French Poltticr. lNL3. 6. O W 1771
I
2M8 Palgrave M m l i l n Lld 147634IVlUX SIUW
w w paiprrvc-,ourn*t,
cr,miip
Review Article
From Republican Citizens to 'Young Ethnics' in
the 'Other France'? Race and Identity in France
and the United States
Erik Bleich
Middlebury College. Robert A. Jones '59 House. Middlcbury. VT 05753. IJSA
E-mall: rbleichia%middlebuv.edu
France and the United States have often been viewed as polar opposites when it
comes to issues of race. Yet recent societal and political developments in both
countries suggest that there may he a modest convergence around this topic. In the
United States, 'old' racial perspectives are starting to give way to an increased
acknowledgement of the complexities of racial identities. In France, analysts have
begun to pay more attention to the role of race, ethnicity, and identity as factors
that generate harriers to inclusion and citizenship. This essay draws on three recent
books to tease out the ways in which issues of race and identity are shifting on both
sides of the Atlantic.
French Polirics (2008) 6, 16&177. doi:10.1057/fp.2008.3
Keywords: race; policymaking; afirmative action; ethnic monitoring; France;
United States
Introduction
I
In the popular and political imagination, France and the United States are
often viewed as polar opposites when it comcs to 'race.' France does not
recognize race. whereas the United States has enshrined it in oflicial statistics.
first for evil, then for good. The United States has undertakcn extensive racebased affirmative action, while France has completely rejected it on principle.
The United States has long wrestled with problems of color-based racism,
unlike France, where the closest analog has been the enduring tensions
surrounding the repeated electoral o r public relations victories of Le Pen and
the Front National. At the peak of the Republican fervor o f the 1980s and
1990s, race, ethnicity, and 'cornmunirorisme' were thoroughly discredited in
France. Citizenship and immigrant integration were the major themes
dominating the public discourse about the challenges of ethnic differcncc.
But over the past decade, much has changed in France. Issues of race.
ethnicity, religion, and exclusion have surged to the forcfront of politics and
policymaking. Racial discrimination has hecome a significant concern, and
Fnk Rleich
Ritcc and ldcnttty in Franm and Ulc Llnticd Strrcr
&
+&
167
168
political actors and scholars have rushed to fill the void. Allinnative action.
ethnic monitoring. minority representation. and communitarian lobbying have
hecomc hot-button issues in France, sparked and reinforced by public
statemcnts by leading politicians such as the current president, Nicolas
Sarkozy. These developments raise the question - some would say the specter
- of whether France is moving in the direction of American-style race politics.
Three recent books help illuminate the extent to which this is true. Kim
Williams (2006) analyzes a small movement in the United States with
enormous implications. By delving into the politics behind the push for a
'multiracial' catcgory in the run up to the 2000 census, she highlights some of
thc ways in which Amcrican understandings about race are likely to shift away
from the rigid hlack white paradigm that has prcdominated through most of
the country's history. In a complementary fashion. Aznuz Begag (2007) and
Trica Keaton (2006) oKer books that demonstrate that, in some key respects,
leading thinker* in Paris as wcll as local teenagers in the hanlielres are adopting
and adapting Amcrican perspectives about race, ethnieity, and identity. There
remain signifiaint ways in which the French experience diKers from what is
comn~onlypre-supposed by somc in France to be the key elements of the
'Anglo-Americ;~~~'
model. But, coupled with an unaerstanding of recent
developments in French politics, policymaking, and society, these three books
suggest that thc French and American experiences may converge in certain
respccts in the years to come.
What is the American Model?
For many in France. the United States represents a highly problematic model
for managing issues of race. It is widely believed that the United States is
dominated by fixed racial identities that are reified in racial statistics; that there
is extensive mobilization around these racial identities; and that politics
responds to such mobilization through the usc of race-based allinnative
action policies. The prevailing picture is of a country divided by race, and in
which race has been wrongly allowed to permeate society, statistics. politics,
and everyday life. Although at times these analyses verge on overdrawn
caricatures, they are not entirely unfounded. A number of prominent experts
have emphasized the centrality of race to American life, even in the postcivil
rights era (Bell. 1997; Massey and Denton, 1993; Omi and Winant, 1994;
Feagin, 2001).'
