Ethnocentrism, Stereotypes, and Immigration in the United States

Running head: IMMIGRATION IN U.S. 1/ 25

Ethnocentrism and Stereotyping as it Concerns

Immigration in the United States

Paul Hopper

University of South Alabama

Immigration in U.S. 2/ 25

To understand ethnocentrism in the United States, one must first understand

the subject in every aspect of the classic journalistic style: who, what, when, where,

why and how. William Sumner said it best when he described ethnocentrism as “the

technical name for this view of things in which ones own group is the center of

everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner, 1906).

Now, ethnocentric thinking is born – in the most basic form – from the belief in a

useful quality in every person’s culture. This useful quality – or virtue as this paper

will refer to it – can be one or many and about any area of society. When one

identifies with this virtue because they have been taught to do so, they naturally

reason at the most basic level of intercultural comprehension, if their way to think

about a virtue is good, then any other way is bad. This is only a very simplistic

example; however, it does demonstrate how ethnocentric opinions form in everyone

– the difference being a person’s low or high-ethnocentric thought. This belief not

only affects intercultural communications but also affects intra-cultural

communications as well when it concerns micro-cultures within a larger society. The

frame-of-reference that we use to view other societies outside of and within our own

is colored by our degree of ethnocentrism.

This paper has explained who, what, when, and where concerning

ethnocentrism. Next the why behind ethnocentrism’s importance and when that

importance means the most will be discussed. Ethnocentrism provides a

fundamental and perhaps necessary service to societies. According to James

Neuliep, “ethnocentrism fosters ingroup survival, solidarity, conformity,

cooperation, loyalty, and effectiveness” (Neuliep, 2009). But how do people

experience ethnocentrism every day? A common example of intra-cultural

ethnocentrism comes from the ‘typical’ high school experience in the United States.


Imagine one clique of students – the “nerds” – sees another clique – the

cheerleaders – being loud in the library while they’re trying to study. Later that

same day, the cheerleaders are practicing in the gym and the nerds are sitting

around waiting for the bell so they can leave, but this time they’re the ones being

loud. Now think of how the nerds perceived the cheerleaders when they were in the

library. Their attitude towards being loud in that location was that the cheerleaders

were being rude. On the reverse side, the cheerleaders never thought their

behavior was rude in the library; however, when they were trying to practice in the

gym they did think that the nerds were being rude. The assumption that people

should be quiet in the library or the gym is based upon each group’s views about

those places providing them with a chance to work and for that they need quiet. But

to the opposite group in either situation, the assumption that there should be

silence does not apply and is in fact seen as rude; this is ethnocentric thinking.

Sense Europeans first began colonizing North America, in what would become

the United States, until the year 2000, almost 50 million people immigrated into the

U.S. (TSL-EIF, 2008). Between 2003 and 2008, more than six million more

immigrants permanently, legally, settled into this country (DHS, 2009). Now the

total population of the United States as of October 27th, 2009 was only 307,793,118

people, meaning the total number of immigrants is roughly equal to 1/6 the total

population today; so that fraction does not include the posterity of the families who

have lived here for over 200 years (USCB, 2009).

This paper will begin by discussing immigration in the U.S. by what factors

have affected it, its ‘waves’, and current policy. Next stereotypes will be explored,

discussing U.S. citizen’s views on stereotyping as a concept and some important

points of theory to know to understand stereotype formation. Following stereotypes,


ethnocentric critiques will be discussed as well as the threat ethnocentrism poses.

Racism’s association with ethnocentrism – or lack-there-of – will follow and be

discussed including studies to illustrate the point of the section. Finally, the

questions of how to change ethnocentric views, should stereotypes be changed, and

if ethnocentrism is a negative idea will be discussed. Regardless of one’s stance on

the issue of immigration and the attitudes of U.S. citizens towards these

newcomers, it is undeniable they have made their impact on the States. It was

Thomas Paine who first said, “This new World hath been the asylum for the

persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe,” little did

Paine know the same could be said for every corner of the world before the United

State’s 200 year anniversary (1776).

