The Role Played by Nativism in the Discrimination of the Asians in the United States - Research Proposal Example

The role played by nativism in the discrimination of the Asians in the United s The role played by nativism in the discrimination of the Asians in the United States Nativism is the tendency to prefer the people of a certain country or region and an antagonism to immigration into that area. Nativism is caused by religious, ethnic, cultural, or racial differences. It is mainly grounded on the dread that the immigrants will bring economic, social, political, or cultural changes in the status of the initial inhabitants in an area or alter the composition of the areas residents and its traditions (Schrag, 2010). Nativists are normally opposed to immigration because of the feeling that immigrants will compete with the established inhabitants for jobs or perhaps overburden the government. They may also think that by encouraging immigration, the culture of the locality will be interfered with patriotism diminished or even cause an upsurge in the population. Many government policies in a number of countries and regions have been influenced by nativism. Nativism involves attempts to lower support of the political and legal status of certain ethnic or cultural groups if they are viewed as unreceptive or alien to the usual culture. This is especially if it is assumed that the subjects cannot be assimilated. For example, certain official languages are used by governments as a criteria of choosing those who qualify for benefits emanating from the government. The rights of immigrants may be limited at times, particularly in times of war countries will restrict the rights of certain immigrants. For instance, when a country is at war with another country, it might force that country’s immigrants to live in various places or in internment camps. They may equally lose their voting rights or be evicted out of the country (Pleasant, 2014). Anti-immigration sentiments lead to prejudice among the target population. The discrimination may manifest itself in the form of having difficulties getting employment or housing. On its extreme, nativism may result in aggression or other forms of crimes against the immigrants. Nativism was quite evident in United States although the rate has reduced (Schrag, 2010). For example between 1800 and 1900, there were serious cases of nativism in the US. Throughout this time when there were many cases of immigration, lots of Americans were against the immigration of certain groups for instance the Chinese, Germans, and Catholics. All over history, current immigrants to the US have been subjected to some form of discrimination where they have no choice but to the hardest, lowly paid jobs. They also experience difficulties assimilating wholly into society. Between 1800 and 2000, Jews and Italians experienced extreme prejudice as both groups were seen as non-Anglo and as non-whites (Pleasant, 2014). Ethnic minorities can easily be subjected to anti-immigrant prejudice that includes a recurrent preoccupation with “nativism.” Biasness against Asian Pacific Americans has also been evident for long. Some negative stereotypes are assigned to people who are subjected to antagonism. However, nativists are usually a bit lenient with those who manage to learn the local language. The first bills to be passed into laws restricted the immigration of the Asians into the US. Congress limited immigration from China for ten years from 1882 and banned it permanently in 1902. This was spearheaded by President Theodore Roosevelt who initiated a "gentle mans agreement" with Japan in 1907 that disqualified immigrants from that country. Attempts to restrict non-Asian newcomers in a little while gained impetus as well. Most of the immigrants who moved to America had originated from the Northwestern region of Europe had provided most of Americas immigrants in the nineteenth century, but by 1900 most came from Poland, Russia, Hungary, and Italy. Americans were enhancing their ethnic prejudices by misinterpreting results provided by the field of genetics. The Americans argued that immigrants from other countries lacked the intelligence and the motivation that characterized Europeans from northwestern Europe and thus the new argument on immigration provided a new momentum to the nativist movement. Methodology The recruitment of respondents: Respondents were female students from the University of Toronto of Asian descent. The students who were willing to partici­pate were requested to provide information about their ethnicities to establish their descent. They gave relevant information through a face to face interview. A total of 80 Asian women participated in the study for course credit or $10 compensation. After the study, data was analyzed indicating that out of the participants 62 were Chinese, 8 were Korean, 5 were Vietnamese, 4 were Taiwanese, and 1 was Japanese. Participants’ average age was 19.23 years. The participants were gathered together in a class setting but each was seated at individual terminals. The nationality of the participants in the racism condition was also obtained during recruitment. This was done to ensure that the manipulation impacted on the participants. The participants read the script that guided their interview together so as to seek clarity if there was any need. After reading the, the participants reported what they indicated their willingness to participate in the study and expose what they felt were the causes of nativism