instances, group differences in attributes associated with these perspectives (e.g., ability and economic autonomy) provide a partial explanation for socioeconomic disparities. However, it is much more likely the case that adjusting for attributes associated with these perspectives results in either no change in the disparity or an increase in the disparity. Third, my examination of race and ‘differential treatment’ (see Chapter 4) is new to the literature and provides some preliminary insights into the

146

unexpected increase in the disparities under study, or ‘suppression effect.’ Specifically, I find that the labor market rewards African Americans and Afro Caribbeans differently for the same attributes. I offer the ‘differential racialization thesis’ in order to explain or provide the ‘motive’ for differential treatment and as a result provide further insight into the links between race, ethnicity and social inequality in the United States.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AFRICAN AMERICANS AND AFRO CARIBBEANS Much of the literature on black ethnic disparity focuses on the idea that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because they are different in ways that matter for socioeconomic attainment in the US. For instance, many speculate that Afro Caribbeans possess a greater value for work than African Americans (i.e., a Protestant work ethic). However, previous research that has speculated on the magnitude of these differences and their role in shaping black ethnic disparities has rarely measured these attributes (i.e., there is no prior empirical support for the idea that Afro Caribbeans have a greater Protestant work ethic than African Americans). In this dissertation, I contribute to the literature by measuring several key attributes that scholars have previously alluded to but not measured. My analyses reveal that there are few differences between these two black ethnic groups on many of these key attributes and that the differences that do exist are relatively small.67 For instance, Afro Caribbeans report greater levels of ability and motivation, but – on average – the magnitude of their favor on these three characteristics

67

In addition to tests of statistical significance, I rely on standardized measures of effect size in order to assess the magnitude of statistical differences (see Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.)

147

are small.68 On the other hand, African Americans hold slight advantages in self-efficacy and the Protestant work ethic. Finally, there are no meaningful differences in ‘race consciousness,’ family structure and functioning, perceptions of race relations, black political attitudes or responses to perceived discrimination. In sum, there are few differences between the two groups and the magnitude of Afro Caribbean favor is not in line with what scholars have suggested in the literature on black ethnic disparities.69 That is, there is very little evidence in support of the idea that Afro Caribbeans represent a ‘model minority.’

EXPLAINING BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES When taken together, the three empirical chapters of this dissertation provide an analysis of the three major perspectives on the causes of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities: ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors,’ ‘self-selection’ and ‘white interest.’ After testing the assumptions of the three major perspectives in the literature on black ethnic disparities, there are several instances where these perspectives provide for partial explanations – i.e., accounting for factors associated with these perspectives results in a limited reduction in black ethnic disparity. There are also instances where these perspectives are unable to account for black ethnic disparities and many more instances where accounting for these factors results in an increase in disparities – i.e., a ‘suppression effect.’ Importantly, disparities in personal income between Afro

68

There are also group differences in economic autonomy that favor Afro Caribbeans but the measure of economic autonomy is likely very biased and there I do not include it in this average. I will discuss this measure later in the chapter. 69 I comment on differences in attitudes towards whites and perceived discrimination in a later subsection.

148

Caribbeans and African Americans are generally the result of social background and demographic differences between he two groups.

Partial Reductions in Black Ethnic Disparities There are several instances when accounting for group level differences is associated with a partial reduction in black ethnic disparities. Both the ‘self-selection’ and ‘cultural’ perspectives provide for partial reductions in black ethnic disparities. Partial reductions range from less than 1 percent to 35 percent and average about 10 percent. For example, self-selection accounted for a 1 percent reduction in the employment disparity and a 35 percent reduction in the occupational prestige disparity. However, there is little support for the idea that self-selection (or moving) is associated with greater levels of ability, motivation or self-efficacy. While African Americans who move have higher levels of ability than African Americans who do not move, Afro Caribbean movers have essentially the same levels of ability as non-movers. There is little-to-no support for the connection between ability, self-efficacy and moving for both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. In addition, accounting for differences in these attributes (i.e., ability, motivation and self-efficacy) is generally not associated with a reduction in black ethnic disparities. Therefore, while moving is associated with greater socioeconomic attainment, the reasons provided in the literature for this linkage have very little empirical support. Future research should explore the role of social networks in labor recruitment in the context of black ethnic disparities (Bashi 2007, Waters 1999g). The cultural perspective is only slightly more consistent in terms of providing partial explanations. First, there are few group differences in the key attributes associated

149

with the cultural perspective. In fact, of the five factors associated with this perspective, economic autonomy (or a preference for economic self-reliance) is the only one with meaningful group level differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Beyond very few group level differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors, accounting for differences in economic autonomy and consumption of Afro Caribbean media were associated with 14 and 8 percent reductions in the employment disparity, respectively. Despite a lack of meaningful differences in family structure and functioning, accounting for this characteristic was associated with a 4 percent decrease in the employment disparity. Therefore, while the cultural perspective is slightly more viable than the ‘selfselection’ perspective, it provided limited insight into the causes of black ethnic disparities in the United States. That is, cultural differences are not the source of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the United States. These findings reveal that group differences are not completely responsible for black ethnic disparities. In fact, while both the self-selection and cultural perspectives provide instances of partial reductions in black ethnic disparities, the more general trend is that accounting for attributes associated with each perspective results in either no change or a ‘suppression effect’ in black ethnic disparities.