Immigration

Factors Affecting Immigration

Many factors have affected immigration into the United States. Chief among

them are the wars fought inside and out of the country as well as the laws enacted

on the subject. The first United States census was taken in 1790 (USCB, 2009).

Before then, more than 875,000 people from all parts of Europe, Central America,

and Africa had moved to the States. In Florida the Spanish had been established

sense the late 1500’s and by the early 1600’s the English had settled New England

and Virginia. The Dutch had done the same in New York and New Jersey, and the

Swedish in Delaware. That first census counted 3.9 million people in the country –

not including Native Americans that lived in the colonies. The largest of the

nationalities were the English, followed by people of African descent1 (around 20%)

and behind them the Germans, Scotts, and Irish making the only other sizable

national demographics.


Laws affecting immigration.

In the same year as the first census, the United States Congress passed its

first piece of legislation concerning naturalization of foreign peoples in the new

country.2 To this point, Congress only stated “…any alien, being a free white person,

may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States” (TSL-EIF, 2008).

However this could be done only after a period of two years residency. Until 1802,

Congress passed laws every few years making it increasingly more difficult and

complicated for aliens to become naturalized. In 1802, however, a new

naturalization act made it significantly easier to become a citizen, decreasing the

residency period from 14 years to only five (USCIS, 2006).

It is important to note that in 1865 after the end of the American Civil War,

Congress and the states passed the 13th Amendment making slavery illegal. Since

1808 slaves were prevented from being brought into the U.S.; however those

already in slavery and their posterity were doomed to stay there until the 13th’s

passage, though it was not only Africans and Caribbean islanders who were brought

in as forced labor. For a nearly 50 year span at the beginning of the colonization of

the English colonies, poor Europeans would barter four to seven years of their life to

unpaid labor in the colonies in exchange for a one-way trip there and land after

completion of their time. Also (and this will be discussed more later on), Asian

immigrants were forcibly brought over to work in California even after the passage

of the 13th Amendment and the freedom of the slaves (TSL-EIF, 2008).

Over the following decades many acts on immigration, naturalization, and the

treatment of trans-Atlantic passengers were enacted. In 1875, Congress passed

their first act prohibiting undesirable immigrants from entering the country as well

as the forced immigration of Asian immigrants as a new form of slave labor. In


1882, the “Chinese Exclusion Act” marked the first piece of racially motivated

legislation in the U.S. It primarily ordered the suspension of Chinese workers

immigrating into the country, barred any Chinese already in the States from

becoming naturalized, and only allowed Chinese intellectuals who were “proceeding

to the United States… from curiosity” to enter the country on a temporary basis.3 In

1885, the first of a series of Contract Labor Laws was passed, making it illegal to

import foreigners into the country by contract for performing a certain number of

years service – with a few exceptions (USCIS, 2006).

Decades came and went with immigration legislation being passed, mostly

making it more difficult and expensive to do so. Key legislation included: 1891’s

legislation formally organizing immigration procedures for the Federal government;

1910’s “Mann Act” (ironically named) provided for the illegalization of interstate

trafficking of women for “immoral purposes;” the “Immigration Act of 1917” that

further limited those immigrants who would be allowed into the country based on

literacy, mental health, and ethnicity (USCIS, 2006).

Nineteen hundred and twenty one saw the first Quota legislation passed on

immigration. This and the acts that followed were attempts by the Federal

government to limit immigration from certain areas of the world. The total number

of allowable immigrants would be a certain percentage of that nationality already

present in the country based on earlier census data – effectively making sure that

minorities stayed minorities. Congress continued cutting the percentage of

allowable immigrants down further and further with each new quota law (USCIS,

2006). It wasn’t until 1965 that Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Hart-Cellar Act,

throwing out the quota system and adopting the current immigration system we

have today (TSL-EIF, 2008).


Wars affecting immigration.

War always affects immigration in two ways: first, it changes the ethnocentric

perceptions of the citizens in each country; and second, it almost always results in a

changing of immigration and naturalization law. For the sake of time and length,

only two examples will be shared in this paper; however, this is not to undermine

the importance of conflict – even if the country being studied is not involved – on

immigration stereotypes and ethnocentrism.

