Introduction

Any study of the American people must take into account how complicated that subject is. The United States is a large
country encompassing more than 300 million people. Indigenous people (today called Native Americans) make up at most
2% of the American population today. The other 98% are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Many people
came to the United States to seek economic opportunity or religious freedom. Others came as slaves. Some groups,
including many from the British Isles, became well established by the time of American independence from Great Britain
in 1776. Others, like the Irish and many Germans, came in waves during the 19th century. Asians came in their own
waves, especially over the past half century. So-called Hispanic people (actually a very varied group) could be
descendants of 17th century settlers from Spain, or they could have arrived in the United States last week (or any time
span in between).

Unlike many other countries, the United States has an identity that does not depend on ethnic continuity, but rather on the
ideas that inspired the formation of the nation. The sections that follow give some general guidance on the major ethnic
groups in the United States, with the understanding that generalizations always have exceptions. Next comes a short
section on social classes that, once again, can only make broad generalizations. Finally, we cover some lifestyle
distinctions that have meaning in America today.

The best way to look at the United States is to realize that ethnicity, social class, and lifestyle do matter in some aspects
of life, and, in some sense, they do not matter. All these people share the quality of being American, even if that quality is
almost impossible to define.

Major American Ethnic Groups

Many people assume that people of English descent are the largest ethnic group in the United States. That distinction,
however, applies to people of German descent, who made up more than 17% of the population, according to the 2000
census, followed by the Irish, English, African American, Italian, Mexican, French, and Polish, and then by dozens of
nationalities from western, northern, central and eastern Europe.

Many Americans, of course, are a mix of ancestries. So-called “white” people are the majority in every state except Hawaii
(although the District of Columbia, not a state, has a non-white majority). If you count the so-called “non-Hispanic white”
population, the majority decreases to 46 states, excepting Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and Texas (in addition to D.C.).
Computations of the Hispanic population tend to throw the statistics off, since this category covers people of several races
who have origins in dozens of Spanish-speaking countries.

The category of African-Americans, officially about 12% of the population, presents several classification problems. The
category includes the modern-day descendants of African slaves, whose families have been American often for hundreds
of years, combined with several million relatively recent immigrants from the islands of the Caribbean, who have their
own, quite different, cultural traditions. African-Americans may simultaneously be Hispanic, or partially (or even primarily)
European in background.

If any category is more a statistical convenience than a cultural indicator, it is probably the category of Asian-Americans.
After all, a family from Pakistan has essentially nothing in common with one from Korea, although in some big cities like
New York and Los Angeles, they might find themselves living next door to each other.

Native Americans
The term “Native Americans” refers to the descendants of people who inhabited what is now the United States in the era
before European settlement. The term, as used statistically, includes ethnic Hawaiians and the Eskimos and Inuit of
Alaska. For the most part, however, the term refers to members of one of the many Native American tribes formerly called
“American Indians.” Many Native Americans themselves continue to prefer and use the term “Indian.”

In virtually every instance, European settlement of the American continent did severe damage to the native peoples.
Violence and disease wiped out many tribes. Governmental pressure, backed often by military force, forced nearly every
other tribe to move, often west, to less desirable land.

Some Native American tribes exist without formal recognition by the American government, while over 500 others have
sanctioned legal status and federal recognition. Nearly all Native Americans are United States citizens, although many
tribes enjoy the status of independent nations. Some even issue their own passports. Depending on the circumstance,
although Native Americans have full citizenship rights, the federal government is often limited in the power it can exercise
over recognized Native Americans lands and the people who live on them. The Navajo, Cherokee, Choctaw, Sioux,
Chippewa, Apache, Blackfeet, Iroquois, and the various Pueblo peoples of the Southwest are the largest Native American
groups in the United States.
The special legal status of a number of Native American tribes allows them to run gambling casinos, sometimes combined
with elaborate resorts. A few tribes, mostly small, have used these advantages to become relatively well off. In general,
however, Native Americans are among the poorest of Americans. Drug and alcohol use, youth suicide, and other social
problems are significant in Native American communities. Health issues such as poor nutrition and diabetes are also
substantial.

As with any minority group, Native Americans often find themselves subject to stereotyping and discrimination.
Generations of stereotyping in films and on television, usually using non-native peoples as the actors, have had their
effect. A particularly sensitive issue today is the use of tribal names or other designations for sports teams, such as the
Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves in baseball or the Washington Redskins in Football, as well as literally hundreds of
college and high school teams in all sports. Native American activists also object to the giving of tribal names to weapons
as in the case of the Apache helicopter. The use of the term “Operation Geronimo” for the May 2011 American military
operation that killed terrorist Osama bin Laden also raised Native American voices in protest. The Chiricahua Apache
Geronimo was an important figure in 19th century Native American resistance to European persecution.

Although Native Americans do cooperate with each other for political and cultural purposes, it is important to realize that,
over the stretch of a full continent, the tribes are culturally very different from one another. Members of some tribes have
integrated into and often intermarried with the general American population. Others live apart from the general American
culture on reservations, large and small. The languages and cultural traditions of some tribes are artifacts, mainly of
interest to anthropologists, while in the case of other tribes, the original language and cultural traditions remain vital. The
largest cross-cultural gathering of Native American people in the United States is the annual “Gathering of Nations” that
takes place each spring in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

"White" People
The term “white people” as used in the United States today can have a number of varying meanings. In its most general
sense, the term refers to people who are of European origin. In the early days of European exploration of North America,
settlers from Spain founded the two oldest cities in the United States: Saint Augustine Florida and Santa Fe New Mexico.
French speaking people settled along the Mississippi River. Both St. Louis and New Orleans have French names. Despite
this, the English-speaking peoples who founded the American republic became culturally dominant. At the time of
American independence in 1776, most citizens of the new country were of Protestant religion and came from England,
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Immigrants from Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia arrived from the
earliest days as well and were, for the large part, assimilated into the English-speaking culture.