Black Ethnic Disparities and the ‘Suppression Effect’ Unexpectedly, accounting for differences in the attributes proposed to account for black ethnic disparities lead more often to a slight ‘suppression effect’ in black ethnic disparities. To clarify, I use the term ‘suppression effect’ to refer to instances when the

150

size of the disparity increases after accounting for attributes associated with the selfselection, cultural or perspectives associated with white interest. There are times when the ‘suppression effect’ is due to African Americans having greater levels of a certain attribute that is also linked to higher socioeconomic status (e.g., African Americans have more self-efficacy and greater self-efficacy is associated with greater socioeconomic status). There are also instances of suppression that emerge when Afro Caribbeans have favorable levels on certain key attributes and times when no group differences result in a ‘suppression effect.’ The former instance of suppression is fairly commonsensical but the later two instances require further explanation. One example of suppression that is associated with African Americans having better scores on an attribute than Afro Caribbeans is self-efficacy in the context of employment. After controlling for social background factors in the baseline model, the coefficient for the black ethnic disparity in employment remains at .790. After adjusting the model to account for black ethnic differences in self-efficacy (that favor African Americans), the disparity in employment increases by about 17 percent to .924. Interestingly, accounting for the interaction between moving and self-efficacy, the disparity increases still, from .924 to .956 (for a total increase of 21 percent). This finding is not surprising. If higher levels of self-efficacy are associated with a greater likelihood of employment and African Americans have higher levels of self-efficacy then ‘controlling’ for self-efficacy removes the African American advantage, thereby increasing the employment disparity. Although explaining this kind of suppression is fairly straightforward, the idea that African Americans have advantages over Afro

151

Caribbeans on certain key attributes associated with social mobility is unpredicted by the literature. The more perplexing instances of suppression are when ‘suppression’ results from accounting for attributes that favor Afro Caribbeans, or when accounting for attributes when there is little-to-no difference between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. One example of the former is the role of personal motivation in black ethnic occupational prestige disparities. Since Afro Caribbeans have greater levels of motivation than African Americans, theoretically, taking this advantage away from Afro Caribbeans should have resulted in a reduction of the disparity. However, accounting for this difference results in a 7 percent increase in the occupational prestige disparity. An example of controlling for an attribute with no group difference that results in a suppression effect is ‘racial consciousness’ – again in the context of disparities in occupational prestige. First, there are essentially no differences in ‘racial consciousness’ between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. However, adjusting models for race consciousness increases the occupational prestige disparity by 21 percent (an increase from 1.166 to 1.407). One possible explanation for these findings is that the labor market responds to Afro Caribbean motivation and race consciousness ‘differently’ than it responds to African American motivation and race consciousness. The fact that there are more instances of suppression than partial explanation reveals that – on average – the labor market treats Afro Caribbeans more favorably than African Americans – even when both groups express the same values, attitudes and behaviors. One finding lies outside of this general pattern. My results show that differences in ability account for black ethnic disparities in occupational prestige. However, this

152

finding is somewhat complex. That is, accounting for differences in ability results in a ‘suppression effect’ in the employment disparity but provides a full explanation for occupational disparities. This indicates that there is some type of unequal appreciation for ability in the context of hiring and that this unequal treatment may result in employers hiring more able Afro Caribbeans and then promoting Afro Caribbeans with greater ability. This means that improving the ability of African Americans would likely do little to improve black ethnic disparities because it would not increase there likelihood of being hired and given constraints in employment, it would only result in restricted improvements in the occupational prestige disparity. African Americans with greater ability are not likely to be promoted because employers are not likely to hire them in the first instance. That is, if African Americans are not equally rewarded for their ability in the context of hiring then more needs to be done do provide equitable treatment before intervening in the process of acquiring ability. Despite this complex exception, the ‘suppression effect’ was the most consistent pattern of results when attempting to explain black ethnic disparities. These findings reveal that these two groups are experiencing different returns for having the same characteristics and point toward the previously unexplored notion of ‘differential treatment.’

Black Ethnic Disparities, Race and Differential Treatment Based on the findings presented in this dissertation, a meaningful portion of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans appear to be due to exogenous factors. The exogenous factors considered in this dissertation are

153

associated with race relations in the US and include: white favoritism, white comfort and ‘differential treatment.’ All three of these factors are exogenous because they consider the role of external factors – principally the role of ‘white interest’ – in black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. The key differences between white favoritism and comfort on the one hand, and ‘differential treatment’ on the other, is that the former assert that whites engage in a kind of ‘statistical discrimination’ (Phelps 1972) while the latter highlights how ‘white interest’ clouds the vision of white employers, resulting in disparate treatment for comparable attributes. That is, the argument for white favoritism is that white employers prefer Afro Caribbean workers because they are – in fact - better workers (e.g., better skilled with a greater work ethic). My findings show that while Afro Caribbeans have more education, African Americans have a greater Protestant work ethic; a mixed story on inequities in black ethnic labor quality that is not predicted by the literature. Those who have argued for white comfort assert that whites prefer to hire Afro Caribbeans because they do not ‘bring up’ or ‘represent’ race and racism in the same manner or to the same degree as African Americans. The literature in this area suggests that ‘white comfort’ is mainly an affective outcome and not a sociopolitical goal (more on this distinction below). Again, my findings provide mixed support for this argument, as Afro Caribbeans do not consistently hold racial attitudes that would promote greater white comfort, and in many instances, there is either no difference between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans or African Americans hold racial attitudes that should promote greater white comfort. More importantly, adjusting models for white favoritism and comfort does not provide for reductions in black ethnic disparities. Taken together, evidence in support of white favoritism and comfort is sparse. That is, findings in this

154

dissertation do not support the idea that there are large and meaningful differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of the characteristics that white employers’ say are important in hiring and promotion. Therefore, the premise for the ‘statistical discrimination’ argument is flawed. Three key findings from Chapters 2, 3 and 4 support the case for ‘differential treatment.’ First, there is limited support for large group differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans on the key attributes identified in the literature (see above). Second, while there are a few instances of partial explanation, the more general pattern is the ‘suppression effect.’ That is, adjusting for factors related to ‘immigrant selectivity’ (Chapter 2) and ‘cultural attributes and behaviors’ (Chapter 3) is more likely to result in an increase in black ethnic disparity, rather than in a reduction. Finally, the case for ‘differential treatment’ is strengthened when I combine these results with findings from Chapter 4, “The Role of White Interest in Black Ethnic Disparities.” That is, Chapter 4 presents an empirical assessment of the role of ‘white interest’ – as a key exogenous factor – in shaping black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. Using indirect measures for white favoritism and comfort, I found additional support for the idea that employers prefer Afro Caribbeans to African Americans. Specifically, I found that 47 percent of the disparity in employment, 34 percent of the disparity in occupational prestige and 54 percent of the disparity in personal income are attributable to ‘differential treatment.’ That is, African Americans being treated unfairly vis-à-vis Afro Caribbeans in the US labor market. Importantly, in the case of occupational prestige, once I allow group level characteristics to be rewarded differently for African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, ability differences do not provide a full explanation for black ethnic

155

disparities in occupational prestige.