This picture is far too unidimensional to describe accurately the American
situation at the beginning of the 2Ist century. A series of Supreme Court cases
and state-level initiatives have curtailed affirmative action programs across
the country. An African-American is making a serious run for the White House
and is drawing support from across the racial spectrum. And scholars have
Etik Bicich
Ram and ldmtiry in Fmncr and thr l l n l l d Sulrr
begun to reflect on the ways in which the black whitc paradigm is bcing
complicated by the influx and intermarriage rates of Latinos. Asians, and even
Caribbean blacks (Skidmore. 1993; Bonilla-Silva. 2004. Foncr. 2005).
Kim Williams' book Mark One or More: Civil Ri~hr.7in Mulriracial Atrlrrica
makes a fascinating foray into this discussion about thc evolving racial
dynamics in the contemporary United States. Although it can be read at many
levels, its most telling story may be the complicated interwcaving or the 'old'
and 'new' racial politics in the country. In keeping with thc standard French
picture of the U ~ t e dStates, Williams recounts how the national civil rights
organizations - and in particular those led by blacks, such as the NAACP
strongly resisted the inclusion of a 'multiracial' category on the 2000 census,
fearing that it would weaken adherence to the 'black' category and thus
decrease their numbers and limit their ability to lohby for henefits. Other
minority groups and national-level Democratic party politicians aligncd
themselves with the civil rights leadership out of solidarity and political
interest, whereas the Republican party took the small multiracial movement
under its wing out of the cynical motive of actively undermining the broader
civil rights agenda. Ultimately, the parties worked out a compromise under
which there would be no multiracial census category, but which would permit
respondents to 'mark one or more' categories. This had the advantage of
making it possible for individuals to self-identify as more than one race (if. e.g.,
they had a white mother and a black father, as does Barack Obama), hut
allowing statisticians to count such respondents as members of the minority
group for civil rights purposes.
On the surface, this compromise seemed to work for everyone. But Williams
is critical of the civil rights leadership's response to the multiracial movement.
For the author and for a handful of black leaders, multiracialism was an
attempt to expand the civil rights agenda rather than a development that
threatened it. According to Gallup Poll data cited by Williams (p. 89). in 2003,
73% of respondents were approved of marriage between blacks and whites, up
from 48% in 1994, and from only 4% in 1958. In practice. according to data
compiled between 1995 and 2001. only 5.8% of whites married non-whites; but
10.2% of blacks, 27.2% of Asians, and 28.4% of Latinos marricd outside of
their racial group (p. 33). When given the opportunity to do so on the 2000
census, over seven million individuals marked more than one category. This is
a small percentage of the overall population (2.6%). but this number is likely to
rise as more people begin to think outside the standard racial box o r at least
think about occupying more than just one of those boxes.
None of this implies that race consciousness is evaporating in the United
States. The multiracial movement is consistent with a conservative, color-blind
vision of thc country, but many of its leading advocates do not share the vision
of a nation that is beyond race. Those pushing multiracial identities arc doing
F r m b Pollria lODB 6
Etik Blclch
Kwc md ldcnllr) bn Franc= nnd Uu llntlcll Stares
&'
.
E"k Blcich
Rrcc and idcnurv in Prdna md
ihc
t:nacd
Slrlr.,
170
so out of:^ consciousness that multiracialism can carry a stigma as well as offer
a vision for tho future. As Williams emphasizes, 'If Amcrican society were
really prepared to move beyond raw, then thc multiracial movement described
here would no! exist as such' (p. 125).
Yet it is undoniahlc that Arncrica is on the move when it wmes to race. The
old categories and attitudes still exist. hut are being challenged, reexamined,
politicized. and in minor ways, transformed into a more fluid reality. Most
leading ohservcrs of thc American situation doubt that the country will ever
completely overcome its legacies of racial divisions, but a growing number are
also noting that seeds of change have been sown in recent years, and that these
are likely to bci~riruit in the dccadcs to come. To a small degree, these changes
have alrcady undermined the simple vision of race in America, and they are
increasingly likely to do so in the future.'
What is Happening in France?