During the mid 19th century, large numbers of immigrants arrived from Germany, so many in fact that the Germans are
now the country’s most populous ethnic group (although few today retain any sense of German language or culture). Over
the generations, these Germans assimilated fairly well into American society. Today’s second most populous group, the
Irish, had quite a different history. For most of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th, the largely Catholic Irish
faced extreme discrimination for jobs and social status. The Irish eventually fought their way into mainstream American
society, culminating in the election of an Irish-American, John F. Kennedy, as the American president in 1960.

Between about 1890 and 1920, waves of immigrants from central, southern and eastern Europe arrived in the United
States by the millions. Each of these groups had its own set of difficulties in acclimating to American life and using the
English language. In many cases, these groups settled with each other in their own communities, slowly being absorbed
into American life. Jewish immigrants suffered discrimination, stereotyping, and social exclusion for generations, as did
the Italians, the Greeks, the Hungarians, the various Slavic peoples, the Portuguese, and in fact nearly every immigrant
group.

All these groups came to make up today’s “white” America. In some ways all these people, despite different religions and
different histories, function as a unified ethnic group today, having their own neighborhoods and lifestyles distinct from
those of Native American, African-American, Hispanic, or Asian people.

The term WASP at one time had significant social and cultural meaning in the United States. The term stands for “White,
Anglo-Saxon Protestant.” It generally referred to people who considered themselves more authentically American
because they could trace their ancestors back to colonial times, often to the original founders of the republic. Today this
distinction is not as important as it once was, although the term is still used.

Black Americans: Pan-African People

This material courtesy of J. LaVelle Ingram, Ph.D.
As with most other identified racial groups in America, there are many different ethnic groups within the larger group of
“Black” people here in the States. In the case of Black people in America, we include one major group (descendants of
African slaves) and many smaller groups (descendants of free black people, Island immigrants, and, more recently,
immigrants directly from Africa). While these groups each have their own styles of music, dance, dress and cooking, they
also share many core cultural values. For instance, most Pan-African people operate within extended family groups. This
pattern of living was so strong that American slaves, separated from their biological kin, adopted “play-kin” relationships
with friends. Thus we may still refer to our mother’s close friends as “Aunties” though they have no biological relationship
to us. We maintain such patterns even to this day.

Pan-African people also greatly respect elders. Because most African societies are past-oriented, those who know the
past and can explain it to the youngsters are greatly revered. In one story, a modern-day African leader was told of the
information available on the Internet, and invited to make it available to his people. After consideration, he declined,
stating that “information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.” This sentiment explains the reliance on the
tried-and-true wisdom of elders. Of particular note is our reverence for our mothers. I recall, as a child, being surprised
and dismayed upon witnessing white children calling their mothers’ names when angry. They could express their anger in
this manner, but such behavior toward one’s mother would be considered outrageous among most Black people. Rather,
we are constantly reminded that “she gave you life” and “you only have one mother,” and thus we had best show her
respect.

Another core value of Pan-African people is creative self-expression. Whether we are dancing, singing, reciting stories or
painting portraits, Black people have a long history of significant contribution to the creative arts. Indeed, there are few
American art forms that have not been influenced in some way by African-Americans. These contributions occur because
we so strongly support the individuals’ and the groups’ need to express strong emotions. If a child shows any interest in
dancing, s/he will be given every opportunity and indulgence to acquire skill in that area, as s/he would with music, with
singing and with other art forms. And within such artistic work, innovation is held in high value over simple mastery of old
forms. So Black people did not simply learn American hymns and sing them as they were taught, but recreated them as
“Negro spirituals”, and later sang them as blues songs and jazz songs, gospel songs and R & B songs. This cultural value
is the reason that we are so overwhelmingly represented in American art forms.

Further, most Black people maintain strong religious ties. Regular attendance to a church or mosque is customary as is
the inclusion of one’s religious beliefs in most aspects of one’s life. So you may very well see more African-Americans
wearing the popular “W.W.J.D.” bracelets and necklaces, raising the Christian question “what would Jesus do?” You may
also see more obvious religious items on such work-desks or hear more religion-based phrases like “have a blessed day.”
The Black church has long played a key role in the Black community as a place of gathering that was allowed even when
the majority group was more suspicious; thus the church has served as the unofficial community center, civil rights
meeting headquarters and general corner-stone in maintaining the group’s identity. Many Black people became Black
Muslims during the 1960s, claiming that the Christian church in America had played too large a role in our oppression.
While this religious practice has continued as a separate sect from mainstream Islam, some American Black people have
shifted to more mainstream Muslim religion. Either way, Black Muslims and Black Christians continue to value religious
practice and life as central to proper living.

Importantly, African-Americans (descendants of slaves) have functioned for centuries as an oppressed American minority.
An estimated 8% of the general population, we have struggled for equal civil rights, access to schools, to higher education
and to the range of professional jobs for many decades. While we have made many strides since the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960s, and hold Martin Luther King, Jr. in reverence because of this, we continue to see the impact of
this oppression in higher rates of unemployment, poverty and crime. Even today, many people view Black people, and
especially African-Americans as the lowest colorcast of people. Europeans were very successful in exporting their notions
of Black racial inferiority to its colonies around the world, and these notions still lead some immigrants to fear and avoid
Black people despite our many wonderful qualities. Of particular note are fears about Black men based largely on
negative stereotypes. Though most Black men work, raise families and go about their business like any other American,
the popular view of them on television and in movies suggests that they are dangerous criminals. Ironically, these very
fears often interfere with Black men being hired and/or advancing in many jobs. In short, most African-Americans live
perfectly ordinary middle-class or working-class lives. Of course, given this history, our attitudes about white Americans
can run the range from friendly to cautious to hostile.