Black Ethnicity and Differential Racialization Given the prominent role of ‘racial phenotype’ in discussions concerning ‘antiblack’ discrimination, the possibility that exogenous factors explain black ethnic disparities has generally remained unexplored. That is, prior research has generally assumed that when focused on the black ethnic comparative, ‘race’ (or more specifically ‘racial phenotype’) is controlled or held constant, thereby removing the role of racial bias or unfair differential treatment in the manufacture of black ethnic disparities (Sowell 1978). However, recent research provides a more complex and multi-layered conception of race and racism (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 1997, Bonilla-Silva 2004, Hesse 2007, Kim 1999, Ngai 2004, Omi and Winant 1994). Research on black ethnic comparisons does not reflect current thinking regarding the role of non-phenotypical features – like national origin, foreignness and language – in the process of assigning racial meanings to the body. Given these recent shifts in ‘race theory’ and recent findings regarding the role of ‘white interest’ in black ethnic disparities (Waters 1999a), I argue that the differential treatment found in Chapter 4 is in fact a ‘race related differential treatment.’ Borrowing from state-of-the-art theory on race and racism (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 1997, Kim 1999), I offer the ‘differential racialization thesis’ to explain the ‘suppression’ (in Chapters 2 and 3) and ‘differential treatment’ (in Chapter 4) effects found in this dissertation. Recent theorizing on race and racialization has heavily influenced the differential racialization thesis. This work illustrates the centrality of non-phenotypical characteristics in the process of assigning racial meanings – e.g., national origin, foreignness and

156

language (Kim 1999, Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998, Urciuoli 1996). Therefore, the differential racialization thesis posits that society assigns racial meanings to the black body according to perceived foreignness. That is, attitudinal and behavioral proclivities and capacities that many imagine to be primordial are attached to the black body differently, based on regional origin. When social actors perceive the body to be of Caribbean origin, they assign it racial meanings associated with the ‘model minority myth.’ That is, they claim that the relative success of Afro Caribbeans is due to the ‘fact’ that they work harder and concentrate less on race and racism in the United States. Conversely, when the black body is perceived to be of American origin, social actors assign racial meanings that are associated with the ‘urban underclass’ (or historical notions of blackness in the US) and explanations for their relative underachievement hinge on the claim that they are lazy and too concerned with identifying race and racism at every turn. The implication is that society then does not tax Afro Caribbeans to the same degree as African Americans when they exhibit ‘American’ attitudes and behaviors that are associated with the ‘urban underclass’ and society does not reward African Americans to the same extent as Afro Caribbeans when exhibiting attitudes and behaviors associated with the ‘model minority myth’ and the ‘Caribbean.’ Given the limited empirical support of endogenous explanations that center on group level differences in ability, motivation and economic autonomy and the findings associated with ‘white interest’ in black ethnic disparity, I conclude that differential racialization is the primary driving force behind the ‘differential treatment’ effect observed in Chapter 4.70

70

The difference between the ‘differential racialization thesis’ and ‘differential treatment’ is that ‘differential treatment’ describes a phenomenon while the ‘differential racialization thesis’ provides an explanation or motive for the phenomenon. Specifically, ‘differential treatment’ was tested as a result of an ‘inductive’ assessment of findings in the literature while differential racialization is an attempt to develop a

157

LIMITATIONS There are several limitations to findings presented in this dissertation. First, I use data from a cross-sectional social survey. While this improves the case for generalizability relative to qualitative methods, it limits my ability to infer the direction of causality. Therefore, I base all statements regarding causality on theory. The direction of causality is not self-evident. Second, there are various limitations in the measurement of the core concepts under study. Third, there are some issues related to ‘simultaneity’ or ‘endogeneity’ that are often associated with research that draws upon cross-sectional social surveys. I also leave room to explore the implications of time in the US and intergenerational issues. Finally, my dataset restricted me to indirect assessments of the role of ‘differential treatment’ in black ethnic disparity. Although my measurements of the core concepts under study are better than previous measures, they remain imperfect. A few operationalizations stand out. My measurement of the Protestant work ethic combines measures of a ‘willingness to work’ with measures that have traditionally been used for the measurement of job satisfaction. Ultimately, I decided that ‘Protestant work ethic’ is not only about a ‘willingness to work’ but also about the larger meaning of working. Job satisfaction was the best approximation available for this unique characteristic. A better measure would include a measure of the purpose of work in the respondents’ life. My measurement of oppositional posturing also deserves mention. My conception of oppositional posturing is derived from the more widely noted concept of ‘oppositional culture.’ I did not have the requisite measures of oppositional culture so I measured a single dimension of oppositional

deductive theory that explains ‘differential treatment’ using recent thinking on race and racialization in the United States.

158

culture, childhood defiance (Harris 2006). This means that my findings for ‘oppositional culture’ are conservative and that oppositional culture may explain more variance if it were measured as a multidimensional construct. My measure of economic autonomy is imperfect because foreign-born Afro Caribbeans often come from countries that do not offer welfare during childhood and many do not qualify for welfare in the US. This means that the disparity in economic autonomy is biased upward and in favor of Afro Caribbeans. If Afro Caribbeans had greater opportunities to take welfare payments from the state, they might very well have taken the payments and ended up with lower scores on economic autonomy. As it stands, differences in economic autonomy do not explain disparities in socioeconomic status. Recently, scholars have noted the changing character of the ‘stock’ of the immigrant population, to include Afro Caribbeans (Borjas 1985).71 These scholars note that changes in US immigration policy have resulted in an immigrant population with fewer skills. The increase in family reunification permits associated with the 1965 immigration reform is thought to be responsible for this downward shift in the skill distribution. The implication for this dissertation is that one of the reasons for weak support for the self-selection hypothesis is that immigrant quality is decreasing. Therefore, while historical black ethnic disparities may have been a result of differences in native and immigrant skill, recent disparities are less likely to be accounted for by large skill gaps. In addition, although all models presented in this dissertation control for generation (i.e., first and second generation Afro Caribbean immigrants) future research

71

Sherri-Ann Butterfield is currently working on an in-depth examination of this phenomenon among Afro Caribbeans living in New York.