form of prejudice. The main purpose of the experimenter was to study social judgments in hypothetical situa­tions. A number of vignettes presented that were illustrations of common university experi­ences. One of the vignettes was on cases where students attempted to get permis­sion from a professor to register for a course (Major et al., 2003; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). In all the instances, the professor denied the respondent’s requests; however, the basis for this refusal was the participants’ race. For example, Japanese respondents subjected to nativism were requested to read the scenario below: They were expected to narrate their immigration experiences as they moved from Japan to America. Were there any government policies that were meant to discourage the immigrations from Asian countries? After the questions were asked, information about the existence of laws meant to discourage immigration was gathered. Such laws have been in existence and that the laws are seriously applied. Some students had also been denied chances of enrolling for some courses on the basis of their race. Participants also rated the extent to which they would blame themselves for the outcome described in the scenario. Finally, the participants were compen­sated for their participation. Measures To measure levels of nativism, the procedures of Schmitt and Branscombe (2002) and Major et al. (2003) were used. Participants rated their attributions for the rejection event on scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Each scale con­sisted of two items which we combined to form composite attributions measures. Discrimination attributions: Discrimination attributions were measured by asking all respondents the extent to which the professor seemed to be a nativist. (“The professor’s behavior were as a result of nativism; “The professor is a nativist”, r (68) = .83, p < .001, M = 3.32, SD = 1.23). Internal attributions: T0 measure inner attri­butions two items were considered : “The professor refused the respondent permission due to some­thing about him/her” and “The professor refused to give the respondent permission due to who he or she is” (r(66) = .49, p < .001, M = 3.72, SD = 1.64). External attributions So as to measure external attributions two items were put into consideration: “The pro­fessor refused to give me permission because of something about him” and “The government denies Asians chances to migrate to US due to their personality” (r(63) = .51, p < .001, M = 3.73, SD = 1.57). Self-blame Participants equally rated their agree­ment with two items evaluating their self-blame: “I blame myself for not receiving consent” and “It is the fault of the respondent that he/she did not receive permission” (Major et al., 2003; r (60) = .59, p < .001, M = 2.52, SD = 1.43). Results The vignettes used effectively identified cases of nativism for of prejudice. Results indicated that the actions of the professor show that he is a nativist. Asked how racist the professor looked, we observed a considerable effect of rejec­tion type, F (2, 63) = 12.40, p < .001. Post-hoc tests showed that participants in the racism condition perceived the professor as more racist (M = 5.48, SD = 1.62) as compared to the respondent blaming self (M = 3.75, SD = 1.05), p < .001, d = 1.27. Ratings by participants if the respondent felt as though discrimination by the professor was because of the character of the participant or because of who they are, failed to show any distinct differences in the individual rejection condition, p = .98. Internal attributions, external attributions and self-blame The means and standard deviations of participants’ responses to the primary depend­ent measures are provided in the Table 1 below. In incomplete support of our main proposition, revealed that discrimination affected internal attributions, F (2, 88) = 4.38, p = .01. Turkey post-hoc tests illustrate that the vital contrast between participants who anticipated nativism (M = 4.50, SD = 1.53) and racism (M = 3.38, SD = 1.43) was significant, p = .02, d = .89. Participants made stronger internal attri­butions to explain nativism. Levels of internal attribution resulting from self-blame (M = 3.60, SD = 1.30) did not vary from rat­ings in the racism (p = .08) conditions. In addition, participants’ ratings of self-blame did not differ by rejection type, F (2, 65) = 1.79, p = .17. Although findings showed that par­ticipants internalized the factors that contributed to racism, there was no evidence that the respondents wholly blamed themselves for a racial prejudice. Finally, there was no evidence that rejection influenced external attribu­tions, F < 1. Bearing in mind that external attributions designed by the participants to clarify nativism did not vary, the findings are similar to the results reported by Major et al. (2003). References Schrag, P. (Sep 13 2010). The Unwanted: Immigration and Nativism in America. Immigration Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/unwanted- immigration-and-nativism-America. Pleasant, P. (Nov 8 2014). What Is Nativism? Wise Geek. Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-nativism.htm Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The internal and external causal loci of attributions to prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 620–628. Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., & McCoy, S. K. (2003). It’s not my fault: When and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 772–781 Read More