Since the late 1990s. Francc has also been on the move. Prior to that time, the
rhetoric of Republican citizenship was so lirmly entrenched that discussions of
discrimination, race, ethnic monitoring, aliirmative.action, and minority
representation were all-hut dismissed in the Frcnch public sphere.' Demographer Michele Tribalat ran afoul of these national norms in the studies of
second-generation immigrants that she published in the mid-1990s (Tribalat.
1995. 1996). Although her methodology of identifying and tracking
participants (including 'Frunqai.7 de sourhe') according to ethnic categories is
run-of-the-mill in the United States, it became hotly contested when Herve Le
Bras (1998) published his Lr Dlmon drs Ori~ines: Dbtojiraphie er Exrrime
Droire, criticizing how Tribalat and others were using such categories as
playing into th' hands of the far right.
By the late 1990s. however. the tide was already beginning to turn.
Discrimination against minorities debunked the prevailing rhetoric that all
citizens were cqual. and it highlighted thc significant disadvantages that
sometimes accrucd to individuals based upon their physical appearance or
perceived ethnicity (and not just because of immigrant-status or lack of French
language acquisition). Thcse revelations, coupled with the apparent liagmentation of the Front National in 1998 and passage of the European Union's
Race Directive of 2000, opened the door for the first serious discussion of
'American-stylc' racism in France. A flurry of official activity followed,
resulting in thc typical alphabet soup of bureaucratic productivity. In 1998, the
Haut Conseil ;i l'lntcgration (HCI) published a report on discrimination. This
was followed by the formation of the Groupe d'Etudes sur les Discriminations
(GED), subsequently transformed into the more active-sounding Groupe
#Etudes et de Luttc contrc les Discriminations (GELD), which oversaw a
F r r a r h h W i 2008 6
national hotline for reporting discrimination. In a similar vein. the dccades-old
Fonds #Action Sociale (FAS)' was renamed the Fonds d'Action ct dc Souticn
pour I'lntigration et la Lutte contre lcs Discr~minations(FASILD); for good
measure the state also created the Haute Autorite de Lutte contrc les
Discrimin;~tionset pour I'Egaliti (HALDE). Within the space of the 7 years
between 1998 and 2005. discrimination moved from hackstap to center stage
in French oficial discourse and actions.
Although with less dramatic results, there have also been new frontiers opened
in the areas of minority representation. afirmative action. and cthnic monitoring.
Just as the perceptions of American race politics wen: always too simplc to
capture the realities on the ground, so too have been the assenions both within
the country and from without t h a t the French state deals only with individual
It is true
citizens, not with bodies that represent ethnic minority wnstit~encics.~
that prior to the turn of the 21st century, most state interactions were with
associations organized around themes of immigrant integration. or wtth the
longstanding representativesof religious groups that have b n n little publicized as
oficial interlocutors. Over the past fcw years. however, then: have been growing
numbers ofoficially recowzed or civll society groups orpanired at l m t panially
around an ethnic, racial, or religious identity that have chipped away at the
Republican myth and revealed more naked political dynamics. The most widely
known of these representative bodies is u n d o u b ~ d l the
~ . Conscil Fran~aisd"
Culte Musulman (CFCM).
,. successfullv launched bv the state in 2003 after several
earl~erabort~vcattempts in the 1990s. However. there are also a host of budding
local groups that are forming along parallel lines. some of whlch have cvcn
amalgamated themselves into the recently formed Conseil Reprisentatif dcs
ler
Associations Noires de France (CRAN). the motto ofwhich is 5 r ~ ~ . ~ . s e m hn(>ur
rnieux comprrr." It is hard to imagine an association more at odds with the
common vision of France's relationship to race and representation.
Alongside the attention to discrimination and the formation of minority
representative bodies have come new debates about the usefulncss (or
appropriateness) of afirmative action.' During his tenure as Interior Minister,
~ i c o l a Sarkozy
s
helped launch a national debatc about di.scrirninution po,vitive
when he indicated that he would be favorahle 11) it and. further. advocated
appointing a 'Muslim prefect.' He came in for much criticism for these
positions, and ultimately edged away from this rhetoric when running for
president. Given these facts and the strong national Republican ethos, one
might suppose that there is close to zero tolerance among thc Frcnch for
afirmative action. It is therefore surprising that a 2004 poll found that 48% of
those surveyed favored positive discrimination compared to 41 % opposed to it.