159

should separate the analysis by the generational status of immigrants to better understand the concepts under study. Findings in Chapter 4 are limited because the data only allowed for indirect tests of white favoritism, white comfort and ‘differential treatment.’ That is, each of these perspectives on how race matters in black ethnic disparities reference the role of white employers and I do not have data on the employer-worker dyads that include attitudes toward the black respondents. In lieu of direct measures, I assess the qualities that white managers have reported to be important in their relative evaluations of black employees (i.e., high skill and work ethic, and ‘low’ racial attitudes). Ideally, I would not only have data on these characteristics but also data on the ways in which employers perceived these characteristics. This is not the present case.

RACIALIZATION, RACISM AND RACIAL INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES The ‘differential racialization thesis’ provides two key contributions to the literature on race and racism in the United States. First, for scholars interested in race and racialization it provides a conceptual framework for incorporating non-phenotypical attributes into the process of assigning racial meaning to a particular body politic. Whereas others have theorized and explored racialized conceptions of national origin, foreignness and language, in these studies, variation in non-phenotypical characteristics is often ‘confounded’ by the simultaneous presence of linked variation in ‘racial phenotype’ that parallels or ‘sits on top of’ non-phenotypic characteristics. For instance, Claire Kim (1999, 2004) offers the role of foreignness in the process of racialization but then compares ‘Asians’ to ‘Blacks.’ However, these two groups are different not only because

160

of their perceived ‘level’ of foreignness but they also have different ‘racial phenotypes.’ The same is true with Mai Ngai (2004) and her conception of national origin as a nonphenotypical characteristic important for racialization. She argues that society racializes Mexicans based on national origin but Mexicans arguably share a particular ‘racial phenotype.’ In my dissertation, the groups share the same ‘racial phenotype’ but are accorded divergent racialized meanings based on their perceived regional origin. By holding ‘racial phenotype’ constant, findings from my dissertation provide the strongest evidence yet for non-phenotypical characteristics in the process of racialization. The second major contribution of the ‘differential racialization thesis’ concerns debates on the cause(s) of racial inequality in the United States. As stated at the outset of this dissertation, there is a long-standing debate in the social sciences regarding the relative roles of black cultural pathology and anti-black discrimination in the manufacture of black-white racial inequality. For instance, some argue that racial inequality is due to the values, attitudes and behaviors of blacks (i.e., African Americans) while others promote the idea that racial inequality is a result of racial discrimination. Previously, at least one scholar has used the black ethnic comparative in order to argue that since black ethnic disparities cannot possibly be related to ‘anti-black discrimination,’ the gap must reflect differences in the values and behaviors between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans – i.e., endogenous factors (Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). Findings from this dissertation provide reasons to be skeptical of ‘cultural’ explanations for black ethnic disparities. This skepticism can also be extended to arguments that foreground ‘cultural’ factors in racial inequality. That is, the reason for disparate outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans is not largely due to endogenous group differences –

161

cultural or otherwise – but to exogenous factors that implicate ‘white interest’ or white supremacy in black ethnic disparities. In this case, the white interest is a reasoned interest in the maintenance of the white group position – not an affective one (Blumer 1958, Bobo 2006, Bonilla-Silva 1997). Scholars and pundits alike then use the ‘model minority’ cultural argument ‘found’ in the context of relative Afro Caribbean success to ‘invalidate’ African American assertions that racism and discrimination are the primary cause of racial inequality. Surely, the logic goes, if Afro Caribbeans can experience greater success so could African Americans if they were to simply work harder and complain about race less. That is, the model minority argument posits that African Americans can overcome racial inequality by adopting a greater value for hard work and a disinvestment in racial ideologies that seek to identify racial discrimination. Never mind the fact that black-white inequality is much greater and persists at the same time as black ethnic disparities. That is, if Afro Caribbeans are doing better than African Americans – presumably because of their model minority attributes – they certainly are not doing as well as whites. By attributing black-white inequality to the attitudes and behaviors of blacks (i.e., African Americans) commentators forestall public policy formation that would otherwise undo racial inequality. If black ethnic disparities are not due to cultural factors then racial inequality is also not likely to be due to cultural factors.

162

CITED LITERATURE Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Anderson, James D. 1988. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Arroyo, Carmen G. and Edward Zigler. 1995. "Racial Idenity, Academic Achievement and the Psychological Well-Being of Economically Disadvantaged Adolescents." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 69:903-914. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182. Bashi, Vilna. 2007. Survival of the Knitted: Immigrant Social Networks in a Stratified World. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Bashi, Vilna and Antonio McDaniel. 1997. "A Theory of Immigration and Racial Stratification." Journal of Black Studies 27:668-682. Bauer, Thomas K. and Mathias Sinning. 2006. "An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition to Non-Linear Models." Pp. 1-12 in Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung: Discussion Papers. Essen, Germany. Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks, and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99. Benson, Janel F. 2006. "Exploring the Racial Identities of Black Immigrants in the United States." Sociological Forum 21:219-247. Biafora, Frank A. Jr., Dorothy L. Taylor, George J. Warheit, Rick S. Zimmerman, and William A. Vega. 1993. "Cultural Mistrust and Racial Awareness among Ethnically Diverse Black Adolescent Boys." Journal of Black Psychology 19:266-281. Blank, Rebecca M. and Marilyn Dabady. 2004. "Measuring Racial Discrimination." Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Blinder, Alan S. 1973. "Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates." The Journal of Human Resources 8:436-455.

