Earlier I wrote about a small suburban church in Georgia that has directly addressed the demographic and cultural change taking place in their community by integrating its newcomer ethnic groups into its church through the “social glue” of Christianity. In the process, the church is setting an example of how to assimilate new residents in 21st century America.

Along the same lines, the New York Times reports on another town in the same area of Georgia in which a new charter school is taking on these same challenges, by welcoming a diverse set of refugees from all around the world and bringing them together with American students from diverse social classes:

More than half the 380 students at this unusual school outside Atlanta are refugees from some 40 countries, many torn by war. The other students come from low-income families in Decatur, and from middle- and upper-middle-class families in the area who want to expose their children to other cultures.

Together they form an eclectic community of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims, well-off and poor, of established local families and new arrivals who collectively speak about 50 languages.

The International Community School, which goes from kindergarten through sixth grade, began five years ago to address a pressing local problem: how to educate a flood of young refugees.

It has evolved into a laboratory for the art of getting along, a place that embraces the idea that people from different cultures and classes can benefit one other, even as administrators, teachers and parents acknowledge the many practical difficulties.

The article goes on to describe that not surprisingly, the school and its teachers face quite a range of challenges in bringing everyone together into a classroom of learning, from language barriers to raising money to helping new students overcoming the trauma of their refugee experiences.

Nonetheless, I find it genuinely heartwarming that, along with the Clarkston Baptist Church at the center of my previous post, the International Community School has chosen to address the challenges of globalization and transnationalism head on, rather than running away from it or denying that it will ever affect them.

Everyone involved with the International Community School -- administrators, teachers, assistants, volunteers, parents, and students -- deserves to be congratulated for what they are doing -- putting their convictions and words about living in peace in a diverse society into practice, into their own daily activities.

As the saying goes, well done is always better than well said. Keep up the good work, everyone.

I’ve posted before about the power of media images in influencing how Americans see people of color, since our society is so visually-oriented and media-centric these days. In that context, does the current television writers’ strike open up new opportunities for a more culturally diverse representation of television images for people of color? My Vietnamese American colleague and well-respected writer himself Andrew Lam thinks so in a recent article at New America Media:

With no writers, an onslaught of reality shows are being scheduled for January. Fox will offer The Moment of Truth, something that mirrors Guantanamo. In it contestants are strapped to a lie detector and asked about their most intimate secrets, without, mercifully, waterboarding.

American Gladiators are also back and that show is self explanatory. Then there’s Oprah’s Big Five, an ABC show sponsored by Oprah Winfrey in which contestants are to give away a lot of money for the greatest benefit of society.

Next season, it seems now certain, will be the beginning of the non-fiction era of Hollywood, where documentary and “real” personalities, rule the airwaves.

Thus minorities, in many ways, should rejoice. People of color gain strong foothold in term of representation in the New Media. Reality TV - American Idol and Survivor top among them – is the programming genre in which real demographic is more fairly integrated.

Consider too: Characters of colors don’t just get on reality TV shows, many actually win them. Jun Song won Big Brother, Vecepita Towery and Yul Kwon won Survivor, Harlemm Lee won Fame, Ruben Studdard and Fantasia Barrino won American Idol.

Asians, traditionally excluded in Hollywood, in fact, are winning quite a bit considering being a small population in the US. Vietnamese alone counted for four. Chloe Dao sewed her way to the top in Project Runway, there’s also Hung Huynh, who won on Top Chef, using fishsauce as the base ingredient. Last Comic Standing got Dat Phan, a Vietnamese American who made fun of, what else, his mother’s accent.

I think Andrew has a point and his listing of the successes of contestants of color on various reality TV shows certainly is undeniable. So on the one hand, I think it’s a very positive development that people of color are apparently becoming more popular and successful on reality TV shows.

On the other hand, I think we as a society still need to address the fundamental problem -- that “mainstream” TV dramas and sitcoms still systematically exclude or marginalize people of color, particularly Asian Americans. The writers’ strike will not last forever, and once it’s resolved, is it just going to be business as usual in terms of writing virtually all-White plots?

I applaud the success of contestants of color on reality TV shows, but I urge our communities not to lose sight of the real battle -- more substantive writing and acting roles for people of color on mainstream TV shows.