Although a 2006 poll showed 47% opposed with only 44% in favor, the
surveys pulled no punches in framing the question, identifying positive
discrimination as 'favoring certain minoriti~s.'~
French Pallfka 2008 6
As some scholars have noted, defacro positive dischination already exists
in France for geogrdphic areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities
(Calvk, 2000). Yet the ethnic dimension of such policies has only recently been
fully and openly debated with, for example, the creation of special recruiting
policies by ihe Institut #Etudes Politiques which subsequently have been
ecboed by other grandes beoles in France as well as by employers actively
seeking to diversify their labor forces (Sabbagh, 2002): As French and
American debates about affirmativeaction gravitate toward one another, there
have even been calls for France to mimic California and Texas programs by
granting university admission to the top few percent of graduates from every
secondary school. regardless of the educational level or demographic
background of the district (Weil, 2005, 94-98). While both the Scienas Po
initiative and the 'percentage' programs are mx neutral and geographically
based, their explicit goal is to take radical steps to promote equality across
racial and ethnic boundaries.
France has a h alSO with ethnic monitoring, even though countin and
categotkhg people by race or etbnicity remains a very touchy subject1% The
National Assembly wove a provision into a 2007 immigration biU that
would have permitted wUection of such data in the &ce of studiea designed
to 'measure the diversity of persons' origins, discrimination, and integration.'"
While it justified this move based ou the sdentiiic reemmendatio~~~
of a
C N I L " study group, the same group -as well as the HALDE - has proven
reluctant to accede to pressures by some mearchers, international bodies, and
lobby groups like the CRAN to implement a more systematic national
scheme for identifying racial and ethnic minorities (Simon, ZMl7.49-52). In the
end, the Constitutional Council struck down the ParUamentary provision on
te&nical grounds, but it also gratuitously indicated its hostility to the principle
behimd it."
Instead of having acoeas to such data, social scientists and activists have bad
to rely on fragmentary or indirect methods of identifying minorities, s u ~ has
self-reported cases of d i i t i o n or census data on descendants of
immigrants. These proxy m&18ums can reveal some interesting patterns, but
they are no substitute for systematic data on race or etbnicity that can be ussd
to gauge integration (as Tribalat did, after obtaining special permission from
the CNIL), indirect discrimination, or access to educstion, housing, jobs,
mortgages, and government contract^.'^ Thus whiIe it may appear that Franoe
came within a whisker of in8titutiomlizing ethnic monitoring - and while
some demgtaphic institutions would like it to do so in fact, skepticism or
rejection of such a step remains the widespread nono (Sabbagh and Peer,
f~rth~ming).
Thus, the emerging picture remains complex and in some ways contradictory. France has turned its attention to dimimination and disadvantage,
-
and has incmasingly recopid that race and &city are unportant markers
in these debates. But most leading actors are undling to supply the country
with the tools that civil rights advocates in most Anglophone countries (and to
a lesser extent, the Netherlands) agree are exceptionally helpful in the fight
against cettain kinds of systematic inequalities.
In light of these recent developments, Azouz h a g and Trica Danielle
Keaton provide absorb'i perspectives on the evolnng French poht~csof race.
Begag, an Anmicanophile French-born sowologist and wnter who rose to
become Minista of Equal Opportunliies in Pnsldent Cbirac's cabinet
shortly before the November 2005 riots, and Keaton, an African-American
woman who grew up in a small town in northern Oho, draw heavily on
their pzmnal exprienoes in intap&g the events around them. By doing
so openly and self-wwously, they rdect on the ways in which Americanstyle racism and racial dynamics are &echng and inllecting both the vlew
fmm the top (offered by Begag) and from Mow (offered by Keaton through
long-term and extensive interviews with Muslim girls from the depressed
Paris suburb of Paolin, but also by Begag through his own encounters with
local-level racism).
Begag's short book, transkted into English by Alec G. Hargreaves (who
adds an engaging introduction), covers a lot of ground m a quick and readable
It was wntten before the 2005 riots, but it presciently addresses three
fundaumntal issues relevant to those events: Who a n the adors? Why are they
angry?And what is to be done?