163

Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." The Pacific Sociological Review 1:3-7. Bobo, Lawrence D. 1999. "Prejudice as Group Position: Microfoundations of a Sociological Approach to Racism and Race Relations." Journal of Social Issues 55:445472. —. 2006. Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public Opinion and the Wisconsin Treaty Rights Dispute. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. Bogan, Vicki and William Darity. 2007. "Culture and Entrepreneurship? African American and Immigrant Self-Employment in the United States." Ithaca, New York. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. "Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation." American Sociological Review 62:465-480. —. 2004. ""We Are All Americans" The Latin Americanization of Race Relations in the United States." Pp. 149-183 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M. Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Borjas, George J. 1985. "Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants." Journal of Labor Economics 3:463-489. —. 1986. "The Self-Employment Experience of Immigrants." The Journal of Human Resources 21:485-506. —. 1987. "Self-Selection and the Earnings of Immigrants." American Economic Review 77:531-553. —. 1991. "Immigration and Self-Selection." Pp. 29-76 in Immigration, Trade and the Labor Market, edited by J. M. Abowd and R. B. Freeman. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Bowman, Phillip J. and Cleopatra Howard. 1985. "Race-Related Socialization, Motivation and Academic Achievement: A Study of Black Youths in Three-Generation Families." Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24:134-141. Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56. —. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J. Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

164

Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284. Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. —. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Carliner, Geoffrey. 1980. "Wages, Earnings, and Hours of First, Second, and Third Generation American Males." Economic Inquiry 18:87-102. Chiquiar, Daniel and Gordon H. Hanson. 2005. "International Migration, Self-Selection and the Distribution of Wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States." Journal of Political Economy 113:239-281. Chiswick, Barry. 1986. "Human Capital and the Labor Market Adjustment of Immigrants: Testing Alternative Hypothesis." Research in Human Capital Development 4:1-26. Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. "The Effects of Americanization on the Earnings of ForeignBorn Men." Journal of Political Economy 86:897-921. —. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Chou, Rosalind S. and Joe R. Feagin. 2008. The Myth of the Model Minority:Asian Americans Facing Racism. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers. Cokley, Kevin O. and Katherine Helm. 2001. "Testing the Construct Validity of Scores on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity." Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development 34:80-95. Cosby, Bill and Alvin F. Poussaint. 2007. Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Daneshvary, Nasser and R. Keith Schwer. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market: An Earnings Analysis." Review of Black Political Economy 22:77-98.

165

Darity, William. 2005. "Stratification Economics: The Role of Intergroup Inquality." Journal of Economics and Finance 29:144-153. Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A. Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404. Domingo, Wilfred A. 1925. "Gift of the Black Tropics." Pp. 341-349 in The New Negro: An Interpretation, edited by A. Locke. New York: Johnson Reprint. Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program. Downey, Douglas B., James W. Ainsworth, and Zhenchao Qian. 2009. "Rethinking the Attitude-Achievement Paradox among Blacks." Sociology of Education 82:1-19. Du Bois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. —. 1903. Souls of Black Folks. New York, New York: Penguin Books. Duleep, Harriet Orcutt and Mark C. Regets. 1999. "Immigrants and Human-Capital Investment." American Economic Review 89:186-191. Edwards, Audrey and Craig K. Polite. 1992. Children of the Dream. New York, New York: Doubleday. Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. "Race, Ancestry and Socioeconomic Status: Are West Indian Blacks More Successful?" in The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Feagin, Joe R. 2000. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities and Future Reparations. London, England: Routledge. Fields, Barbara. 1990. "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America." New Left Review 181:95-118. Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City." International Migration Review 19:708-727. —. 2001. "Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York." Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Foner, Nancy and Richard Napoli. 1978. "Jamaican and Black-American Migrant Farm Workers: A Comparative Analysis." Social Problems 25:491-503.

166

Fordham, S. and John U. Ogbu. 1986. "Black Students' School Success: Coping with the 'Burden of Acting White'." Urban Review 19:176-206. Fordham, Signithia. 1988. "Racelessness as a Factor in Black Success: Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory." Harvard Educational Review 58:54-84. —. 1996. Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity and Success at Capital High. Chicago, Illiniois: University of Chicago. Forsythe, Dennis. 1983. "Black Immigrants and the American Ethos: Theories and Observations." Pp. 55-82 in Caribbean Immigration to the United States, edited by R. S. Bryce-Laporte and D. M. Mortimer. Washington, DC: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution. Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:173-192. Glantz, Oscar. 1977. "Locus of Control and Aspiration to Traditionally Open and Traditionally Closed Occupations." Journal of Negro Education 46:278-290. —. 1978. "Native Sons and Immigrants: Some Beliefs and Values of American-Born and West Indian Blacks at Brooklyn College." Ethnicity 5:189-202. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press. —. 1970a. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press. —. 1970b. "The Negroes." Pp. 24-85 in Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press. Goldberg, David Theo. 1993. Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, New York: Norton & Company.

167

Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs." Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Grosfoguel, Ramon and Chloe S. Georas. 2003. ""Coloniality of Power" And Racial Dynamics: Notes on a Reinterpretation of Latino Caribbeans in New York City." Pp. 144-175 in Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in Global Perspective. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Hanson, Marcus Lee. 1940. The Immigrant in American History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Harris, Angel L. 2006. "I (Don't) Hate School: Revisiting Oppositional Culture Theory of Blacks' Resistance to Schooling." Social Forces 85:797-828. Harris, Angel L. and Kris Marsh. 2010. "Is Raceless Identity an Effective Strategy for Academic Success among Blacks?" Social Science Quarterly 91:1242-1263. Harris, Angel L. and Keith Robinson. 2007. "Schooling Behaviorsor Prior Skills? A Cautionary Tale of Omitted Variable Bias within Oppositional Culture Theory." Sociology of Education 80:139-157. Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298. Hemmings, Annette. 1998. "The Self-Transformations of African-American Achievers." Youth & Society 29:330-368. Hesse, Barnor. 2007. "Racialized Modernity: An Analytics of White Mythologies." Ethnic and Racial Studies 30:643-663. Ho, Christine G.T. 1995. "The Twin Processess of Racialization and Ethnification among Afro-Trinidadian Immigrants in Los Angeles." Caribbean Quarterly 41:99-122. Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298. Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams. 2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:196-207. Jackson, John L. 2008. Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness: Basic Civitas Books.