An artifact of the long history of slavery is that African-Americans place a high value on survival at all costs and exhibit a
low tolerance for signs of weakness. Thus, we tend to support a very broad range of activity designed to support oneself
and one’s family. Individuals who engage in “street hustling”, selling various items out of their cars or on the roadside are
held with equal status to those who punch a time clock every day. A man who drives a bus for a living may be viewed as
proudly as one who has a law degree. The American tendency to give greater value to those with high degrees and more
income has recently begun taking hold among Black people in America, much to the distress of our elders and social
leaders. Further, signs of weakness are scarcely tolerated among most African-American people and thus we tend to
expect each other to endure hardship, to overcome obstacles and remain “strong” regardless of our circumstances. One
positive consequence in contemporary life is the extraordinary success of so many African-American athletes. The long
history of slavery resulted in extraordinary physical endurance and strength along with a high value on perseverance.
Thus, American basketball and football are dominated by Black athletes. One negative consequence of these values is
that most Black people are very reluctant to seek either physical or emotional assistance when it really might be needed.
This reluctance can lead to more severe problems that are more difficult to manage after waiting.

Finally, Pan-African people face our own challenges as we encounter each other. For instance recent African immigrants
have typically lived very different lives than African-Americans. They have lived as the majority group in their own
countries, seeing mostly Black faces on the television every day, utilizing mostly Black doctors, lawyers and dentists. They
have little direct experience of racism in all its forms and are often unaware when different groups are reacting to their skin
color. This behavior can appear naive to most African-Americans. In another instance, Black Islanders often come to
America from Catholic based schools and churches, far outside of the experience of African-Americans. In short, like most
minority groups in America, Pan-African groups are made up of many unique individuals, and you will only learn the real
truths about them as you make the effort to get to know them, one at a time, as distinctive human beings.

Hispanic People
The term “Hispanic” refers loosely to Americans descended from immigrants from Spain, Mexico, Cuba and other Latin
American countries, all of which have very different heritages, but which share the Spanish language. At least 14% all
Americans are of Hispanic heritage, and the proportion is growing. In some major cities, it is common to see signs or even
government documents printed in both English and Spanish. Cities such as Miami, Florida and San Antonio, Texas
operate on nearly a completely bilingual basis, while others such as New York and Los Angeles have large, vital Spanish-
speaking communities.

In a state like New Mexico, Spanish-surnamed people may be able to trace their ancestry back hundreds of years to
Spain itself. These people, though proudly Hispanic, may speak English as a primary language. This only highlights the
fact that the categorization Hispanic is over-broad and not reliable. Hispanic people who can trace their family history in
America back 400 years may very well share neighborhoods with new arrivals from Latin America with whom they have
virtually nothing in common. In turn, immigrants from the Dominican Republic and Cuba have little in common with
immigrants from the dominant Latin American culture, Mexico. Puerto Rico, whose residents are American citizens, has
its own distinct cultural presence in the United States.

Hispanics in the United States vary widely by racial identification and appearance. The stereotype calls for someone with
a swarthy complexion, somewhere between “White” and “Black.” In truth, Hispanic people can appear to be of European,
African, Native-American or mixed descent as the case may be. The religious stereotype—that Hispanics are Roman
Catholic—is closer to reality (at a level of about 70%, a fifth of whom are “charismatic” Catholics), though nearly a quarter
of the Hispanic population identify themselves as Protestant, with some Jews thrown into the mix.

The often-used term “Latino” generally refers to people who come from or trace ancestry to the Spanish (and also
Portuguese) speaking countries of Latin America. It is frequently used by many of these people to describe themselves in
a positive sense, often with a touch of pride, and is often preferred over the more technically-sounding “Hispanic.”

Another problem arises in the use of Spanish surnames as indicators of ethnicity. The United States has, for example, a
large Filipino population, almost all of whom have Spanish surnames, though Filipinos are by no measure “Hispanic.”

The term “Chicano” has a more ambiguous base in its use to describe people of Mexican heritage in states like California
and Arizona. Older people often gladly associate themselves with the term and its associations with the movements in the
1960s for better conditions for agricultural workers spearheaded by organizer César Chávez. Among the younger set, the
term is often seen as pejorative, hence it is likely to fade out of common usage. The term “Tejano,” Spanish for “Texan,” is
used to describe not only people of Mexican descent who live in Texas, but also the border region between Texas and
Mexico, its food, culture, economy and distinctive music.

Puerto Rico, a United States territory, would be the first state with a Hispanic majority if it ever achieved statehood;
referendums have often brought it close. 43% of all residents of New Mexico are Hispanic, the highest proportion in the
nation. Both California and Texas, the two most populous states in the country, count more than a third of their population
as Hispanic.

Among American Hispanics, 65% have ties to Mexico, 10% to Puerto Rico, with the remaining quarter divided between
the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Cuba and other countries of Central and South America. Generally, though not
exclusively, Caribbean (Cuban, Puerto Rican and Dominican) and South American Hispanics tend to favor the east coast
of the United States, Mexicans and Central Americans the west and southwest.