From 1938 until 1945, Ellis Island in New York was used to detain around

7,000 legal aliens from Japan, Italy, and Germany as well as naturally born Japanese

citizens (TSL-EIF, 2008). Not being limited to the east coast, the majority of the

forced resettlements of Japanese Americans as well as legal aliens from Axis nations

occurred on the west coast. Nearly 120,000 Japanese were relocated into

internment camps during World War II, many of whom were American citizens.4

Though the pretext for this move was security, 17,000 children under ten-years-old

were relocated including orphans and adopted children with European-American

parents. Also, 1,000 handicapped or infirm were taken from hospitals as well as

2,000 men and women over the age of 65 (Burton, Farrell, Lord, & Lord).

Following World War II, the “Internal Security Act of 1950” excluded aliens

who had been communists or fascists in their countries from entering the U.S. The

Cold War had a drastic impact on immigration to the States; however, the many

waves of refugees will be covered later on.

Waves – Mass-migrations

It is, for the most part, common knowledge there have been mass-migrations

of people from all over the world into the U.S. over its lifetime. These waves go from

the Pilgrims, to 5,000 English prisoners creating what’s now Georgia, on to the


waves of Irish immigrants during the potato famine years, and so on and so forth.

Some other migrations that are not so well known include the massive influx of

Norwegian immigrants in the late 19th century. In the decade of the 1880’s, a total

of 9% of Norway’s total population immigrated to the States (TSL-EIF, 2008).

Other migrations were stopped in their tracks by harsh immigration law, such

as the influx of Asian and Western Europeans attempting to take refuge in the U.S.

just before the outbreak of WWII in the late 1930’s. These people were sent back

across the Atlantic and Pacific by the thousands because of strong isolationist

feelings.

Mass Naturalization.

Of particular interest when studying the views of U.S. citizens and its

government are the in-mass naturalizations that occurred during the country’s

history. There are many examples of this in our nation’s history, but only a few

recent cases will be discussed. Earlier, we reviewed the affects of war on

immigrants. After 1945 when the Japanese, Italians, and Germans began being

released from internment camps in the west – as well as a few on the east coast

such as Ellis Island – it became a great concern over what to do with them. United

States citizens were allowed to return to their lives, though without reimbursement

for the losses of their property and jobs. Interestingly enough, during the war, the

U.S. had acquired some 3,000 Japanese from Peru and following the war, Peru

would not take them back – mostly because the motivation for ridding themselves

of the minority in the first place was not for security but rather anti-Asian

sentiments in their country. So, the U.S. government had to decide what to do with

them. Some of the people were sent back to Japan, but the large majority were


given citizenship in the U.S., making it one of the first recent examples of this

practice, though certainly not the largest or last (Burton et al).

With the Cold War beginning, Europe began taking sides. In a 1947 State of

the Union address to Congress, President Harry Truman had this to say about

refugees fleeing Europe, “I urge the Congress to turn its attention to this world

problem in an effort to find ways whereby we can fulfill our responsibility to these

thousands of homeless and suffering refugees of all faiths.” At the time, only around

5,000 immigrants fleeing Europe had been admitted, much less than the number

being turned away (Woolley & Peters). Surprisingly, this statement seems to

illustrate the stance of the government during the Cold War years; however, it does

not entirely represent the view of the people. The following year Congress passed

the “Displaced Person’s Act,” and later the “Refugee Relief Act” which gave a few

hundred thousand immigrants refuge in the States while still turning away hundreds

of thousands more (USCIS, 2006). Three years later in 1956 and ’57, 38,000

Hungarians who had failed to overthrow the Soviet Union in their country were

granted refugee status in the States, constituting the first true mass nationalization

of one nationality in the Cold War (TSL-EIF, 2008).