168

Jackson, Regine O. 2010. "Black Immigrants and the Rhetoric of Social Distancing." Sociology Compass 4:193-206. James, Sherman. 1983. "The Narrative of John Henry Martin." Southern Cultures 1:83106. James, Sherman, Sue Hartnett, and William Kalsbeek. 1983. "John Henryism and Blood Pressure Difference among Black Men." Journal of Behavioral Medicine 6:259-278. Jann, Ben. 2008. "The Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition for Linear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:453-479. Johnson, James Weldon. 1930. Black Manhattan. New York, New York: A. A. Knopf Publishers. Jung, Moon-Kie. 2009. "The Racial Unconscious of Assimilation Theory." Du Bois Review 6:375-395. Kaestner, Robert and Ofer Malamud. 2010. "Self-Selection and International Migration: New Evidence from Mexico." NBER Working Paper Series. Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1996. "The Socioeconomic Assimilation of Caribbean American Blacks." Social Forces 74:911-930. Kasinitz, Philip. 1992. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. —. 2001. "Invisible No More: West Indian Americans in the Social Scientific Imagination." Pp. 257-275 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Kasinitz, Philip, John Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters. 2003. "Becoming Americans/Becoming New Yorkers: Immigrant Incorporation in a Majority Minority City." in Host Societies and the Reception of Immigrants, edited by J. J. Reitz. La Jolla, California: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego. Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16. Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics & Society 27:105-138. —. 2004. "Imagining Race and Nation in Multiculturalist America." Ethnic and Racial Studies 27:987-1005.

169

Kinder, Donald R. and David O. Sears. 1981. "Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats to the Good." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 40:414431. Knight, Franklin W. 1990. The Caribbean: The Genesis of a Fragmented Nationalism. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, Stacey J. 1996. "Asian Americans: The Absent/Silenced/Model Minority." Pp. 1-16 in Unraveling the 'Model Minority' Stereotype: Listening to Asian American Youth. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University. Lewis, Oscar. 1965. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty - San Juan and New York. New York, New York: Vintage Books. Light, Ivan. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare among Chinese, Japanese and Blacks. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Long, James E. 1980. "The Effect of Americanization on Earnings: Some Evidence for Women." Journal of Political Economy 88:620-629. Marx, Karl. 1890. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. New York, New York: Humboldt Publicatons. Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes." Tallahassee, Florida. McKee, James B. 1993. Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. McWhorter, John. 2000. Loosing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York, New York: The Free Press. Metzl, Jonathan M. 2009. The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease. Boston: Beacon. Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press. Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International Migration Review 25:248-276. —. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems 42:535-553.

170

—. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008b. "Testing the Cultural Hypotheses." Pp. 89-115 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008c. "Testing the Hypothesis of Selectivity." Pp. 71-88 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008d. "Testing the White Favoritism Hypothesis." Pp. 116-142 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2008e. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for Naitonal Action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor (Office of Policy and Planning Research). Nagel, Joane. 1994. "Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Culture." Social Problems 41:152-177. Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Oaxaca, Ronald L. 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets." International Economic Review 14:693-709. Ogbu, John. 1987. "Variability in Minority Performance: The Problem in Search of Explanation." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18:312-334. —. 2003. Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ogbu, John and H.D. Simons. 1998. "Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A CulturalEcological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29:155-188. Ogbu, John U. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in CrossCultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press. —. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success." Theory Into Practice 31:287-295. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York, New York: Rutledge.

171

Paris, D. Elliott. 1981. "The Contributions of the Caribbean Immigrant to the United States Society." Journal of Caribbean Studies 2:10. Park, Robert Ezra. 1950a. "Our Racial Frontier on the Pacific." Pp. 138-151 in Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. —. 1950b. "Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups." in Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Patterson, Orlando. 1998. The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America's "Racial" Crisis. Washington, DC: Counterpoint. Pearlin, Leonard I. and Carmi Schooler. 1978. "The Structure of Coping." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19:2-21. Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. "The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism." American Economic Review 62:659-661. Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96. Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Raphael, Lennox. 1964. "West Indians and Afro-Americans." Freedomways 4:438-445. Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press. Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. —. 2006. Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and the Politics of Incorporation: Ethnicity, Exception or Exit. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.

172

Sanchez, George J. 1999. "Race, Nation and Culture in Recent Immigration Studies." American Ethnic History 18:66-84. Sears, David O. and P.J. Henry. 2005. "Over Thirty Years Later: A Contemporary Look at Symbolic Racism and Its Critics." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37:95150. Sellers, Robert M., Stephanie A.J. Rowley, Tabbye M. Chavous, J. Nicole Shelton, and Mia A. Smith. 1997. "Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A Preliminary Investigation of Reliability and Construct Validity." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 73:805-815. Sinning, Mathias, Markus Hahn, and Thomas K. Bauer. 2008. "The Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition for Nonlinear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:480-492. Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers. —. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. —. 1981a. "The Blacks." Pp. 183-224 in Ethnic America: A History. New York, New York: Basic Books. —. 1981b. "Webber and Bakke, and the Presuppositions of Affirmative Action." Pp. 3797 in Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, edited by W. E. Block and M. A. Walker. New Jersey, New York: The Fraser Institute. —. 1983. The Economics and Politics of Race. New York, New York: William Morrow and Co. —. 1984. "The Special Case of Blacks." Pp. 73-90 in Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? New York, New York: William Morrow and Company. Sue, S. and H.H.L. Kitano. 1973. "Stereotypes as a Measure of Success." Social Issues 29:83-98. Suzuki, Bob H. 1977. "Education and the Socialization of Asian Americans: A Revisionist Analysis of the 'Model Minority' Thesis." Amerasia Journal 4:23-52. Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom. 1997. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster. Truab, James. 1981. "You Can Get It If You Really Want." Harpers 264:27-31. Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press.

173

Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1996. "Racialization and Language." Pp. 15-40 in Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Exeriences of Language, Race and Class. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999a. "Attitudes toward African Americans." Pp. 137-164 in Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999b. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999c. "Race in Jamaica." Pp. 23-57 in Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Walker, J.E. 1998. The History of Black Business in America: Capitalism, Race, Entrepreneurship. New York, New York: Twayne Publishers. Waters, Mary C. 1994. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New York City." International Migration Review 28:795-820. —. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999c. "Identities of the Second Generation." Pp. 285-326 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999d. "Intergenerational Dynamics." Pp. 192-242 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999e. "Racial and Ethnic Identity Choices." Pp. 44-93 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. —. 1999f. "Segregated Neighborhods and Schools." Pp. 243-284 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.