Many American media outlets immediately characterid the rioters of 2005
as 'Muslims.' Most French analysts shied away ftom this appellation as there
was no evidence that Islamic leaders played a role in the &sturbances. but then
has been great tcrminobgid confusion m France about just what to call this
type of actor. Begag identifls around 30 gawal terms that have been used,
which he categorizeg as 'territorial' (e.g., jeunes des W i e u e s , jauw &s
guorfirr#), 'ethnic' (e.g., j e m e x d'origme hnigrde, bevrs), 'temporal' (e.g.,
jeunes & la semnde gddration), 'religious' (e.g., jcunes musulnurnr), and
'humorous' (e.g., j e m e s d'ongme dgjjcile). Thus, depending upon the context
and the presumptions of the analyst, one can emphasize or de-emphas'tze
various aspens of these actors* ~dentity.
For Begag, the most important ekment IS reflected in tus preferred catch-all
tam: young ethics. 'That is what it's all about at root. After beiq publicly
ethnicid for so long in the eyes of indigenous observers, t k young peopk
have decided to positively afErm theu stants as ethnicses(p. 22).16 But this does
not imply that rhey are striving to perperuate any particular ethnic identity. la
fact, he argues that young ethnics are much more attached to dominant French
values than to their own presumed hentage. He notes that Islam mmetimes
eives content to ethnic idcntitv in the suburbs. but that its role is of a 'quick
drying cement' that eves many young ethnics the power to roil the dominant
population, and thereby to express disillusionment with the empty promises of
Republican citizenship @. 76).
As should be clear, Begag's preferred term follows from his analysis of the
root of their anger. He does not deny that social margiaalization, alienation,
geographic isolation, and economic disadvantage are important bctors in the
story. However. more than most observers, he stresses the role of frustration
over ethnic d i s a i i a t i o n as a generator of identities and actions. His own
personal experiences enduring petty dimhination and insults by bordcr
oIT1Oials and cops-on-the-beat reveal how the types of quotidian slights can
color young ethnics' attitudes toward the state. Begag argues that the threat of
wlice identity checks Wart of the trigger that set ORthe 2005 riots) coupled
kith institutibnalized ialia portrayzof suburban violence, state-sponsored
challenges to headscames, and a dearth of elected off~cialsfrom the ranks of
the young ethnics can all sharpen the ethnic dimension of identity.
Addressing this probkm, according to Begag, must begin with its
recognition and with an acknowledgement that there may be lessons to legm
from the United States." Cutting against the grain of elite opinion, he asserts
that France 'needs the khnical and legal means with which to compile
statisti- on ethnic origins' in order to be able to quantify progress toward
equal opportunities @. 117). To achieve such progress he also favors
America-style ilfftrmative action. But not the old kind, explicitly based on
racial criteria and at times employing hard quotas. Rather, the new kind,
typically relying on geography and other indirect means to promote racial
equality. He judges that France is not ready for ethnically targeted policies
(and would like to do away with the term hcriminationposirive), but sees hope
in actions such as the recruitment policies at Scienoep Po. For Begag, France
has an American probkm, and although it may not be precisely the same as
America's problem. the country would benef~tif it faced it head on and
demonstrated an openness to lessons from abroad.
As a well-known writer and former Minister, Azouz Begag can offer a view
from the top. Trica Keaton's 8 years of Geld research in one depressed Paris
suburb give us a glunpse into the lives of those closer to the bottom of the
totem pole. Her goal is not to assess systematically French policies or to make
recommendations for improving them. Rather, it is to explore and to unveil
the multiple mosscutting tensions in the lives of young Muslim girls in what
she calls the 'other Fnmce.'
These girls are, for the most part, French citizens. Yet they epitomize what
Keaton - echoing Myrdal on the United States - csUs the French dilemma,
namely 'the patent contradiction in France between the cherished national
values of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and SecuMsm" and the consistent
practice of targeted racialized discrimination' (pp. 74). Her interIocutors
typically navigate these d i f f i t waters by declaring themselves 'French of
x origin', and by developing something of a love-bate retationship with the
Republic. For example, the simple fact of possessing papers proving French
citizenship baomes a double-edged sword On the one hand, it acts as a
defense against the frequent police demands for proof of identity and legality.
On the other hand, it is a reminder that the authorities oftcn assome that
people who look like them cannot be French (87).