There is no such thing as “Hispanic” music, “Hispanic food” or even “Hispanic culture. The greatest uniting force among
this vast and growing group of Americans is the Spanish language. For many it is a first language, for others an important
second language to English. Hybrids of the two languages—“Spanglish,” “Nuyorican” (a combination of “New York” and
“Puerto Rican”) and other mixtures—enjoy wide appeal, especially among young people.

A healthy Spanish-language media exists in the United States. In addition to thousands of newspapers, radio stations and
magazines, the Univision and Telemundo television networks have penetrated every major American media market.
American public television also has a major Spanish-language presence.

"Asians"
According to the 2010 census, nearly 5% of the American population is of Asian background. In the past, the term
“oriental” described people from East Asia and Southeast Asia. Many Asians considered the term derogatory and
demeaning. Today, the term “Asian American” or simply “Asian” is accepted usage.

Asia is the world’s largest and most populous continent, and hence the category of Asian Americans is extremely varied
and broad. The largest Asian groups are the Chinese, Filipinos, Indians, Vietnamese, Koreans, and Japanese, although
every other country of Asia has some type of representation. Asian Americans tend to be concentrated in cities and
suburbs, the three largest concentrations being in the Los Angeles area, the New York City area, and the San Francisco
Bay area. Asians often congregate in their own communities, leading to a proliferation of “Chinatowns,” “Little Manilas”
“Koreatowns” and other Asian neighborhoods. The shops and restaurants in these neighborhoods attract non-Asian
visitors. Most Asian Americans identify with their own specific ethnic groups rather than broadly as Asians. Many non-
Asians, unfortunately, lack the cultural sophistication to distinguish one group from another. Stigmatization, discrimination,
and violence against Asians is sometimes the result.

Family structures in nearly all Asian cultures tend to be strong. Some families encourage their children to integrate into the
general American culture, while others make every effort to maintain their linguistic, cultural and religious traditions.
Among many Asians, parental pressure on children to succeed educationally and financially is often quite strong. As a
result, Asians have the highest education level of any racial group in the United States, and, not surprisingly, the highest
level of family and personal income.

“Minorities”
The term “minority group” has different meanings depending on context. When used by the American government on
census forms or for official purposes, it refers to African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native
Americans and excludes most people of European background.

In common usage, the term “minority” has a strong connotation with a group that is somehow subordinate to the dominant
group or culture in terms of political power, economics, education, social status, employment or other important indicators.

In American cities, a “minority neighborhood” is one inhabited by African Americans, Hispanics or both. These
neighborhoods are in some cases quite stable, in others hotbeds of drug use, poverty, unemployment and crime. In many
cases, a so-called minority group could constitute the majority of the population of a city, the African American population
of Washington, DC and the Hispanic population of Miami, Florida being but two examples.

The best way to treat the concept of minorities in the United States is to use the term less rather than more.
Classifications involving minorities tend to be arbitrary and in many cases unfairly stereotype the people they describe, as
well as the communities in which they live.

Mistaken For Black

This material courtesy of J. LaVelle Ingram, Ph.D.

I once counseled a young man from England who was biracial; he looked like your average fair-skinned African-American.
If he were sitting quietly you couldn’t distinguish him from any other 20 something “Black” man in America. The problem
was that African-Americans also couldn’t distinguish him from one of their own, and often seemed to take offense when
he spoke differently and behaved differently from them. He reported reactions ranging from amusement to hostility when
he didn’t dance like African-Americans or listen to the kind of music they liked or eat the kind of food that they ate. The
conflict was not a minimal one, especially when my client found himself ostracized by the larger black community because
of his differences.
Since counseling that young man, I have encountered many other immigrants who encounter difficulties with Americans
within their perceived racial or ethnic group. It is often the immigrant who is placed in the position of feeling coerced into
associating with a group of people that may not feel like “kin”. Immigrants often report feeling put upon to behave like their
resident counterparts, even if the noted behaviors do not fit their ethnic identities. The African-English man that I
counseled so many years ago even asked if he should learn to hide his accent, to eat greens and chicken and to listen to
rap music. The only appropriate answer was, and is, only if that is what you want to do.

More to the point, this young man needed to learn some clarifying statements that he could make to those who challenged
him so that the encounters did not lead to conflict. So, for the observation that “you don’t sound like a Black man,” he
learned first to change the conversation from race (which it is not about) to culture, which it is about. So he might respond,
“You mean I don’t sound like an African-American, don’t you.” Next, he could make the clarification, “Well I don’t sound
like one because I am not; I am an African-English immigrant to the U.S.” This statement is a simple statement of fact,
and so would tend not to lead to an escalation of conflict. On the other hand, if he responded with, “I am not a Black man,”
he would certainly be challenged because of his physical appearance. He would seem to be denying a heritage that was
obviously his, and such an act would place him at odds with other African-Americans, who work so hard to maintain such
a heritage. If he responded with “What is a Black man supposed to sound like?” or any other question, he opens the
discourse to further alienation from the challenger.

Another point in the above noted scenario is the need to recognize that minority groups in America have generally had to
work for positive recognition of their group, and they have faced the challenge of maintaining the group in the face of
pressure to assimilate. Thus, minority people in America generally wish to acknowledge others of our group and to have
them acknowledge us. We generally hold other group members who do so as fulfilling the challenge of maintaining the
group’s identity. On the other hand, a perceived group member who avoids another member, who fails to acknowledge
that shared membership, is viewed as somehow betraying the group and the heritage. Into this mix steps the innocent
immigrant. While the immigrant may be accurately noting real ethnic differences, the minority group member may read
these differences as somehow “trying to pass” as something other than African-American, Korean-American, Irish-
American or Italian-American. It may thus be helpful to the immigrant person to realize that such questions about their
membership are emotionally charged. Such an encounter is not the time to offer whatever helpful criticism you may have
of the American group. Nor is it the time to voice the general opinions about the group that you may have heard back
home. Rather, some statement of curiosity about the American group is helpful, as is some genuine statement of caring
about that group. Then the statement of one’s own, factual status as an immigrant clarifies the situation.