174

—. 1999g. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, New York: Allen and Unwin; Rutledge Classics. Weinberg, Meyer. 1977. A Chance to Learn: A History of Race and Education in the United States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and Public Policy. Chicago, Illinois, IL: University of Chicago Press. Winston, James. 2002. "Explaining Afro-Caribbean Social Mobility in the United States: Beyond the Sowell Thesis." Comparative Studies in Society and History:218-262. Woodbury, Stephen A. 1991. "Earnings of Black Immigrants: Implications for Racial Discrimination." Pp. 295-330 in New Approaches to Economic and Social Analyses of Discrimination, edited by R. R. Cornwall and P. V. Wunnava. New York, Westport and London: Praeger. Yancey, William L., Eugene P. Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani. 1976. "Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation." American Sociological Review 41:391-403. Zhou, Min. 1997. "Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation." International Migration Review 31:975-1008. Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

175

MOSI ADESINA IFATUNJI UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO Behavioral Sciences Building Department of Sociology 1007 West Harrison Street Chicago, Illinois 60607-7140 Tele: (312) 607-2825 Email: [email protected] http://www.ifatunji.com EDUCATION Ph.D.

2011

Department of Sociology University of Illinois at Chicago “Are Black Immigrants A Model Minority? Race, Ethnicity and Social Inequality in the United States.”

M.A.

2007

Department of Sociology University of Illinois at Chicago Area concentration: Race, Ethnicity and Gender “Education and Discrimination among African Americans: An Examination of Some Potential Mediating Factors.”

B.A.

2003

Department of Psychology University of Illinois at Chicago “Second Generation African Immigrants and Family Governance.”

B.A.

2003

Department of African American Studies University of Illinois at Chicago

RESEARCH INTERESTS Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Immigration and Migration.

Social Psychology. Political Economy.

FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS & AWARDS 2010 – 2011

Dissertation Research Fellow, Race and Difference Initiative, Emory University.

2010 – 2011

Ford Dissertation Fellowship, National Academies of Science (Honorable Mention).

2007 – 2010

General Fellow, Minority Fellowship Program, American Sociological Association.

2004 – 2008

Abraham Lincoln Fellowship, Graduate College, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2004 – 2005

Diversifying Faculty in Higher Education in Illinois Program, State of Illinois, University of Illinois at Chicago, Graduate College, Department of Sociology.

176

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE 2009 – 2010

Research Assistant, University of Chicago, Center for the Study of Race Politics and Culture, Department of Political Science: Mobilization, Change, and Political and Civic Engagement Project. Cathy Cohen and Michael Dawson (with funding from the Ford Foundation).

2008 – 2009

Research Assistant, African American Studies, Race and Affirmative Action in the United States and South Africa, Paul Zeleza, University of Illinois at Chicago (with funding from the Ford Foundation).

2005 – 2008

Research Assistant, Institute for Government & Public Affairs, Race and Public Policy. Tyrone Forman, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2004 – 2005

Research Assistant, Center for the Study of Race Politics and Culture, Department of Political Science, Black Youth Project. Cathy Cohen, University of Chicago (with funding from the Ford Foundation).

2004 – 2005

Interviewer, Department of Sociology, Chicago Area Study. Maria Krysan and Tyrone Forman, University of Illinois at Chicago (with funding from the National Science Foundation).

2004

Research Assistant, Department of African American Studies, Racism in West Africa. Jemima Pierre, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2003

Research Assistant, Department of Sociology, African American Student Achievement in the Middle Class. Amanda Lewis, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2002 – 2003

Research Assistant, Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy, Black Fathers & Families in Distressed Urban Communities: Bridging Research, Community Development and Public Policy. Philip Bowman, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2002 – 2003

Research Assistant, Community Mental Health Council, Department of Research and Evaluation, Public Heath Corrections and Community Initiative. Lynn Mock.

2002

Research Assistant, Department of Psychology, Immigration and Acculturation of Africans, Jews and Mexicans. Edison Trickett, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2001 – 2002

Research Assistant, Institute on Disability and Human Development, Advocacy and Empowerment for Minorities with Disabilities Program, Urban Passage Mentorship Program. Fabricio Balcazar, University of Illinois at Chicago.

PUBLICATIONS Harnois, Catherine and Mosi Ifatunji. 2011. “Gendered Measures, Gendered Models: Toward an Intersectional Analysis of Racial Discrimination” Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies. Cohen, Cathy, Mosi Ifatunji and Alex Bell (2005). Reclaiming Our Future: The State of AIDS among Black Youth in America. Black AIDS Institute.

Ifatunji, Mosi (2004). The Social Psychology of Race among African Americans. Black Youth Project, University of Chicago, Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture. (http://blackyouthproject.uchicago.edu/). Bowman, Philip J., Ray Muhammad and Mosi Ifatunji (2003). Skin Tone, Class and Racial Attitudes Among African Americans. In Herring, Cedric (Ed), Skin Deep. Pp. 128 –158. Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. UNDER REVIEW “An Account for the Gender Gap in Perceptions of Discrimination among African Americans: Considering the Role of Gendered Measures” (Mosi Ifatunji and Catherine Harnois) Social Psychology Quarterly – Revise and Resubmit “Interracial Contact and Racial Attitudes: A Comparative Study of Youth” (with Tyrone Forman) Social Forces “Race, Class, and Positive Mental Health” (Tyrone Forman and Mosi Ifatunji) American Journal of Public Health MANUSCRIPTS “Education and Perceived Discrimination among African Americans: A Test of Four Mediating Mechanisms” (with Tyrone Forman) “Cohorts, Discrimination, and African Americans’ System-Blame Ideology” (Tyrone Forman and Mosi Ifatunji) Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science “Will Racism Ever End? Rap Music, Perceived Discrimination and Youth Race Futurology” (with Cathy Cohen and Alexandra Moffett-Bateau) “The Social Psychology of Race among Blacks in the United States: Comparisons Between West Indian Immigrants and the Decedents of American Slavery” CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS 2010

Ifatunji, Mosi A. Race Thought and Black Nativity: Implications for Socioeconomic Inequality in the United States. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Black Sociologists in Atlanta, Georgia.

