In examining postcolonial immigrants’ integration into French economic life, it is important to note that these populations settling in France in recent decades have been doing so in a context of high unemployment, fitful growth, and major economic restructuring. Thus, it can be argued that the opportunities for effective socio-economic integration may have been far more restricted than in earlier periods. However, even in the context of French economic insecurity, the socio-economic disadvantage that postcolonial immigrant groups and their descendants, especially of North African origin, have found themselves in is extremely marked in comparison to those of the 'majority ethnic population' and immigrant groups of European origin. Some explanation …show more content…
James Cohen argues that the ‘souring’ of the labor market in the second half of the 1970s and almost relentless rise in unemployment has made the process of social incorporation extremely difficult for postcolonial immigrants. Prior to this period, first-generation members of minority ethnic groups experienced relatively high degrees of functional incorporation into the booming post-war labor market, but the descendants of these postcolonial immigrants have been reaching adulthood in very different circumstances, and although unemployment is particularly high among most young people in France, minority ethnic groups, of which postcolonial immigrants are a part, have been particularly badly hit. By 1990, for example, 40% of industrial jobs held by immigrant workers in 1975 had been eliminated. In addition, rising oil prices in 1973, subsequent inflation, and a general decline in the competitiveness of many French firms contributed to a rapid loss of low-skilled industrial jobs, leading to a rise not only in overall unemployment, but in unemployment especially among postcolonial immigrants, making it more difficult to integrate into French socio-economic
The Great Migration was a huge relocation of African Americans from the Southern states of the United States to northern and Midwestern cities. This occurred between the years of 1910 and 1970. Over 6 million African Americans traveled to Northern cities during the migration. Some northern city destinations were Richmond, D.C, Baltimore, New York, and Newark. Western and Midwestern destinations were those such as Los Angelos, San Francisco, St. Louis, Chicago, and Detroit. During this time period and previous years, Jim Crow laws in the South were greatly in affect and causing African Americans a rough time due to the racism they faced. After Reconstruction had ended, white supremacy had taken it's toll in the South and Jim Crow had taken over.. The North, Midwest, and West of the United States began to face a shortage in industrial laborers due to World War I beginning and putting an end to immigration of Europeans to the United States. African Americans felt that heading north was their escape from harsh laws and unsatisfactory economic opportunities. Many people, including teenagers, from the South would write letters to the Chicago Defender asking for help to come North and find work because in the South it was hard to make a living. Some migrants already had family members in the North. For example, James Green, an elderly man who migrated at a young age from Goldsboro, North Carolina, had an aunt who lived in New York, who wanted him to be with her. He and his wife moved to New York, after his return from the air force. Because
Immigration has existed around the world for centuries, decades, and included hundreds of cultures. Tired of poverty, a lack of opportunities, unequal treatment, political corruption, and lacking any choice, many decided to emigrate from their country of birth to seek new opportunities and a new and better life in another country, to settle a future for their families, to work hard and earn a place in life. As the nation of the opportunities, land of the dreams, and because of its foundation of a better, more equal world for all, the United States of America has been a point of hope for many of those people. A lot of nationals around the world have ended their research for a place to call home in the United States of America. By analyzing primary sources and the secondary sources to back up the information, one could find out about what Chinese, Italians, Swedish, and Vietnamese immigrants have experienced in the United States in different time periods from 1865 to 1990.
Immigration, the act of coming to live permanently in a foreign country. Throughout the United States’ history, immigrants faced various challenges and especially after 1880. Most immigrants moved to achieve the American dream of having a better life and pursuing their dreams. But, this experience as they moved, was different for every immigrant. Some lives improved while others did not. Immigrants such as Catholics, Italians, and the Chinese were not welcomed into America in the late 19th century and early 20th century because of their differences in beliefs and cultures.
