The first article for this week is “Identity and Assimilation among Young Ethiopian Immigrants” by Elizabeth Chacko. The article talks about Ethiopian immigrants and how assimilation affects identity. I thought it was interesting that people had different identities that were situational. I already knew that second generation immigrants sometimes lose their native language when they assimilate. I think that schools can often hurt in this situation. Some schools have rules in place where students should only speak English even during free time. I think that this can encourage language loss. I really think that schools should change and help students learn English while also keeping their first language. I also learned what a 1.5 generation immigrant is. I had never heard the term before reading this article.
The second article is “Hybrid sensibilities: highly skilled Asian Indians negotiating identity in private and public spaces of Washington, DC.” It was also written by Elizabeth Chacko. This article focused on first generation immigrants in Washington DC that have upward mobility. I thought it was interesting that the article defined Asian Indian immigrants as being seen as partially assimilated while most are well educated, speak English, and have a lot of economic success, they still have strong cultural ties. I thought it was interesting that these cultural ties made them seem less assimilated. The aftermath of 9/11 where Sikh men who wear turbans were targeted because white Americans assumed that they were Muslim shows how little the average white person knows about different cultures and religions. The worry that some Indian families had after 9/11 also shows that they can be seen as perpetual immigrants. Even though their second generation children are American citizens they still have to worry about being targeted. Like the Ethiopian immigrants from the first article, Chacko concludes that these Asian Indians also have dual identities. Keeping some of their Indian culture while taking in some American culture.
The last article is “Feminised financial flows: how gender affects remittances in Honduran–US transnational families” by Allison J. Petrozziello. The article talks about 6 gendered reasons for sending and spending family money. The first reason is gendered motives for migration. Men often migrate to get better jobs to provide for their families. Women leave for gender inequalities. It also said that some women leave to independently establish themselves away from their families. The second reason is reproductive labor across borders. Women do the work of raising the children, and now that women and men are migrating in similar numbers women often have to parent from afar. The third reason is Gender inequalities in the US immigrant labour market. I found it interesting that even though women earn less they send more of their pay back home. The fourth reason Intricate power negotiations between ‘here’ and ‘there’. I thought that it was interesting that the people who send money feel less in power. I would have thought it was the opposite because they are the ones with the money. The fifth reason is migration’s mixed results in terms of women’s empowerment. Because women are earning their own money they feel more independent. Several women said that they no longer put up with certain behaviors in male partners. But they do face discrimination because they are women and because of their undocumented status. The last reason is new forms of dependence. these women have now have to rely on their mostly male employers for documentation status. This relationship of dependence is different than when they relied on male breadwinners, but is still problematic. The article ends with policy implications.