In a parallel fashion, 'school can be both a slia of heaven and a bit of hell'
@. In). The girls admire the freedom and oppo~tunitiestheir education offers,
hut feel constmid by some of challenges p o d to them as Muslims,
parlicularly in the realm of sex education, a d swimming lessons, or
prohibitions against wearing the veil. Keatnn is careful not to over-generalize
from her relatiyely few subject& she is equally clear that the girls she interviews
do not all hold the same views, and that some of the issues cast as 'Muslim
problems' also &kt non-Muslims. Nonetheiess, she gives voice to the conmte
thought pmcsws of he^ participants through took such as persoad diary
entries lib this one by a student named Assia: 'I do all the sports except
swimming becsnse I can't show myself in a swimsuit in front of my teacher
[who was a man]' (152). From one angle, this comes across as a mundane
statement of af*,
but for educators it can be a fundamental challenge to
French values, as it is for the teacher who stated equally plainly 'In our secular,
Republican system, swimming clPss is expeckd' @. 153).
Students a h complained about the immodesty of having to take showers
with chmates after gym class, and about taking tests during the fasting
period of Ramadan. In negotiating the range of such challenges, these girls
display an a b i i to undemtand and to manipulate the system by obtaining
medical excuses exempting them from swimming chses (predominantly from
one of three svmdoctors in the neiahborhood). The school has c l d
not to &gegethe
excuses,but it has ikituted ;formal policy requiring
students to t& showas after gym, backed up by a mitten racord of 'shower
oarticination'
in a student's aadc book IDD.1 5 3154). The overall picture that
c=
emerges is of a amall-scale & @odic
&-of-war be'been school dfficials and
their Muslim pupils.
Keaton also hi&l@ts the tensions between soh001 life and home life for the
girls she w&
with. If the schools are explicitly hying to 'franoo-conform'
their shwknts, the local urmmunity oftcn scrutinim its girls ticcording to
different criteria, using them as barometers of a family's honor. As one student's
mother stated 'If the girl is good. tbc family is good; if the girl is bad, the parents
are no good' @. 173). In this context, s t a ~ n s o r e education
d
csn undermine
the dictates of family life and post a
threat to deeply internah4 norms.
Yet, &wI o h eGrges as a kte of emadpation. This was especially the case
for one of Keaton's subjects, Fatima, whose father was viokntly abusive toward
he. her sisters, and her mother. She and two of her sisters went on to -me
la-.
When one of them threatened to use the law to enforce oeace in the
househo~,the lather screamed 'I can't believe ie You would use your studies
against me?', to whloh the sister wldly replied 'Yes' @. 169).
This book is a small treasure trove of such moving storics and t e h g
examples. As much as it highlights the tensions inherent in the everyday lives of
its partkipants. it also reveals the tmslons in comparing French and Ammoan
race politics and racial d t i e s . Her intervkwees are French, but self-identify
as 'French of x ongin,' suggesting a tempered scnae of beloang. They want,
and sometimes recelve. opportunitla and protection from the Republic. But
just as often they s d e r discrimination baaed on appearanca or relieon The
problem they face as 'suitable enemiesesor scapegoats within F m are partly
based on racm, and partly based on the structural disadvantages that come
from being isolated and poor. They often perceive themselves as Muslim. but
being a Muslim is not the predominant identity for these girls most of the tuue.
The wmmon denominator of much of the rsent work on race m France has
been an i n c r d n d v onen remdtion that racism is a conlral factor in the
coutliet embedded in contempo-w French society. In this, French analysts,
politicii, activists, and citkns &y be moving toward an American outlook.
It would be ironic. however. if French s z h o h s h i ~and wlitics were to tilt too
much in the 'old. ~rneric& direction of fore,&oun&g raa above other
stat& are aoknowledging
factors,just at the moment that m y in the
the fluidity of racial identities and the complaaities of the new racial politic8 of
the Zlst century.
-. .
Bataik P. (1997) Lr &ume mr T r d l . Paris La DecOuwrtc
B e e A. (1007) Elb~iczzy& b4uJiIry Fmcc 6, rk bolrmn, LhnLinmln: Umvenity of N e W
Rerr.
bU,D. (1592) F a m w rhe Borrorn of the Wd:Tk P d m m m e of
Rae&& New York:
Basic
Rmk.