Under international pressure from the United Nations and Western European

allies as well as the executive branch, Congress passed the 1965 “Immigration and

Nationality Act Amendments.” No one at the time considered the legislation to be as

groundbreaking as it would soon become, but the sheer number of immigrants

between 1966 and 2000 proves its effectiveness. Almost 23 million people came

into the States as a result of that law (Daniels, 2007). How this law relates to mass

nationalization of immigrants is how the law affected refugees. Of those 23 million

people, only a little over 10 million immigrated into the U.S. via normal means – not


using any factors other than their wanting to enter the country (TSL-EIF, 2008). The

rest of those people were considered refugees from all parts of the world.

The final group to be mentioned were brought in under another Immigration

Reform Act passed in 1986. The legislation granted amnesty to 3,000,000 illegal

aliens – most of whom were from the south, Mexico and other Central American

countries – who had been in the country continuously sense 1982. The other side of

the bill contained new controls to discourage illegal immigration as well as making it

a crime to hire or seek to hire illegal immigrants.

Immigration Now

Current Policy.

Today, the basic criteria to become a naturalized citizen for the United States

are:

Five years of residency starting when you are granted legal permanent alien

status.

Three months in the district or state where you will be when you apply for

citizenship.

Good moral character.

Knowledge of civics (history & government).

Understanding of the English language (reading, writing, and basic speech).

An attachment to the United States Constitution (oath).

This information came from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

website (USCIS, 2009).

Current attitudes.

In a 2008 Gallup poll, 57% of U.S. citizens over the age of 18 believed the

level of immigrants coming into the country was either fine the way it was or should


be increased. Thirty nine percent said that the level should be decreased while

three percent were unsure. Less than a month after the September 11, 2001

terrorist attacks, the same poll was taken with only 38% of the population saying

the level was fine where it was or wanted it increased and 58% of the people

agreeing that the level needed to be decreased. However, after that year (as the

same poll has been taken each year since), the population returned to roughly the

same view as it has now. In the same Gallup poll in 2008, 64% of U.S. citizens agree

that immigration was a good thing for the country today (Gallup, 2008).

According to a September 2009 USA Today/ Gallup Poll, 84% of citizens

believe that the country is in a recession, and just over fifty percent of the country

believes the economy is getting better to some degree (either a lot or a little)

(Gallup, 2009). This information is relevant because, according to scholars on

immigration, a trend exists between immigration disapproval and times of economic

instability or recession (Fetzer, 2000).

Stereotypes

Out-group Homogeneity Effect

To understand stereotype formation, one of the key theories to identify is the

out-group homogeneity effect theory. This theory has been proven many times over

in scholarly experiments all over the country and in different cultures. However, the

reason behind this effect is still being debated. In essence, the Effect is the

tendency of individuals to see out-groups (those groups they are not a part of) as

more homogeneous, or less variable, than in-groups (those in which they are a

part). In layman’s terms, people see other groups (cultures/ micro-cultures) as more

similar – and thus more stereotypical – than their own, which they see as variable

and not stereotypical (Judd & Park, 1987).


United States’ View of Stereotyping

In the U.S., stereotypes always carry a negative connotation, whether or not

they identify a positive or negative trait in a group of people. Psychologists Donald

Taylor and Lana Porter have researched why this is so in the States while it is not

generally true in other parts of the world. First, the history of stereotypes here is

filled with negative and destructive connotations from European Americans towards

African Americans. This automatically taints any usage of stereotypes today in any

context. Secondly, they believe the idea of the United States being a “melting pot”

of the world’s cultures is directly contrary to the acceptable formation of

stereotypes. For by definition, stereotypes call out differences in groups while the

“melting pot” idea emphasizes hegemony and the lack of differences. Lastly, Taylor

and Porter recognize the well documented truth that people (or groups) are more

attracted and willing to like someone (or another group) if they are alike. This

means the more differences groups have, the more likely it will be that negative

stereotypes will develop (Neuliep, 2009).

The fact has been known for some time that stereotypes are one of the first

ideas assimilated by children, even before they’re old enough to fully understand or

question them (Neuliep, 2009). In fact, a study performed by Ashton Trice and

Kimberly Rush on 4-year-old children in varying schools around the U.S. found these

children had already developed gender stereotypes about what jobs belonged to

men and what jobs belonged to women (Trice & Rush, 1995).