How has recent news and media coverage about China’s economic rise combined with negative publicity about its unsafe consumer goods affected its overall image around the world? To shed light on that question, the well-respected Pew Research Center says that in most countries, China actually has a better public image than the U.S., although there is a general downward trend of China’s image over the years:

In 27 of the 46 nations plus the Palestinian Territories, opinion regarding China is decidedly favorable; in just five countries are views of China significantly more negative than positive. By comparison, opinion about the United States is favorable in 25 of the 47 countries; but decidedly negative in many more countries – half or more of the publics in 18 countries express disapproving views of the United States.

China’s fans are most prevalent in the neighboring Asian countries of Malaysia (83% favorable), Pakistan (79%), Bangladesh (74%), Indonesia (65%), as well as in most African countries. . . . While global opinion of China remains mostly positive, it has soured somewhat in recent years – though not as widely as have attitudes toward the United States. . . .

The largest declines are observed among of China’s Asian neighbors (Japan, South Korea, and India), but significant slippage is also seen in Western Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Spain). . . . In 32 of 46 countries surveyed, China’s increasing military muscle is viewed with alarm.

Ironically, in addition to some of China’s biggest admirers being other Asian countries, other Asian countries are also its biggest detractors -- Japan, India, South Korea, and Indonesia in particular (although for the last three, more of its citizens still have a positive attitude about China than a negative one).

What seems to be more troubling for China is that its image is clearly experiencing a downward trend -- in 10 of 19 countries with longitudinal data, China’s image has fallen since 2002, with Nigeria being the only country in which China’s image has improved since 2002.

What I find most interesting is that the fears that many around the world have about China is not its growing economic power, growing thirst for oil, concerns over the quality of its consumer goods, nor its environmental record. Instead, the biggest fear is its rising military strength.

Granted that China has a million-man army and nuclear weapons, but unless I’m completely missing something, China has not been throwing its military weight around by threatening countries left and right, or by invading sovereign nations and overthrowing their governments, correct?

So I guess what I’m saying is that I’m slightly confused why people around the world, especially those who are not China’s regional neighbors, say their biggest fear about China is its military strength. If somebody can elaborate on that for me, please feel free.

The recent troubles concerning the quality of Chinese products has undoubtedly hurt the reputation of all Chinese companies. But what about India? In many ways, India lags behind China in terms of economic development and still experiences high-profile incidents of bad publicity, but should these shortcomings suggest that all Indian companies are inferior?

This question is at the heart of an emerging controversy in the corporate world. First, Ford Motor Co. is selling off one of its most prized and prestigious subsidiary units -- Jaguar luxury cars. Two of the most serious potential buyers are Indian corporations. As Time magazine reports, the possibility that Jaguar will be owned by Indian companies has many people predicting doom and gloom for the brand:

A group of U.S. Jaguar dealers said they opposed the possibility that Ford, Jaguar’s owner, might sell the British luxury car brand to an Indian firm. . . . The dealers said that the sale to an Indian company would hurt Jaguar’s image.

“I don’t believe the U.S. public is ready for ownership out of India of a luxury car make,” Ken Gorin, chairman of the Jaguar Business Operations Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “And I believe it would severely throw a tremendous cast of doubt over the viability of the brand.". . .

A few days later Indian Hotels, which owns the luxury Taj hotel chain and is itself a branch of the Tata empire, was told its overtures to New York Stock Exchange-listed luxury hotel and cruise firm Orient-Express were unwelcome — and potentially damaging. . . .

Many Indians shared Kumar’s sense of outrage. Commerce and industry minister Kamal Nath warned that, “There cannot be any discrimination against outward investment from India.” In an era of globalization, he said, “trade and investment [is] a two-way street.". . .

Both Orient-Express and Jaguar’s Gorin emphasize that their judgments were based on business strategy alone. . . . “My concern is perception,” [Gorin] said. “And perception is reality.”

If people like Gorin want to talk about perceptions, by all means, let’s do so -- the perception that Jaguar or any other “luxury” brand will be damaged if bought by an Indian company is about as blatantly ignorant, prejudiced, and racist as you can get.

