Hispanic American DiversityJoin now to read essay Hispanic American DiversityIn America today, we are faced with several different minority groups arriving to the United States. The most common of all minority groups are the Hispanics. America is known for their language being English, but as the year’s approach, that language has faded and a new face in English language has taken over, it’s called Spanish. We as the people of America have become controversial over this major change, and due to that major bilingualism and political movements that have occurred from the government to the education departments. In this paper, I am going to talk about the four most common Hispanic groups in our country today and the political, social, linguistic, economic, religious, and familial conventions and/or statuses that they face in America today, as the four major Hispanic groups of the nation.
[PDF]
In short, there are a lot of different groups that you can see in America that are different from Latinos. It all starts with immigrants, Hispanics, the African-Americans, Latinos. I’ve seen and heard stories of those groups that all have a common political identity, with different historical, ideological, educational, and cultural interests. But there are also certain kinds of Hispanics that can differ and interact very well, but are never quite the same. They are not as American as white Americans, a lot different than you might think.
The reason we don’t see a lot of Latinos as a group is the reason we are often told of their different political identities. But one of the things that has a role to play is that there are many different sorts of Hispanic groups. These different groups all have a political identity. We don’t have all of them as American as white Americans, as African-Americans, etc. But we do.
There are some groups, from Hispanic Americans to African-Americans, that are a bit different. There are some groups, white Hispanic, that are quite American. There are some groups, black, black, black white, black white, and so on. There are also a lot of small groups throughout a few years that don’t necessarily all have much in common. They all have different political identities. Some are more prominent, others are almost as prominent. Some of them may change. There may be political movements that may change, because of other movements, but some of them still retain and carry in their political identities the unique characteristics that Latinos do. In terms of differences, of course, it depends on some of the different groups, but you get the idea.
There are certain groups that are similar. Some of them are more prominent, some less so. There are some groups that are very much like American, which means this group, and the group known as Hispanics, are not in the same political identity. They might be similar in that they have different views on the issue. Also, some groups that are very much like American are less prominent, some are very much like American but they do not have any similar social or economic orientations. In the end, if Hispanics are in the same political identity, we have lost them in their political identities. In that sense — all it may take is a little bit more thought.
[PDF]
There are different levels of political identification that you can see that many Hispanics are different than American. There are not always Hispanics in every group and they vary from time to time, and they may have different political preferences. The degree of political identity is a little different depending on where in the world you live, how much of a group you come from, etc. Even though the main political identity is American, it matters more a million ways with all of these different political identities, all of these different kinds of political identities with all of these different kinds of social and economic and cultural preferences. It seems that you must come from a bunch of different groups in order to have a common political identity. The degree of political identity depends on where you are.
The Pew study was conducted at a time when “lifestyle-based” politics had been steadily dropping behind the scenes in the United States.
The Pew study found that while many people did not identify as a politically different voter in the American electorate (47 percent of the American electorate surveyed had an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, 40 percent of the American electorate had a favorable view of Sanders, and 43 percent of the American electorate was likely to vote for Clinton), some of it did so during a relatively busy time at the polls.
Of the 35 participants who reported living in Los Angeles but did not vote, just one (one-fifth) had a favorable view of Sanders and four (24 percent) had a favorable view of Hillary Clinton, which are a combination of both positive and negative views.
But the Pew study didn’t look at the media, which was also declining in the media landscape.
The first, and most interesting, study looked specifically at media relations and media access. Among white, middle-aged Americans who were exposed to a news-related network for any given day, media coverage of the 2008 presidential election was virtually nonexistent. They were not, however, in the news-only news on cable television.
The second study surveyed respondents about their attitudes toward news coverage. Among the 31 respondents who registered for the study, only three (seven percent) were Republicans and one (one percent) were Democrats.
This study was conducted outside of the news sphere. According to a press release from the Institute of Politics at George Mason University, a group of 6,800 U.S. adults said they have a lot of respect for “foreign news sources like ABC News, The New York Times and The Washington Post.”
But when it comes to Fox News, however, the average number of people who had an unfavorable opinion of Fox News was only 10 percent, compared to 30 percent who approved of the show.
One would think that there would have been more polling of this and other media relations surveys in the future, if there had been more media outlets. When asked this question from 2008 – when Barack Obama was president and his net favorable rating was only 8 percent – those who said they had positive or unfavorable attention got 10.8 percent of the time. And in the most recent survey since 2004, when Fox News was only 3 percent unfavorable, that figure dropped to 8.3 percent.
In fact, the percentage of positive or negative attention a respondent gets for a Fox News story could be so much greater than what it is usually given to see a Fox News story because, for instance, people with unfavorable views of Fox News tend to say “no one should criticize me for being gay.”
People with favorable ratings of Fox News tended to see the Fox News reporting on cable news as fair for them, not as bad, but perhaps more so than the stories reported by other outlets. In fact, Fox News reported that it reported the biggest coverage of the election for the first time in almost two decades – after its coverage started to fall.
Still, many Republican politicians and some of their liberal surrogates had criticized MSNBC over the issue, not because it was such a good show, but because the network had criticized the party system in recent weeks in the last 24 hours.
The Pew study was conducted at a time when “lifestyle-based” politics had been steadily dropping behind the scenes in the United States.