One-shot Illusory Correlation

In 1976, two researchers, Hamilton and Gifford, published an article titled,

Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic

judgments. Essentially, this article identified and began to explain the cognitive


perception process an individual watching rare or unusual behavior performed by

minority or out-group members goes through. This pairing of rare-behaviors (most

commonly given negative connotations) and rare-groups is identified as a rare-rare

combination. The theory created by Hamilton and Gifford, called the Illusory

Correlation Theory, is contested still with researchers debating the meaning of the

experiment results.

However, despite doubts as to the legitimacy of Hamilton and Gifford’s

theory, three researchers – Risen, Gilovich, and Dunning – published four studies in

2007 introducing and confirming the emergence of what they termed a One-shot

Illusory Correlation. The census of the four studies showed this:

Rare-group/ Rare-behavior combinations require more processing time for

subjects (Study 1)

Rare/Rare combinations require more processing time because subjects

admittedly considered the rare-group member’s association with that group

as a cause of their rare-behavior while not doing the same for any other

behavior/ group combination (Study 2)

Subjects wondered more about rare-behavior in general, regardless of if it

was committed by a rare or common group (Study 2)

Successful cognitive recall of information – as well as the increased

processing time and behavior attribution – was proven attributed to rare/rare

pairings and not negative-behavior/rare-group combinations (Study 3)

Terms out-group and rare-group were found to not be synonymous when

creating one-shot illusions. Rare-groups specifically brought a greater

response than out-groups only (Study 4) (Risen, Gilovish, & Dunning).


Though how does the One-shot Illusionary Correlation work in a real world

scenario? An example would be a man in the Midwest of the United States standing

in line at the grocery store. This day he sees a woman from the Middle East wearing

a chador – the traditional covering for a Muslim woman particularly in Iran. He’s

never seen a woman from that part of the world before or one wearing a cador, but

he knows it is something worn by Muslim women. While at the store waiting in line

he notices that the woman never looks the man who’s bagging her groceries in the

eyes and continues to stare at the floor while he’s helping her with her purchases.

After leaving the store the man begins to wonder if the woman wouldn’t look at him

because she was from the Middle East and a Muslim. The man’s cognitive thoughts

about why she would not look the worker in the eyes is a simple example of the

One-shot Illusory Correlation. He took extra time to register the event and

attempted to identify her background as its source.5

Group Related Stereotype Formation

Perceived group variability.

When discussing stereotypes anywhere in the world, two other theoretical

trends are helpful in understanding their formation and supposed validity. The first

one of these is the premise of perceived group variability. Perceived group

variability is usually seen as a gateway to understanding other factors of

in-group/out-group effects, though, Bernadette Park and Charles Judd assert P.G.V.

is a field of study unto itself. Their research in how variability is measured and

factors contributing to its formation helps to improve all aspects of group effects.

Simply put, a perceiver (one forming the judgment) witnesses behavior by an

exemplar (member of the in/out-group being perceived) and encodes that behavior

to be recalled later. Controversy surrounds the factors associated with the recall


and implementation of variability assessments though. One camp, led by Lineville

et al, would assume that exemplars are the only encoded memory of groups.

Therefore, when one is recalling a stereotypical judgment about a group, they do

not recall group level information but only exemplars and thus each time come up

with a new construct of the group variability and stereotypes. On the other hand,

Park and Rothbart have come up with a more mixed approach, wherein the

perceiver encodes exemplar information but also their judgments of the group at

that time. So when information about the group is recalled, the perceiver brings up

first group level generalizations of variability and stereotypes and secondly

information on specific exemplars. These two leading theories represent how P.G.V.

forms and is recalled. Understanding this is fundamental to further group variability

research (Judd & Park, 1990).

Out-group homogeneity effect.

The second trend that is helpful in understanding stereotype formation in any

culture is the out-group homogeneity effect. In its essence, it is the tendency of

people (members of their own in-groups) to perceive others who are not members

of their group (out-group members) as less variable and more homogeneous than

their in-group. This OH effect – as it’s called – has been documented across many

types of groups in multiple studies. Now why is it important? If one believes in this

effect, then it helps to explain the confidence level of peoples’ stereotypes as well

as their extent. The level of prejudice in study subjects has also been found to

correlate to these factors (Rubin & Badea, 2007).