It is nothing less than another ugly form of racial profiling -- prejudging someone, some group, or an entire country based on biased perceptions and broad generalizations.

I find it rather ironic that “White corporate supremacists” like Gorin and Orient Hotels CEO Paul White (what an appropriate name) conveniently ignore the fact that Indian companies such as Tata, Mahindra & Mahindra, Indian Hotels, United Breweries Group/Kingfisher and others have become so successful and powerful despite their alleged “inferior” brand image, especially considering an “all-American” owner like Ford basically ran Jaguar into the ground under their ownership.

Ultimately, blaming one’s racist views on “consumer perception” is just a cop-out. It would have been better if people like Gorin and White would have just come out and said “Whites should not have to work for a bunch of third-world Indians” -- at least that would have been more straightforward and honest on their part.

One of my core principles as a sociologist and a social scientist is that I want my academic research to have some kind of relevance and application to the “real world.”

That is, instead of just conducting research and publishing it in obscure academic journals that few people outside academia read, I want to disseminate my academic knowledge to a wider, more popular audience and to use it to help address real world issues and problems. That is one of the reasons why I started this blog in the first place.

In fact and encouragingly, more and more social scientists feel the same way. But as Time magazine reports, one particular program of “applied social science research” is creating quite a controversy inside and outside of academia -- using social scientists to help the U.S. fight terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq:

Two years ago, the CIA quietly started recruiting social scientists, advertising in academic journals and offering princely salaries of up to $400,000. But . . . in September, Washington turned a pilot project called Human Terrain Teams into a full-fledged, $40 million program to embed four- or five-person groups of scholars -- including anthropologists, sociologists and social psychologists — with all 26 U.S. combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[S]ome preliminary reports are encouraging. From Afghanistan, the 4th brigade (82nd Airborne Division) reported a 60-70% drop in attacks -- and a dramatic spike in capture of [suspected terrorists] after anthropological advisers recommended redirecting outreach from village elders to focus on the local mullahs. One mullah was reportedly so moved after being invited to bless a restored mosque on the nearby U.S. base that he quickly agreed to record an anti-Taliban radio ad. . . .

In the wake of the colossal mishandling of the Iraq occupation, this new partnership manifests the military’s renewed appreciation of the importance of culture. . . . Montgomery McFate, a Navy anthropologist, [was an] early advocate of what she says is best described as anthropologizing the military, not militarizing anthropology.

Yet many in the profession contend that any collaboration of this nature compromises their field’s integrity. Anthropology deployed under such circumstances will become “just another weapon…not a tool for building bridges between peoples,” argues Roberto Gonzalez, an anthropologist at San Jose State University and member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists.

I spent some time thinking about programs like this and trying to decide whether I think they are a good thing or a bad thing for the academic disciplines involved and for American society in general.

On the one hand, I would say that it’s beneficial for social scientists to get involved in these efforts because they can fulfill the fundamental professional mission I mentioned above -- using their expertise to address an important social issue and to produce the most benefits for the most people possible.

On the other hand, it would be a negative thing for social scientists to engage in if their efforts basically amount to a “more effective method of killing people,” to put it bluntly. That is, depending on how you choose to see it, their knowledge can basically be used for the purpose of perpetuating war and the taking of human lives.

So ultimately, when it comes to the question of whether programs like this are good or bad, I think my answer is that just like life in general, the final answer is not a simple binary of good/bad, yes/no, or moral/immoral. At the risk of sounding like a cop-out, there are both positive and negative aspects to it, like the rationales I just mentioned.

But if I had to pick one side of the argument over the other to support, at this point, I would agree with Prof. McFate’s position that I quoted above, that programs like this are about “anthropologizing the military, not militarizing anthropology.”

In other words, if used effectively and properly, the expertise of social scientists can indeed help people who may initially be on different sides of the war -- U.S. troops and Afghan or Iraqi civilians or tribal/religious leaders.

The U.S. would get culturally competent knowledge about how to best relate to the native population in order to effectively communicate and build interpersonal connections with them. The native population could also feel that their needs, issues, and concerns are genuinely being heard, understood, and incorporated into the actions of the U.S. military operating in their neighborhoods.