In short, Israeli immigrants are culturally different from American Jews, Italian immigrants are culturally different from N.Y
Italians, and African immigrants are culturally different from African-Americans. These differences have to do with a range
of factors like the degree of assimilation over time of the long-term residents of America, the degree of exposure to
American culture of the new immigrants and the extent to which these different ethnic groups have on-going contact with
each other. Whatever factors make the difference, it exists and it is real. And just like American minorities typically have to
educate the majority about our genuine selves, values and ways of being, the immigrants to America have to educate the
American minorities. You do so to your own advantage.

Social Mobility
Most countries in the world have a system of social classes, and the United States is no exception. The United States is a
large country with a dynamic economy. Social classes have found their own level over the course of American history.
Despite this, social classes are not as rigid as they are in some more limited societies. It may be difficult for members of
one social class to move up into another, but it is always theoretically possible.

The United States does not have a hereditary aristocracy or a religion-based system of castes. What it does have, on the
negative side, is a strong consciousness of race and ethnicity. These are perhaps the greatest barriers to those who try to
work hard to better themselves. Sometimes movement from lower class to middle class, and even to upper class, may
take place as a progression from one generation to the next, particularly in the case of immigrants. Many immigrants have
faced misunderstanding, prejudice, and discrimination, and yet have successfully established themselves and their
families in the mainstream of American life.

Social standing is perhaps a more useful concept than social class. This indicates how well a person or group fits into
society. How would mainstream Americans react, for example, if people from a certain immigrant group, of their own
economic level, tried to move into their neighborhoods? How would they react if one of their children announced that they
were marrying a person of a different race, ethnicity, or religion, even if that person were of high education and economic
achievement? These are difficult questions. The best answer is to state that some Americans care about this kind of thing,
but many others do not. Social classes do exist, but in the United States, they all have looser boundaries than may initially
appear.
The Middle Class
The middle class is large and sets the tone for the nation. America is a middle class country; the poor are left behind and
the rich are tolerated for their eccentricities. The middle class ideal is portrayed frequently on television. The family, white
or black, is clean and prosperous, living in a spotlessly clean house with two or three children and two cars, possibly a
family pet. One or both spouses will be a professional or will work for a corporation. The more prosperous members of the
middle class might have a vacation home, many televisions and electronic gadgets, motor boats or even airplanes.
Members of the lower middle class would live in simpler homes in working class neighborhoods, but the homes are kept
clean and paid for.

Families Are Changing. Of course, these are stereotypes. Since more than half of American marriages end in divorce,
single parent homes are now easy to find. People often live together without being married. Divorced people also remarry
and mix children of previous marriages to form rather large households. All these living arrangements are becoming
acceptable to the vast American middle class.

The Role of Women. In days past middle class wives rarely worked outside of the house. Now these women are likely to
be employed or work as professionals at the same (or nearly the same) levels of pay and prestige as their husbands. The
phrase “glass ceiling” refers to the battle working women have had to fight to be paid as well as men for the same work,
and to have equal opportunities for advancement on the job. The earnings gap between the genders is closing, however.
The economic reality is that most families at all levels of the middle class need two incomes to keep living the lifestyle they
are accustomed to.

Poverty in America
This material courtesy of Jeannine Pitas

For most people in the world- including some in other developed countries- the US is the paragon of an affluent society,
the proverbial Promised Land where millionaires abound and where even the lower classes are comfortable. This is the
image commonly portrayed by Hollywood movies, in which every family lives in a suburban subdivision or plush apartment
and owns at least one luxury car. On the superficial level, this picture appears accurate enough. After all, how many other
countries have our gigantic supermarkets stocked with every imaginable delicacy from sushi to tahini, our superhighways
crowded with every kind of vehicle, our whole communities of spacious, beautiful houses with perfectly manicured lawns?
How many other countries have our tradition of social mobility and our treasure of rags-to-riches tales? Any way you look
at it, our country is one of the most affluent in the world.

But, there is another image of the US that does not so often appear in Hollywood films. It is the image that shocked the
world in the hellish aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is the image that we see when we drive through the slums of any of
our cities, the small, forgotten towns of our expansive countryside and many Native American reservations. No, it is not
the poverty of Africa, nor that of Latin America, nor even of Eastern Europe. But this very lack of severity is precisely what
makes it so hard to see… and so easy to ignore.

The truth is that poverty in the US may be on par with relative affluence in some other countries. In “Understanding
Poverty in America,” an article published by the Heritage Foundation in 2004, Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson cite several
figures regarding the people living under the national poverty line; according to their report, 46% of them own their homes;
nearly 75% own a car; 76% have air conditioning (once considered a luxury even for the middle class), and 89% report
having enough food to eat throughout the year (1). Thus, by current world standards, our poor really are well off.

On the other hand, given that our country is one of the most affluent in the world, the fact that poverty exists at all – and
that there are some children who go to school hungry- begs a number of questions. Some commentators argue that most
of the nation’s impoverished are poor because they want to be; if only they would work hard they easily could improve
their lot. Meanwhile, others argue that there are many factors which lead to poverty: in some areas decent, living-wage
earning jobs are scarce; companies fold or downsize and lay off their workers; physical and mental illnesses hold people
back from working.