Gender based stereotypes.

It should be noted and referenced that stereotype formation is a much

broader spectrum than different cultures, races, religions, or socio-economic status.


Studies have shown over and over that gender stereotypes are among some of the

most prominent in our society. A study by Ashton Trice and Kimberly Rush

demonstrated the sex-related stereotype of 4-year-olds in preschools when asked

about professions. The results of the study demonstrated a stereotypical trend in

which professions the children deemed appropriate for males and females (1995).

Beyond profession related stereotyping, another study by Amanda Durik et al

compared gender stereotypes among different ethnic groups. Studying European,

African, Hispanic, and Asian Americans, the study found that “across ethnic groups,

women are consistently stereotyped to express more fear, guilt, love, sadness,

shame, surprise, and sympathy” than men in those same ethnic groups (2006).

Both of these studies were performed in the United States but demonstrate the

ability of stereotypes to form cross cultural similarities.

Ethnocentrism

Critiques of Study

Crisis of modernity.

This paper has already discussed ethnocentrism in detail above, what it is

and why it is important. Before one may begin to analyze how ethnocentrism

presents itself in the society of the United States, one should be aware of its

criticisms. Normally, the Crisis of Modernity would not be an issue when discussing

ethnocentrism in one’s own culture. However, in the case of the U.S. and a handful

of other nations, the CoM is an issue which must be explored. In short, the CoM is

the new doubt that what is considered the modern view of human history and

cultural evolution is the true picture of how things occurred. This issue threatens the

frame or context in which most if not all social science studies are conducted.

Universalistic convictions.


Next, a branch of the CoM is the belief in a Universalistic Conviction.

Essentially this is the risk of assuming all world cultures have as their final “goal” –

one could say – a Western society with its behaviors and beliefs at their core. This is

obviously a fallacy in any argument; though many researchers find these fallacies in

others analyses of non-Western culture. Cultural Pluralism is what threatens the

universalistic approach to thinking (Cabrera, 2008).6

The Ethnocentric Threat

“Racism and ethnocentrism are not synonymous, they are related” says

Neuliep. The relationship he refers to is also the threat ethnocentrism can form in a

culture. Ethnocentrism is almost a requirement for racism; however, racism is not a

requirement of ethnocentrism. The traits and motivations of racism will be

discussed later. Ethnocentrism on the other hand is a natural process of human

nature. In fact, many researchers believe we as humans are born into

ethnocentrism through our ethnicity and cultural upbringing. It has been described

as a “survival instinct” relative to all “people in all cultures” (2009). However, when

ethnocentrism is taken to extremes, it can become a learned cognitive process with

alternative motivations and bases for its ideology.

Racism

Racism, unlike ethnocentrism, is a process rooted in biology. It is the

hierarchical belief that all other racial groups are inferior to the one and this cannot

be changed through education or culture. Racism is unchanging and takes no other

factors into consideration when deciding racial dominance.

The differences between racism and ethnocentrism are relatively easy to

identify. The differences between racism and stereotyping may sometimes be

blurred. Stereotypes are thought to be altered whenever new stimulus is brought to


the perceiver’s attention. Although with racism, again, no factors beside the genetic

component play any role. So one might ask why racism would ever be taught to a

culture. The main argument for the propagation of racism is a society’s ignorance of

another, fear of their cultures, and hatred towards their actions (Neuliep, 2009).

Merits of Ethnocentrism and Stereotypes

Stereotype Functionality

This paper has covered the pros and cons of stereotypes. It has discussed

how they are formed and why. Though it has not, until now, speculated as to if they

should or should not be changed. Stereotypes by their nature are moldable. They

are created from impressions given to us by exemplars or by third parties such as

the news media and we then use the information to develop a group association.

In short, yes, some stereotypes should be changed. Though, only some

should be changed because – unlike the belief in the United States – not all

stereotypes are considered bad everywhere in the world. Stereotypes can serve a

purpose in helping micro-cultural groups retain important values of their groups.