Of course, like I mentioned above, critics would point out that the assistance of social scientists is ultimately just being used to promote war and killing. I respect that opinion, but I choose to see a more nuanced point -- that terrorists who target the U.S. military, generally speaking, are likely not to have much concern for the native population civilians as well.

Therefore, if the terrorists see both of these groups as enemies or at least expendable casualties of war, the native population has a right to join efforts to oppose such terrorists. With that in mind, the U.S. military and the native population can work as allies, not in opposition or suspicion of each other.

After all, if sociologists say that we should use our expertise to help solve social issues, we have two very important social issues in front of us in this particular situation: (1) terrorism against the U.S. military and against Iraqi and Afghan civilians and (2) the U.S.’s tragedy of miscalculations in invading Iraq in the first place and multitude of failures in actually making life better for Iraqis thereafter.

If we as sociologists can lend our expertise to help address these two very real problems, I would say that it would be an appropriate opportunity to do so.

In the end, I know that people will have strong opinions on both sides of the issue, and I am not here to condemn anybody for what they feel or believe. At the same time, I hope people can respect my opinion that there are different ways in which social scientists can apply their expertise to help solve social issues.

Even if that means that some people will inevitably die, I would rather have those people be terrorists who indiscriminately target everybody who disagrees with them and who distort the doctrines of a just and honorable religion to suit their extremist views.

I might have generally liberal views but that doesn’t mean that I should overlook the fact that the question of whether terrorists have legitimate grievances needs to be separated from the manner in which they try to address those grievances. In other words, the ends do not justify the means.

That’s where sociologists and other social scientists can be useful -- in helping different groups of people recognize that not everything is cut-and-dry, black-and-white. Instead, every question and every goal have their own subtle and specific points that need to be addressed respectfully, thoughtfully, and competently.

One common theme in many of my posts is the fact that as we move forward into the 21st century, the U.S. is becoming more and more diverse -- demographically and culturally. As proof, New American Media points out that Asian surnames, particularly the Vietnamese name Nguyen, are becoming increasingly common:

Smith is still the number one family name in America. Yet 29 of the top 1000 family names (2.9 percent), according to the Census Bureau, are Asian-derived names. You can see on the list the major impact that APA immigration and birth rates have had on family names in America.

For the first time that anyone can remember, a non-Anglo Saxon name made it to the top ten. Garcia and Rodriguez are in the top ten, and Martinez almost edged out Wilson for tenth place.

The Lee family name, ranked 22 on the list, was split between 37 percent Asian Pacific Americans (mostly Chinese and Korean Americans) and 63 percent non-APAs. With 605,860 total Lees in America when the count was taken, there must be 224,168 APA Lees amongst us.

Almost three percent of Youngs were listed as APAs, but the most predominant APA surname was Nguyen, which was 57 on the list (310,125 Americans have this last name, or 225 of every 100,000 Americans). . . .

Yes, it is still true that about one in 25 Americans is a Jones, Johnson, Smith, Miller, Williams, Brown or Davis. But if current trends continue, they may soon be trying to keep up with the Lees, Kims and Nguyens.

This updated Census data provides pretty convincing proof that American society in indeed becoming much more diverse. There shouldn’t be any disagreement there. The debate comes in regarding the question of whether these demographic and cultural changes are beneficial for American society.

Earlier I posted about a comprehensive study from a Harvard professor that argued that contrary to most liberal beliefs, increasing levels of racial/ethnic diversity is associated with less civic engagement and social trust.

However, I also posted about ways in which particular communities around the country, rather than denying or running away from such changes, have addressed these demographic and cultural changes going on around them directly, in one prominent example, using religious similarities as the “social glue” to integrate newcomers into their community.

As I wrote in that second post, “traditionalists” who decry such demographic and cultural changes can only run and hide from them for so long. Sooner or later, unless they decide to retreat permanently into the woods or some other environment that involves being completely isolated from other humans, they will come face-to-face with the effects of this social evolution.

With that in mind, it may be more difficult in the short term to try to address such changes constructively, but as the example of the church in Georgia shows in my post mentioned above, the benefits are much more direct and tangible, both for the particular community in question, and for American society in general.