American was a prosperous country with incredible economic growth between the end of Reconstruction and the Great Depression. It was during this time that "industrial expansion went into high gear because increasing manufacturing efficiencies enabled American firms to cut prices and yet earn profits for financing still better equipment (Henretta 488)." During this era, the manufacturing of steel, the construction of railroads, factories, and warehouses, and the growing demand for technological advancements, increased greatly. Philanthropists, such as Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, and John D. Rockefeller, took advantage of the situation they were in by investing large sums of capital into the growing economy. Carnegie constructed an enormous steel mill outside of Pittsburgh that became one of the worlds' largest. Mellon started the Union Trust Fund in Pittsburgh, which developed in its later years to one of the largest financial institutions in the country. Rockefeller, who was involved in the petroleum industry, built the Standard Oil Company. Philanthropists were not the only group of people funding the growth of Corporate America. "The federal government, mainly interested in encouraging interregional development, provided financial credit and land grants (Henretta 490)." As a whole, the American economy was growing at an incredible rate. It was due to this growth that countless immigrants from Europe made their way over the Atlantic, as well as African Americans migrating from the South, both with hopes of improving their own standards of life.
Canada was determined to create a strong nation state during the first few decades of the twentieth century. Immigrants from various countries moved to Canada in hopes of prospering in a country that promised them so much. But not every immigrant was treated fairly. This is why intersectionality is necessary to consider because of existing complexities that exist within different groups of people. It is essential to examine the intersections of class, race/ethnicity, and gender, in order to understand why particular migrant groups experienced certain social and economic inequalities in the first three decades of the twentieth century.
Before 1954, Algeria was not considered to be a French colony - rather it was seen as an integral part of France. The region was composed of departments, like those of the mainland. There were over a million white French nationals living in Algeria at the time and around eight million Muslims.3 This was a greater proportion of French nationals than in the other major North African colonies of France - Morocco, and Tunisia.4 Although there were benefits to remaining with France, the colonial administration was heavily weighed against the Muslims - particularly with regards to voting rights. In 1936, for instance, the Popular Front Government of Blum introduced legislation to the Assembly proposing to extend French citizenship to over twenty thousand Algerian Muslims.5 The initiative failed when all the European mayors of Algerian towns resigned in protest.
Immigration has always been a major part of America. In fact, without immigration the creation of America would not have been possible. The majority of immigrants came to America for religious freedom and economic opportunities. However, for the most part before the 1870’s most immigrants were Protestants from northern and western Europe. These immigrants often migrated to the United States as families and usually lived on farms with family or friends who had already migrated beforehand. A lot of immigrants came to America with a plan or goal in mind. They often had saved up money for the long immigration overseas, were skilled in a certain trade, or had already been educated at a high level. Sadly, this would not last. Immigration became so prominent in America between 1870 and 1900 that the foreign-born population of the United States had almost doubled. A lot of German and Irish Catholics had immigrated in the 1840’s and 1850’s, and more decided to immigrate after the Civil War. A portion of Americans were biased against Catholics. Thankfully, the Irish spoke English and the German Catholics reputation was improved because of their Protestant countrymen’s good reputation. However, their children often lacked any skill or education, but they were able to blend in quite well with the American society. More and more immigrants would migrate to the United States without any skill or education and on top of that they were usually poor. These immigrants were called “new” immigrants and they came from all over the world including Italy, Greece, Poland, Hungary, and Russia. However, you cannot blame immigrants for migrating to America. Many immigrants faced religious persecution in their home countries which pushed them away, otherwi...
Immigration has changed majorly over the years. The system that the immigrants go through has evolved into a simpler system over the decades. Also the family life of the immigrants has become much more supported, as opposed to back when it brutal and children were sent to work right beside the adults. The living conditions and job opportunities of the immigrants have transformed into a healthier environment, and the challenges they faced have become easier to handle. Immigration has been the key to success in some cases, but in others their stories are harsh and hard to hear. The transformation that immigration has gone through over the past century is tremendous and should be recognized by all.
Some would say, quotes John F. Kennedy, “Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.” Thus, in today’s society, we can say that immigrants are what made America possible—economically and socially. We are in a melting pot era where the impossible was made possible. From the time John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960, making a promise to change the national origins system to unite the nations of all countries equally. Hence, in 1965, under Lyndon Johnson’s administration, Kennedy’s promise came into light, amending the INS—favoring unification of families, not national origins. Although, the unification was made possible, the peacefulness never lasted.