And, there is the ever-present racial divide. Last year the watchdog NGO Social Watch reported that at this time Hispanic
Americans are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic White Americans to be without health insurance; only 50% of
African-American students graduated from high school in 2001 (2). Though these situations may be improving, poverty
and the social problems that accompany it can still be found. But, since it is true that the poor most often own things-
houses, cars and even DVD players- their situation becomes even easier to ignore.

In the wake of the high-tech boom of the 90’s, New York Times writer James Fallows used the term “invisible poor in the
shadow of wealth” to describe the class differences in America. Focusing on the world of the high-tech companies that
produced the seemingly overnight millionaires of the 90’s boom – a world that he temporarily inhabited while he worked
on a project for a large software company - Fallows comments that, once entrenched in that intense realm of long work
hours and ever-more lucrative prospects, it becomes easy to forget that an outside world even exists. He then muses on a
cleaning staff member he regularly saw- a Russian immigrant who barely spoke English and seemed perpetually tired-
and notes his own awkwardness, his discomfort at the reminder that there is a world outside the secure environment of a
high-powered software company (3).

Many Americans live with the belief that our tradition of social mobility has made us a classless society. For the most part
we all drive cars; we all wear jeans (whether someone’s jeans are bought in SoHo or at WalMart is not apparent at first
glance); we all have televisions; and, most of us prefer to refer to ourselves as “middle class.” However, the fact remains
that for some people, “middle class” means a newly built house in a gated community with two Mercedes in the driveway,
while for others it may mean a small house in a slightly dangerous urban neighborhood with two mortgages to pay off and
barely enough income to get by from week to week. While the overall sheen of our affluent society may keep class
differences well-concealed, one need only explore the interior neighborhoods of any major city to see just how stratified
the “middle class” really is. Poverty still persists, and as a country we still have our work cut out for us in determining just
how to deal with it.

(1) “Understanding Poverty in America. Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Heritage Institute, January 5, 2004.
(2). United States Country Report. Social Watch, 2006.
(3). “The Invisible Poor in the Shadow of Wealth.” James Fallows. New York Times Magazine, March 19, 2000.

The Lower Classes

Poverty is one issue, but the existence of a true “underclass” in the United States is another. Poor people may live in
relatively stable neighborhoods, urban or rural, but below this level, many Americans are simply off the radar. Censuses
do not count them and social services do not reach them. Many are homeless or nearly homeless. Some shift from place
to place, looking for any means to sustain themselves financially. Some enjoy brief periods of financial stability, only to
lose that stability as economic changes occur. Some try as hard as they can to find honest work, while others turn to
crime, alcohol and drugs.

Many Americans truly care about these people, and organizations exist to help them, but given the nature of the lives they
lead, it is difficult to do anything to improve the way they live. This is especially true in bad economic times during which
the federal government, as well as state and local governments, cut their budgets for social services. Even in prosperous
times, however, the nature of American life and its relatively free market system keeps many of these people at the
bottom of American society.

The Upper Class

A small upper class “high society” exists, though most Americans have little contact with these people. The core of this
group are wealthy people, mostly in the Northeast, who can trace their family lines back to the English or Dutch Colonial
days, or to certain legendary fortunes made during America's great industrial age. This is old money. It is associated with
resorts like Palm Beach, Florida or Newport, Rhode Island. Society people attend many sporting and formal evening
events designed to raise money for charities.

New Money Very wealthy people with new money, the “nouveau riche”, sometimes have success in breaking into the
high society group, particularly if they are movie stars or other beautiful people. If they fail to be accepted by high society,
or if they do not want to be, they are upper middle class regardless of how wealthy they become. In America, class
distinctions are more a matter of values and lifestyle than of money. Many upper class families have poor relations, family
members who, though they have only modest incomes, can still claim membership in the high society set.

Little Impact. The very rich control corporations and have some political power, but the lifestyle and values of the very
wealthy do not have much impact on the country in general, nor are the upper classes given as much respect by the
general population as they are in many other countries. America is a middle class nation.

Soccer Moms
The term “Soccer Mom” is used quite commonly in the United States. It has a range of meanings, some positive, some
slightly negative.

Though the term has some flexibility, it generally connotes an aware, modern woman in an upscale single-income
household. The soccer mom’s primary concern is her children; she juggles many responsibilities, often symbolized by the
frequent act of taking her children to youth soccer events and supporting their efforts in these competitions. The soccer
mom would generally be active in the community, particularly in areas that affect her children’s education and well-being.
As a stereotype, the soccer mom would drive an upscale yet practical vehicle like a mini-van, SUV or a Volvo or Subaru
station wagon. She would coordinate her efforts, with quasi-military precision, on a cellular telephone. Often she might
over-schedule her children’s activities or push them beyond the limit of endurance.

This stereotype tends to connote a certain crass materialism and the notion that a woman who ought to be liberated and
independent has chosen to be a homemaker (and yet is more aggressive about the lifestyle choice than women of
previous generations.) In actual fact, many women of all types are proud to call themselves soccer moms in that the term
signifies a true dedication to their children. The term, which first gained wide currency in the 1990s, will undoubtedly
evolve over time and take on further, often contradictory, shades of meaning.

Beyond the Family

During the mid-20th century, a standard for the American family developed that would affect American cultural life for
generations. Among several hundred million people, exceptions obviously occurred, but the cultural norm called for a
working father, a mother who worked tirelessly to keep up the family home, two children (a boy and a girl), often a dog or
cat. During the Second World War, men entered the armed services, and women worked in their place, but as soon as
that great event ended, the family bought a suburban home and played out traditional roles. If the couple were, in fact,
unhappy with each other, they remained married and suffered. Divorce was a shameful thing, not even discussed. When
the children grew, they would move out of the house and repeat the process. The family would be active in civic affairs
and religion, and would socialize actively with other, seemingly identical families.