Bklch. E.(2Wl3) Rwe PdiNw k &il& ad R-.
Idm rmd Po&ynu*inb s k e I k 19W3. New
Yort: Clmbtididge Uniwrsity Rm.
Banilla-Silvs. E.(ZUM) 'From bi-racial to m-mchk towards a new syatsn of ndPl ~ h t i k a t i m
~n
tbe USA'. E h i e md &EMSt&,
277(61:93 1-950.
Gal*. 0. gm0) 'La PoliIiqlu. ~ m q & a & Lutte -Ire le Radrmc. dm Potitiqw en
MutrW. Fmdr Pulilks. Cr(1we & Socier~.18(3): 75-82.
Fe&. I. B M I ) RacisI A m # . Roo& c w r m Rsal~ris,& Fwurr Rspmarbnr. New Yotk
Routl*
Form. N. (aW5) In @ New Land. A CMpmnrh. Vim of I-miorr
N w York. New York
UniMnity Rerr.
Knbbnbcg R.D.(19961 Tk RMaly: C k . RacI md AiihuUw ANta, New YarL: Brric Books.
~cpton,
TD. (1006) M&
~ i r *&ik ~ ~ h e r ~ r m m : ~ ~drnriry
&.
Polirics. ~ l r i ~a ~w i m .
Bbomint$on: IndkDs U&ty
h.
LC BN, H.(1998) LC D h m dcd O m : Dimwq& Ex:&
Dmirr, Puh: Editions &
I'Aube.
1&. T. (f'Fmm shmj dasagnphic c a w Lo mmww poliohl dalinis:
bunisation and the link f r m ndsl ideDtily to w u p potilia'. Du Bo* &vim.
M ~ s y DS
r
ad DenLon. N A . (1993) Anvricmt 4 p w W
ad L& M a k h 6 rk
Umderduw.CamHuwd Uaivanity Rarr
Omi. M. d W h f H.(1994) RoelalFwmuh hrk OnircdSrazm: From he 1 W s ro rk IOW8,
2nd cdq New Ymt: RoutLdgc.
kbbaeh. D. (awZ)'AfhrmatkA o b a#Sdmces PO', F d W I W . Cvlun d Society. W3):
52-64.
Spbbgh D.d Pcm, S. (fon'Fwch wbr-blbks in penpativc: fhc conUawmy
o w "SntistiqosSE b i q u ~ ( ' '- b
.f h c h PdirCs, CvlMI b 5bkay.
Simon,P. (2007J "'Etlmid' U1tktb d &la protstiw in ik Cwncil d Etww wmtrk'.
~~~
Bur~Co~.IpiadR.eLmadhtdersrrrr:Comrilofeump.-~
SLimnors. T.E. (1993) 'Bi-ndsl USApIvlti-ndsl B d b fhc conm leill Mlid?: J&
rprin Anvrica S&I,
25(2. May): 3%386.
TagYidl. P d (el)(1591~)F m aa lu:
Ln Moyau #A&.
Vol. I. Rri.:
DiEou-.
OJ
~~ La
T&
P.-A. (od.) (1991b) F m OM Rdrmc: Awlymr. Hyp~Wwa.P m p n h w , VaL 2. Rri.
~ L . D i E o ~ .
I h i M. (1995) F&
U nG
~
~rv kr IInmi@
e el LN.&Lm4 Rri.: La
DiEouTribolaf M. (1996) Da I'InunIgmim d i;(rsh&uim:
th@u str kr P@riau
d'olipbte
W d . P. ( M O S ) L.R&bIlqw cr wr b n ' r i , Rric S&.
WiCviorL..M (1991) L'iLynce h Rdrmc. W S d .
R.drm in F n o a ' , in
W h l da W a d q C. (1595) 'Bt$ll Minority MoWmim
A.G. HruesuVOIand 1. Lcsman (cds.) R a c h . El*nicily pdPdWCT k C M w Eoop,
Aknhot: Edwud Elspr.