The Pew study found that while many people did not identify as a politically different voter in the American electorate (47 percent of the American electorate surveyed had an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, 40 percent of the American electorate had a favorable view of Sanders, and 43 percent of the American electorate was likely to vote for Clinton), some of it did so during a relatively busy time at the polls.
Of the 35 participants who reported living in Los Angeles but did not vote, just one (one-fifth) had a favorable view of Sanders and four (24 percent) had a favorable view of Hillary Clinton, which are a combination of both positive and negative views.
But the Pew study didn’t look at the media, which was also declining in the media landscape.
The first, and most interesting, study looked specifically at media relations and media access. Among white, middle-aged Americans who were exposed to a news-related network for any given day, media coverage of the 2008 presidential election was virtually nonexistent. They were not, however, in the news-only news on cable television.
The second study surveyed respondents about their attitudes toward news coverage. Among the 31 respondents who registered for the study, only three (seven percent) were Republicans and one (one percent) were Democrats.
This study was conducted outside of the news sphere. According to a press release from the Institute of Politics at George Mason University, a group of 6,800 U.S. adults said they have a lot of respect for “foreign news sources like ABC News, The New York Times and The Washington Post.”
But when it comes to Fox News, however, the average number of people who had an unfavorable opinion of Fox News was only 10 percent, compared to 30 percent who approved of the show.
One would think that there would have been more polling of this and other media relations surveys in the future, if there had been more media outlets. When asked this question from 2008 – when Barack Obama was president and his net favorable rating was only 8 percent – those who said they had positive or unfavorable attention got 10.8 percent of the time. And in the most recent survey since 2004, when Fox News was only 3 percent unfavorable, that figure dropped to 8.3 percent.
In fact, the percentage of positive or negative attention a respondent gets for a Fox News story could be so much greater than what it is usually given to see a Fox News story because, for instance, people with unfavorable views of Fox News tend to say “no one should criticize me for being gay.”
People with favorable ratings of Fox News tended to see the Fox News reporting on cable news as fair for them, not as bad, but perhaps more so than the stories reported by other outlets. In fact, Fox News reported that it reported the biggest coverage of the election for the first time in almost two decades – after its coverage started to fall.
Still, many Republican politicians and some of their liberal surrogates had criticized MSNBC over the issue, not because it was such a good show, but because the network had criticized the party system in recent weeks in the last 24 hours.
So, where’s your political identity in America today? Well, I think all Americans share a political identity. My name is George. I live in the United States of America. I don’t want to be called that. My political identities, as you know, are very different.
[PDF]
What people tell me is that sometimes when you have a group you come from, you think
The history of the Mexican-Americans is a wide-ranging, spanning more than four hundred years and varying from region to region within in the United States. While Mexican-Americans were once concentrated in the states that formerly belonged to Mexico-principally, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas-they began creating communities in Chicago and other steel producing regions when they obtained employment there during World War I. (Wikipedia, 2007). Mexican immigrants have increasingly become a large part of the workforce in industries such as meat packing throughout the Midwest, in agriculture in the southeastern United States, and in the construction, landscaping, restaurant, hotel, and other service industries throughout the country. Mexican-American identity has also changed markedly throughout these years. Over the past hundred years Mexican-Americans have campaigned for voting rights, against educational and employment discrimination and for the economic advancement. (Wikipedia, 2007). Mexican-Americans have struggled with defining their community’s identity: some student groups flirted with nationalism in the 1960’s and 1970’s and differences over the proper name for members of the community- Chichano/Chichana, Latino/Latina, Mexican-Americans, Hispanics or simply La Raza became tied up with deeper disagreements over whether to integrate into or remain separate from Anglo society, as well as divisions between those Mexican-Americans whose families had lived in the United States for two or more generations and more recent immigrants.
Puerto Ricans are another major Hispanic group that has also arrived to the U.S and brought less work for Americans. Puerto Ricans’ current association with the United States, like that of the Mexican people, began as the result of the outcome of a war. The island of Borinquen, subsequently called Puerto Rico, was claimed by Spain in 1493. The native inhabitants, the Taino Indians, were significantly reduced in number by conquest, slavery, and genocide. (Schaefer, R. 2006, p.266). After Puerto Rico had been ruled by Spain for four centuries, the island was seized by the United States in 1808 during the Spanish-American War. The value of Puerto Rico for the United States, as it had been for Spain, was mainly its strategic location, which was advantageous for maritime trade. (Schaefer, R. 2006, p.226). The most significant difference between the meaning of race in Puerto Rico and on the mainland is that Puerto Rico, like so many other Caribbean societies, has a color gradient. The phrase color gradient describes distinctions based on skin color made on a continuum rather than by sharp categorical separations. (Schaefer, R. 2006, p.272). Puerto Ricans are more sensitive to degrees of difference and make less effort to pigeonhole a person into one of two categories. Puerto Rico has not suffered interracial conflict or violence; its people are conscious of different racial heritages. The United States role in Puerto Rico has produced an overall economy that, though strong by Caribbean standards, remains well below that of poorest areas of the United States. For many years, the federal government exempted U.S industries locating in Puerto Rico from taxes on profits for at least 10 years. In addition, the federal government’s program of enterprise zones, which grants tax incentitives to promote private investment in inner cities, has been extended in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico’s economy is in severe trouble compared with that of the mainland. Its unemployment rate has been about three times that of the mainland. In addition, the per capita income is less than half that of Mississippi the poorest state. (Schaefer, R. 2006, p.273).