In many cases, of course, even then, women worked, divorces occurred, single mothers raised children on their own,
people had homosexual relationships, married couples remained childless, and people lived together without getting
married. In many other cases, the suburban ideal was not financially attainable. The ideal persisted in popular culture for
decades after the 1950s, but it is no longer strong today. Too many exceptions now exist. Divorce affects more than half
of all marriages, and has led to the development of the “blended family,” in which spouses live with or care for children
from each others’ previous marriages. Also, “extended families,” involving related adults of different generations living
together (as in the case of a widowed woman living with her child and the child’s spouse and children, or a married couple
living with one of their parents), are on the rise for economic reasons.

The single parent household has also seen a large increase. In the majority of cases, this involves a single mother who
has been divorced or who does not marry in the first place. The number of single father households is on the rise,
however. In families under stress, grandparents may well end up becoming the major care providers for children.

It is a certainty that homosexuality existed even in the idealized family era of the 1950s, but homosexuals of both genders
are more open about their lifestyles now. In some states, they can legally marry or engage in civil unions, but all over the
United States, they do form households, and, more and more, raise children in a two-parent family setting. The issue, of
course, is controversial. Gays and lesbians strive for the right to run families as do heterosexual people. Some non-gay
people accept this as a reality, others call it an impossibility, while still others think it is wrong from a social or religious
standpoint.

Today, a strong trend in family life is actually the non-family, the prevalence of single people, either those who do not get
married in the first place or those who divorce and do not remarry. Single people, by no means a unified mass, have their
own needs and their own methods of running their households.

As mentioned previously, immigrants to the United States tend to bring strong family values and customs along with them,
but as they and their children become absorbed into American life, they are not immune from the pressures the American
family faces today.

Independent Women
In the United States, in government, business, the professions and many areas of culture, the path is still easier for a man
than it is for a woman. Decade after decade, however, women have worked to break free from stereotypes and
discrimination. Part of this involves establishing women’s legal right to fair treatment. This has been a long and hard
battle. The American women's movement began to have impact in the 1840's and struggled for generations. American
women only won the right to vote in 1920. These legal rights saw a great expansion in the second half of the 20th century,
and into the new millennium.

Legal rights are only half the real issue. Millions of American women today struggle to establish themselves in what is still
a man’s world. The United States is not yet at a point of equality between the genders, but the progression toward better
opportunities for women is ongoing.
Not every American woman wants to be an achiever in the world of work, of course. Many decide voluntarily to become
wives and mothers. Others fall into this role because of family pressures or simple lack of self-belief. Many other women
do not have the choice; they must work to support themselves, provide for their children, or supplement their husbands’
income when a single income is insufficient, a common situation in today’s economy.

Whether the woman is working to make ends meet or whether she is following a defined career path, she expects equal
pay for equal work. The law requires it, but she does not always get it without struggle. Women are also more and more
likely to demand entry into professions and jobs previously open only to men. A few set the example, while many others
follow. A young women growing up in the United States today sees true opportunity, supported by millions of women who
have already created their own opportunities. This mindset is pervasive, and is a basic fact of American life.

When a woman arrives as an immigrant to the United States, she may often have difficulty understanding the scope of the
opportunity she has in a new society. Despite discrimination against women, the United States is a veritable paradise
compared with most other countries in the world, including many that oppress women on an absolute basis. Male family
members who arrive alongside immigrant women often have difficulty adjusting to the new rules. Immigrant women have
to deal with their own men first before they can get out into the marketplace to deal with male-dominated society as a
whole. They do not do this alone, however. Organizations exist in every community to help women achieve their full
potential in American society.

“Honorary Men”: The Role of Women in America

This material courtesy of J. LaVelle Ingram, Ph.D.

It is clear that women in America enjoy much more personal freedom and independence than women in many other parts
of the world. This freedom is something we hold dear and one of the things that define contemporary American culture.
However, it is also clear that many immigrants, coming from very different-thinking cultures, view such women with at
least suspicion and at most contempt. Acquiring a functional view of the women in America might take some re-thinking
on the part of some immigrants who may have had little exposure to women in the workplace, women in charge, or even
women operating on their own. It might give a more accurate view of the real character and status of American women if
you think of them as “honorary men.”

Different cultures espouse widely variant ideas of the proper role and place of women within a society. One coworker,
from Egypt, informed me that women did not typically live outside of their parents’ homes there unless they were married.
There, a woman setting up “house” by herself is assumed to be setting up a place of prostitution. Why else would she
leave the guidance and protection of her family? This way of thinking was completely new to me and would be to most
Americans. Here, females, just like males, are expected to move away from parents’ homes and set up on their own in
order to prove themselves successful, fully functioning adults. True, a woman can more easily remain at home with her
parents than a man can here, but past about age 25 others would begin to look at her askance. So expect the women
here to live on their own, in apartments or homes that they own, and consider such a situation to mean simply that such a
woman is an adult and that she can afford such accommodations.

Further, in many other places in the world, women are expected to hold marriage and children as their primary goals and
interest. Here, women are generally more interested in these things than the men are, but they do not necessarily place
them first on their “to do” lists. In America, a woman is just as likely to decide that her education, for instance, needs to be
completed before she can consider marriage or family. She may decide that her career needs to develop to a certain point
first. In short, an American woman may have the same kind of broad concerns about conducting her life that men have
around the world. In the case of men, most folks would consider holding such priorities as prudent in preparing for life’s
challenges, but women can still come under scrutiny for the same priorities. Here, it should not be surprising to find
women delaying marriage and family into their thirties, forties or even fifties.