2009

Ifatunji, Mosi A. Undermining Notions of the Black Immigrant As Model Minority. Invited symposium presentation at Indiana University (“Social Research on Race: Building Bridges Across the Academic Pipeline”).

2008

Ifatunji, Mosi A. Will Racism Ever End? Rap Music, Perceived Discrimination and Youth Race Futurology. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in Boston, Massachusetts.

2008

Ifatunji, Mosi A. The Social Psychology of Race among Blacks in the United States: Comparisons Between West Indian Immigrants and the Decedents of American Slavery.

178

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Black Sociologists in Boston, Massachusetts. 2008

Ifatunji, Mosi A. The Social Psychology of Race among Blacks in the United States: Comparisons Between West Indian Immigrants and the Decedents of American Slavery. Presented at the Workshop on Migration and the New African Diaspora at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of African American Studies.

2007

Ifatunji, Mosi A. and Catherine Harnois. Discrimination as Gendered. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the Midwest Sociological Association in Chicago, Illinois.

2006

Ifatunji, Mosi A. Educational Attainment and Perceived (Racial) Discrimination Among African Americans: Testing Some Potential Mediating Mechanisms. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the Association of Black Sociologists in Montreal, Canada.

2006

Ifatunji, Mosi A. and Catherine Harnois. Discrimination as Gendered. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the American Sociological Association in Montreal, Canada.

2005

Forman, Tyrone and Mosi A. Ifatunji. Cohorts, Discrimination, and Causal Attributions: System Blame Ideology among African Americans. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the American Sociological Association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

2005

Ifatunji, Mosi A. Educational Attainment and Perceived (Racial) Discrimination Among African Americans: Testing Some Potential Mediating Mechanisms. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the American Association of Public Opinion Research in Miami Beach, Florida.

2005

Ifatunji, Mosi A. Educational Attainment and Perceived (Racial) Discrimination Among African Americans: Testing Some Potential Mediating Mechanisms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Association in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

2004

Ifatunji, Mosi A. Neighborhood Racial Formation in Chicago: The Institutional Factor in Integration. Presented at Sociology Day, the Department of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

2003

Ifatunji, Mosi A. African Self-Consciousness and Student Adaptation Among African Americans at a Predominantly White College. Presented at Souls of Black Folks: 100 Years Later Conference in Chicago, Illinois.

TEACHING 2010

Instructor, Department of Sociology, Race and Ethnicity in the United States, University of Illinois at Chicago. Summer Term. 40 students. (Cross-listed in African American Studies and Latin and Latin American Studies).

2010

Instructor, Department of Sociology, Race and Ethnicity in the United States, University of Illinois at Chicago. Spring Term. 175 students. (Cross-listed in African American Studies and Latin and Latin American Studies).

2009

Instructor, Department of Sociology, Race and Ethnicity in the United States, University of Illinois at Chicago. Fall Term. 150 students. (Cross-listed in African American Studies and Latin and Latin American Studies).

179

2009

Instructor, Department of Sociology, Social Problems (Race, Gender and Politics), University of Illinois at Chicago. Summer Term. 30 students.

2009

Instructor, Department of Sociology, Social Problems, University of Illinois at Chicago. Spring Term. 65 students.

2008

Teaching Assistant, Department of Sociology, Introduction to Graduate Statistics. Pamela Popielarz, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2008

Teaching Assistant, Department of African American Studies and Sociology, Comparative Racialization. Tyrone Forman, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2007

Guest Lecture, Department of Sociology and Human Development, Introduction to Sociology (The Development of Black Racial Apathy: A Response to Bill Cosby)., Malcolm X College.

2007

Guest Lecture, Department of African American Studies, Research Methods (Quantitative Methods and the Feminist Epistemology). Kerry Ann Rockquemore, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2005

Guest Lecture, Department of Psychology, African American Behavior Patterns (African American Racial Socialization and Racial Identity). Jacque Bowman, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2003

Guest Lecture, Department of Urban Planning and Policy, Research Methods in Race and Public Policy (Values in Research on Race and Public Policy). Philip Bowman, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2002

Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology, Introduction to Liberal Arts and Sciences, Social Networks and Transitions. Edison Trickett, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2001

Guest Lecture, Department of African American Studies, Introduction to African American Studies (African American Psychology). Ray Muhammad, University of Illinois at Chicago.

SERVICE 2008 – 2009

Volunteer, United African Organization, Research Associate. http://www.uniteafricans.org/.

2008 – 2009

Volunteer, Pan African Association for African Immigrants and Refugees, Citizenship Training Program. http://www.panafricanassociation.org/.

2007 – 2009

Co-Founder and Convener, Dissertation Associates Working Group, Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2007 – 2008

Graduate Student Representative, Section on Race and Ethnic Minorities, American Sociological Association.

180

2006 – 2007

Graduate Student Representative, Departmental Advisory Committee to the Head, Department of Sociology, Barbara Risman, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2005

Graduate Student Session Organizer, Annual Meeting for the American Sociological Association.

2004 – 2005

Program Organizer, Chicago Ethnography Conference.

2003 – 2005

Graduate Assistant, University of Illinois at Chicago, Office of the Provost, Office of Access and Equity, Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Blacks.

2003 – 2004

Graduate Assistant, College of Education, Office of the Dean. The Best Teachers for Chicago Neighborhood Schools: Learn from Practice. Vicki Chou, University of Illinois at Chicago.

2003

Student Manuscript Reviewer, Journal of Black Psychology Association of Black Psychologists.

2001 – 2002

Program Consultant, American Friends Service Committee, African American Community Empowerment Program, Umoja Leadership Institute.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Sociological Association Midwest Sociological Society Society for the Study of Social Problems Association of Black Sociologists

181

Table 2.1 Unweighted with Multiple Impuation

Unadjusted Means for the Association Between Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status African American

Afro Caribbean

Eta

.689 (.463)

.775 (.418)

.089 ***

Occupational prestige

30.89 (12.52)

34.14 (13.48)

.117 ***

Annual personal income

22052 (19696)

28303 (26802)

.130 ***

Currently employed

One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p