Stereotypes may also serve as a warning, a defense mechanism for some societies

where law and order are not so readily enforced.

Stereotypes should however be changed when they begin to solidify and

border on racism. Society, not just in the United States but elsewhere, must be

careful to caution micro-cultural groups as well as the dominant culture from

believing too firmly in stereotypes. There must be a line in the sand – so to speak –

where a society can tolerate the individual stereotypes of its people but step in

before those stereotypes become dangerous racially based beliefs.

Ethnocentrism Functionality


For much the same reason stereotypes can be useful to society, ethnocentric

thinking can also be useful. Things like ideas, train of thoughts, and cultural

evolution as a whole are culturally specific. One of those things created in the

United States will not work the same if it is put into practice in the Middle East, Asia,

or a number of other societies. However, a train of thought which has been working

well in the United States might – and most likely will – continue to do so and is

therefore perfectly acceptable.

So where one must remain cautious is how they treat other civilizations. One

cannot apply their own ethnocentric notions of conditions and measures of culture

to other areas of the world and expect them to be accurate measurements. These

types of areas of research must be rethought from outside of the mold in order to

find ways to accurately understand and categorize different cultures. These new

ways cannot be biased or subject to Universalistic Convictions from Western

Civilization or any other.

Changing Ethnocentric Viewpoints

When a society, such as the United States’, hopes to develop a “melting pot”

culture where many religions, traditions, and a variety of other ways of life are

brought together and treated equally, cultural education becomes paramount to

change ethnocentric viewpoints. Especially in the beginning, with the first

generation to attempt this, cultural literacy must be stressed in curriculum with the

goal being to override the ethnocentric viewpoints each child is taught from birth.

This is certainly easier said than done. Kenneth Carano, a doctoral candidate

at the University of South Florida, is a Peace Corps veteran who has spent much of

his career teaching school children about other cultures. A 2006 National

Geographic and Roper survey cited in Carano and Michael Berson’s paper


announces, “90% of young Americans were unable to locate Afghanistan on a map”

and only 63% could find Iraq. This geographic literacy deficiency is not only limited

to physical geography. Studies have proven that young citizens of the United States

are more apt to the Out-group Homogeneity effect than people of similar ages in

other areas of the world.

Carano and Berson give our best chance to increase children’s cultural

literacy to technology. They first propose using the Internet in Social Studies

classrooms to connect children from different backgrounds so they may share their

opinions and beliefs. The other important use of the Internet, according to Carano

and Berson, is to allow children to find news sources of their own to expand their

knowledge of the world (2007).

Even the use of the Internet in these ways is not enough. Educators must

incorporate global perspectives into Social Studies curriculum. There are eight

Dimensions of Global Perspective listed by Carano and Berson but created by other

researchers. According to these two men, inclusion of technology into the classroom

and the Either Dimensions of Global Perspectives into the curriculum would be

enough to begin altering the naive cultural perceptions of youth in the United

States.

Conclusion

This paper has given an overview of most of the topics one would need to

understand in order to accurately begin to measure and discuss ethnocentrism and

stereotypes in the United States. The point of the theory explained and history

given is to educate the reader in how stereotypes and ethnocentric thinking effect

their everyday lives. Ironically, it is the desire of the author to promote the reader of

this paper to change not their actions towards others or even their thoughts


(stereotypes) but instead to rethink the perceptions they have made about others in

out-group settings, whether those out-groups be micro-cultures here in the United

States or other cultures which interact with the United States. It was the 1864

Republican Party platform that might have summed up the author’s view on

immigration the best when they said, “Foreign immigration which in the past has

added so much to the wealth, resources, and increase of power to the nation…

should be fostered and encouraged” (TSL-EIF, 2008).


References

Burton, J. F., Farrell, M. M., Lord, F. B., & Lord, R. W. Confinement and ethnicity: An

overview of

World War II Japanese American relocation sites. Retrieved from

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/anthropology74/index.htm

Cabrera, M. A. (2008). A critique of ethnocentrism and the crisis of modernity

[Review of the book

Culture troubles: Politics and the interpretation of meaning]. History and

Theory, 47, 607-

616.