Wihtd de Wendm C. d Lcvtru. R (ZDOI) L11 fhrge&k: Ln Tldr r(ln & h Vie hwduiva
Lar & I'hwdgmia, Wds:CNRS Edition&
MdazPW Arrrks Ann hbm
W~U~MIS,K.M. (2086) ill& Ow or Maa; Civfl R & k
Uniwrsity of Miehig.n Rar.
Wihn, WJ. (I=) T h e D u & i ~ ~ S h t n ~ i ol /l h& :& m d C ~ A a d m
IkrWUh.
zaaeda.Chiaeo:lJni~ty0f~Rerr.
Nodes
I
cXk%h - , h n ~ & t h n t ~ n o m u : f o l c a o r d u n M ~ ~ U ~ e q ~ l y u
important ar m a for -iuaIa+
~n~qvnhucl
le Amsnu W
i 19B%
1996)
2 For un vnalysk of bow immi%rrlion,d m o p p b i e calcgorle ad ndalidcntitia link to group
polilk. ree Lce (fonhmming).
3~mtrcFncnFb~~gthac~IsM.d~this~..bottan/~~min&ti~~
isohlion *ad without a m a h public. politicst or nnn &hduhl following (Corts-L.rOy~.
1990. Wicriorka, 1991; T M . 1991.b: Wihtd & W w h , 1995; Vow% et al. 1996,
BPuilb, 1997). For an d y d s of why this is lo. e BE& (2003).
4Th.fullaR&~dwhiohmwl~tlyh.dbtheFd~kzionSoda*powh
u p v d l k m immigt. el Lun fuailla.
5 T h c m m obvMtdyahnicma~mcntpriortothemr. o f ( h . 2 1 a m t u r y w thetofthe
~inthchC-1988.Homer,rrtheRcpubhdism~~.m~inthorvlLcof
(h. 1 9 8 6 u a r a a a r d I b FmntN&md.
cbs bcvrmovcmmrIdrd with few lona4dn#
~bkroFulb.For.nhu~~d(h.bnrmo~~rcW
Waadcnad
hM&
h
"
(ZWI).
6 The websib of the CRAN k hlm9laww.kcem.ord.
7 ~ ~ ~ a ~ o l u u c * r w i b c & i e t h e ~ - ~ a 111.~0-bcrm)d.
noir,~.
8 On the 2004 and 2006 poOS ace the hc whdb .
Ih n p : / / m . a a ~ f r r o m / d a u u Y d e ~ I
~ l Z l 2 - l h L aqd at h t f p : / m . 0 e f r . m ~ ~ ~ I ~ I 2 1 3 a .
pdf, aaaucd 28 Jmmury ZmB.
9 Srt. for exam&, Lhc'&wruty chrta'mttiatlva onUindaf h ~ / ~ . ~ t a l m ~ . o r ~
-/.20de%--pdf,
.ersurd29 Jsew
2WS.
~o~~r~crccllmt~tothedohtca~rro~theto~,arstbsfothmminpipd.l
issue of F d Poliriw,CCvlhn & S d q , edited by D a d Sabbsgb .nd Shnnny Pat.
I I Forths a f k i d j n s t i f hsee
~ AmcrdcmcDt no. 55. -bk
N a t i d , 13 -&xZ(107.
.
I1 la rhwwaoa M o m k & ilafomtitiquc ct d a L i e (CNU) k the p u p with offrkl
over&u of ransitivc data mlLaion issues.
13 SIE &rail C o d ~ h o m r DbEuvmr
d
no.
DC
2007.
-.a007-557
-~~
~~- of I5 No-bar
14 For s lam p o s i k pcnpctivc on thc utility of cxiSjn8 rt.fistl* see Wdl (m05.1W.101).
I 5 h ~ ~ y , t h u b m k h r o o t ~ i n F m c b v h a c a p m ~ l p ~ h o o s c v u
.
~~
~
~
~
r k d i d to look at iL
16 B%s(l k uptiEil h t the infclnnl mmplaitirsof the young cthnie pup, a f m W i d y dividing
Ihrm into thm slcaork &&s
( m o m or lha& dainp w*l), r&~
(wtsn.or thau
"~-
wibovt pm tho
&La 'we in F- need to r n ~ mspvronatcly
h
w n r m lo ordn to cncslc new *nys of rmvlin~
qlul opponwuoa for young nsllirs' (I 16).
~
17 HC