Have you been searching for a book that will inspire you, but just can’t seem to find one? Well your prayers have been answered, because I have the book for you. The Immigrant Advantage by Claudia Kolker will do the job. The novel was published in 2011 by Free Press. Claudia Kolker is an award-winning journalist, who has written for The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Economist, and The Oprah Magazine.
...to identity with at least one of the countries predominate languages, English or French, dictated the degree in which they could participate in Canadian life. According to the Commission, this participation was real under two conditions: “that both societies, the French-speaking as well as the English-speaking, accept[ed] newcomers much more rapidly than they have done in the past; and that the two societies willingly allow other groups to preserve and enrich, if they so desire, the cultural values they prize[d]” (RCBB Book 1 xxv). It creates an interesting take on the acceptance of those “othered” groups, as change was necessary not only on the part of the minorities but also from Canada’s French and English-speakers. The Commissions work remains focused on language and culture, more so than ethnicity amongst a bilingual, bicultural and “othered” Canadian society.
The aim of this essay is to explore the idea of whether the National Front in France is a racist party. The French National Front or the Front National (FN) was founded in 1972 and is a nationalist, socially conservative and economically protectionist party. The party was led by Jean-Marie Le Pen until his resignation in 2011 and is now under the leadership of his daughter Marine Le Pen. Traditionally, the National Front has been seen by many in France as the only legitimate alternative to the established but corrupt mainstream political parties (Girling, 1998: 168). For this reason, it tends to attract protest voters, fed-up traditionalists and the socially and economically deprived (Girling, 1998: 168). Whilst the National Front attracts a variety of supporters, it has been argued that racism fuels a great deal of the party’s political policies and stance. Racism ‘provides the sharpest focus for popular fear and anger’ through blaming France’s minority Muslim Arab and black African populations for the current crisis in civil society (Girling, 1998: 168). These prejudices have been exacerbated by fears and anxiety over immigration, traditionalism and a resentment of foreigners. As is the case in many European nations, it is felt that immigrants to France are ‘taking away our jobs’ and ‘living at the expense of the French’ (Girling, 1998: 168). However, the National Front has gone under something of an image overhaul in recent years since the appointment of Marine Le Pen as leader in 2011. This ‘de-demonization’ strategy, which has served to increase the party’s popularity through softening its image and making its policies on immigration and so forth appear more acceptable to the mainstream (Mayer, 2013: 160). For these reasons, ...
The mention of the abolition of multiculturalism for a “new” post-multiculturalist approach becomes difficult to understand. It claims, “to avoid the ‘excesses’ of multiculturalism” (47), however where does this notable governmental and social switch take place? How is the term coined, and how is it understood in theory versus in practice? How is it different from its predecessor? Even the classification of history struggles to define what is considered to be modern, let alone post-modern, and yet the term suggests a positive approach to alleviating difficult assimilation projects similar to those faced elsewhere (47). This notion may developed on the grounds of “someone else’s problems” ¬– in regards to its Canadian context – as a means to label, or justify, miscellaneous aspects of multiculturalism. However, with the government-wide commitment to policies and programs, in conjunction with social understanding, it naturally becomes subject to a wide array of differing opinions. As both immigration and citizenship policies change, its public reception often shifts as well. Especially since the channels referred to within the ‘multiculturalism...
Millions of people around the globe immigrate into different countries every year. For some people, moving to a new place can be about taking on a different career opportunity, following a love interest, or reuniting with family. While for others, immigration is necessary to survive. It is not a simple choice, but rather a struggle to escape the horrors in their own country. There are numerous nations that welcome immigrants and refugees with open arms, but many do not. Picking up your life and traveling to a new country is hard even in the most accepting of places. For example, in the US, there are varieties of cultures and people from all over the world, making it one of the most desirable places for immigrants. Yet, even still, Americans can be unwelcoming and rude to outsiders. One of the largest populations of immigrants is in France, with around 7.4 million foreign-born people living there in 2010. Despite this large number, the French culture is one of the most nationalistic in the world, which can sometimes come off as hostile to newcomers. The history and development of French immigration policies is full of stubbornness and errors. Even now, the country’s unwillingness to allow new cultures to flourish in their home is becoming a large issue for the masses of immigrants that reside in France.
After the World Wars, France began allowing foreigners to come and take jobs because they had major job shortages (Gofen 62). Some ma...