Carano, K. T., & Berson, M. J. (2007). Breaking stereotypes: Constructing geographic

literacy and

cultural awareness through technology. The Social Studies, 65-70.

Daniels, R. (2007). The Immigration Act of 1965: Intended and unintended

consequences of the 20th

Century. In Historians on America (11). Retrieved from

http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080423214226eaifas0.

9637982.html

Department of Homeland Security (2009). Yearbook of immigration statistics.

Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/data/

Dixon, T. L. (2008). Network news and racial beliefs: Exploring the connection

between national

television news exposure and stereotypical perceptions of African Americans.

Journal of


Communication, 58, 321-337.

Durik, A. M., Hyde, J. S., Marks, A. C., Roy, A. L., Anaya, D., Schultz, G. (2006).

Ethnicity and gender

stereotypes of emotion. Sex Roles, 429-445. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9020-4

Fetzer, J. S. (2000). Public attitudes towards immigration in the United States,

France, and Germany.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gallup Poll. Immigration [Charts]. Retrieved from

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1987). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at

the individual and

group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (5), 778-788.

Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability.

Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (2), 173-191.

Neuliep, J. W. (2009). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (4th ed.).

United States:

Sage.

Paine, T. (1776). Common Sense. Philadelphia: Bell.

Risen, J. L., Gilovish, T., & Dunning, D. (2007). One-shot illusory correlations and

stereotype

formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1492-1502.

Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2007). Why do people perceive ingroup homogeneity on

ingroup traits and


outgroup homogeneity on outgroup traits? Personality and Psychology

Bulletin, 33, 31-42.

Sumner, W.G. (1906). Folkways. Boston: Ginn.

Trice, A. D., & Rush, K. (1995). Sex-stereotyping in four-year-olds’ occupational

aspirations.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 701-702.

The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation (2008). Ellis Island. Retrieved from

http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis_island.asp

Trice, A. D., & Rush, K. (1995). Sex-stereotyping in four-year-olds’ occupational

aspirations.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 701-702.

United States Census Bureau (2009, October 27). Population clocks. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/

United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (2006). Legislation from 1790-

1900 [PDF].

Available from http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

USA Today/ Gallup Poll. Economic outlook [Charts]. Retrieved from

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm

Woolley, J. T., & Peters, G. (n.d.). The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara,

CA: Gerhard

Peters. Available from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12762


Footnotes

1 In 1619, the first slaves began being forcibly brought to the colonies from the

Caribbean and afterwards increasingly from Africa (TSL-EIF, 2008).

2 The Federal government, it was believed, did not have the authority to

regulate or monitor immigration into the United States until 1875 and did not do so

until 1890. Before then, Congress had only monitored immigration. Essentially the

states themselves turned over that power to Congress (TSL-EIT, 2008).

3 The “Chinese Exclusion Act” was not repealed until the end of 1943.

4 The U.S. government decided a person would be considered Japanese if they

had a 1/16 Japanese heritage (Burton, Ferral, Lord, & Lord). That comes down to

one of your great-great-grandparents being of Japanese descent.

5 Though not a true One-shot Illusory Correlation, a study performed by Travis

Dixon with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign conducted a study of what

could be considered a One-source Illusory Correlation. In his study, Dixon found with

respondents to his randomly sampled phone survey there was a correlation

between network news exposure and a negative estimation of African American

income, a positive relationship with African American stereotype endorsement, and

a positive relation to racism in its modern context (2008).

6 Authors Patrick Chabal and Jean-Pascal Daloz critique the current status quo

in their book, Culture Troubles: Politics and the Interpretation of Meaning. Among

many other things they dispel the idea of seeing cultures as sets of norms, beliefs,

creeds, and values as well as the idea of seeing cultures as universally unconscious

networks integrated into human nature. The two propose a new way to study

culture which encourages a “System of Meaning,” hopefully to uncover the “webs of

significance” behind cultural actions without ethnocentric bias (Cabrera, 2008).

Documents

Ethnocentrism, Stereotypes, and Immigration in the United States