We all know that illegal immigration is a very intensely-debated, hot-button topic these days. At the risk of throwing even more fuel onto the fire, the Los Angeles Times reports that a new survey finds some harsh opinions against giving illegal immigrants certain benefits and social services, but with some contradictory findings as well:

One-third of Americans want to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency room healthcare, to illegal immigrants. . . . Still, in a sign of ambivalence among voters about the emotionally charged issue, a strong bipartisan majority -- 60% -- favors allowing illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements. . . .

Asked to pick from a list of issues what was a top priority for presidential candidates, 15% said illegal immigration -- the fifth-most mentioned topic behind the Iraq war, the economy, protecting the country from terrorist attacks and healthcare. Asked how much of a problem illegal immigration is, 81% of respondents said they considered it important, including 27% who said it was one of the country’s most pressing problems. . . .

Asked if illegal immigrants had made a positive or negative contribution to their community, 36% said negative, whereas 21% said positive and 29% said the effect was not discernible. When the same question was asked about legal immigrants, 12% said their contribution was negative, compared with 46% who said positive and 31% who saw no discernible effect. . . .

Respondents were divided about the best solution to the problem, but a strong majority expressed support for a proposal discussed in Congress -- part of a package backed by President Bush -- that would create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

To be honest, I expected Americans to be much more negative and hostile towards illegal immigration than what appears to be the case from the results of the survey. Perhaps this perception of mine has to do with the fact that generally speaking, people on the extremes of an issue tend to be the most vocal.

At any rate, the results seem to indicate to me the following:

• Americans tend to see illegal immigration as a pretty important issue (not surprising)
• 36% of Americans think that illegal immigrants have a negative effect on their community (I actually thought that proportion would be higher, and actually think the 29% and 31% who think that illegal immigrants have a positive or no effect, respectively, are higher than I anticipated)
• A “strong majority” apparently support the comprehensive legislation that was defeated in Congress that would have given illegal immigrants a path to citizenship (again, you wouldn’t know that from the vitriolic opinions expressed in the media against such a plan)

In the end, I think the results of this survey goes to show that generally speaking, a plurality of American opinions on any particular issue are likely to be much more moderate than the opinions expressed in the media. In other words, the media does a very good job at sensationalizing issues and positions while doing a poor job at conveying what the “average” American thinks.

Bank of America (BoA) is by far the largest bank in the U.S. As such, they occupy a position of leadership within the banking industry. But does that also mean that they treat all Americans equally? As New American Media reports, a new study raises serious questions about whether BoA is fulfilling its “equal opportunity” mission properly:

The study, issued last week, examined Bank of America’s pattern of bank branches against its top two competitors in Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, and St. Louis—cities ranked by the U.S. Census Bureau among the top-ten most-racially segregated in the country.

Two key findings of the study, “Shut Out of The American Dream: How Bank of America is Systematically Underserving Communities of Color and Harming Low-Income Families with Questionable Practices,” revealed Bank of America fails to locate bank branches in majority minority neighborhoods regardless of the proportion of area residents who are minority and Bank of America is more likely to be the mortgage lender for a white borrower than for a black American in all the cities examined.

In four of the six cities, Bank of America ranked last in locating bank branches in majority minority neighborhoods and was twice as likely to lend to white mortgage applicants than to black mortgage applicants in Detroit and Chicago, the study also shows. . . .

“The more we look at the practices of the biggest banks, the worse things we uncover,” Stephen Lerner, Assistant to the President, SEIU, said in a statement. “Here’s a bank that is already using its size and market dominance to drive up fees and interest rates on working people—and now it’s trying to grow even bigger. If a bank is going to be this big and this powerful it should have responsibilities to the communities in which it operates.”

As scholars who study residential segregation will readily tell you, unfair and discriminatory lending practices have been at the heart of much of the segregation that African Americans have endured and continue to endure in regard to trying to move out of poor neighborhoods. Now we learn that the nation’s largest lender, Bank of America has been engaged in a different kind of discrimination.

Apparently, it’s too much to ask this country’s financial institutions to help disadvantaged groups become self-sufficient. Instead, lenders like Bank of America apparently continue to treat customers differently, based on the color of their skin.