Finally, many cultures associate a female’s independence with evidence that she is morally and/or sexually slack. The title
of this article is “honorary men” for a reason. It suggests that independent women in America should be viewed through
the same lens through which most folks would view men. A young man, living independent of his parents, working on his
education or his career, may be morally upright or morally depraved; he may be sexually chaste or sexually promiscuous.
His status as an independent man cannot tell you these other aspects of his character. Rather, one would need to meet
him and get to know him before one could make such judgments. This scenario is exactly the same for American women.
A woman living on her own and conducting her own personal and professional business can run the whole gamut from
dutiful, traditional and chaste to self-involved, nontraditional and sexually free. One would need to engage the individual
woman in order to find out the truth.
Similarly, American women tend to wear jewelry and make-up, and to many immigrants, too revealing clothing. Yet
American women are typically dressing within the norms of social correctness (and beauty) that all women follow in their
own cultures. American women of all types even dress more conservatively as they meet the requirements of various
workplaces. The few women who violate such codes receive the same shocked and negative reactions from other
Americans that they do from immigrants. So, despite the make-up and high-heels, the skirts and the hairdos, remember
that these women are meeting the norms of the society. American’s women’s style of dress, then, has little to do with her
morals or her character. In short, it might make more sense just to think of us all as honorary men, and proceed
accordingly.

Betwixt and Between: The Twixter Phenomenon

This material courtesy of Jeannine Pitas

In January 2005, Time announced the arrival of a new generation. The Twixters are not a type of candy bar, but a new
social demographic. In “Meet the Twixters,” writer Lev Grossman (1) notes the growing number of 18-30 year-olds who
“just won't grow up,” nomads who hop from job to job, apartment to apartment, relationship to relationship, putting off
society’s traditional markers of adulthood, such as marriage, children, and home ownership. Many of them live with their
parents; others who live independently still receive some degree of financial support from their families. While in some
other countries it is normal and even expected for twenty-somethings to go on living with their families, most Americans
value personal autonomy and look disdainfully on people who fail to become independent.

As Grossman points out, many of today’s young people are idealists who are seeking not only a job, but a vocation, not
merely a partner but a true soul mate. Expecting to live well into their eighties, they are taking their time to try out different
paths until they find the ones that best fit.

Back in the twentieth century people relied on professional, religious and political affiliations to give them an identity. Now
we live in a world where identity is no longer just given, but also chosen. While to some degree our sexuality, cultural
identity, political and religious affiliations are given to us at birth and nurtured through upbringing, now more than ever
these identity markers change and develop throughout the whole course of life. It is no wonder that many young people
want to try out their options before making the serious commitments our society considers the defining marks of
adulthood.

There is another, highly pragmatic side to the Twixters’ story. In 2001, Abby Wilner and Alexis Robbins coined the term
“quarterlife crisis” to describe the maturation process that 20-somethings undergo (2). In addition to making major
decisions, they also find that in an increasingly competitive job market, they are not always able to do what they dreamed
of doing as adolescents and college students. Success in the professional world is much more competitive for them than it
was for their parents' generation. In the information age it is easy to find listings of available jobs, but harder to get called
up for an interview when the 400 other people who see the ad on Craigslist send their resumes on the same day.
Meanwhile, a university degree has declined in value while becoming ever more expensive; students may take out huge
loans to pay for their education and then spend years paying them back. It often is impossible for recent graduates to pay
for everything—rent, living expenses, and debt—on an entry-level salary.

However one may perceive the “Twixter” phenomenon, at this point it is a reality, and as our world grows even more
complex and diverse, it is fair to predict that this life stage is here to stay. And while some members of the older
generations may think that these young adults do not want to grow up, the simple truth may be that the whole maturation
process has changed and that the traditional definition of adulthood no longer holds. In a world where national borders
can change overnight and where companies are born and die at an insect’s pace, perhaps growing up no longer means
finding stability, but learning to tolerate uncertainty.

(1) “Grow up? Not so fast,” By Lev Grossman. Time, January 16, 2005.
(2) Quarterlife Crisis: The Unique Challenges of Life in Your Twenties, by Abby Wilner and Alexandra Robbins. Tarcher,
2001.

Tattoos and Tattooing

This material courtesy of James McDaniel

While tattoos are growing in popularity among young Americans, tattooing is still a controversial subject in America today.

According to Wikipedia, “A tattoo is a mark made by inserting pigment into the skin; in technical terms, tattooing is dermal
pigmentation.” Tattoos are a permanent form of body modification which involve pain and require care and special
attention. Tattoo removal is possible but much more expensive and painful than getting a tattoo in the first place. As a
person ages, their skin loses its elasticity which can change the original tattoo into one that is less defined and less
attractive. However, with the invention of new inks made from vegetable oil, tattoos done today last much longer than they
did twenty years ago. Also, many new laws on the sanitation of tattoo shops have minimized the risk of infection.

The first major groups of people to implement tattoos into their culture in America were members of the military, prisoners,
and bikers shortly after World War II. In the seventies, tattoos became popular among hippies as a way to promote their
ideals of peace. As tattoos grew in popularity, the tattoo machine became more readily available, making tattoos more
accessible to the average American. Recent surveys have indicated that 36% of Americans between the ages 18 and 25
and 40% of Americans between the ages 25 and 40 have at least one tattoo.

As far as the artwork goes, the possibilities for tattoos are virtually endless. Some of the most popular tattoo styles today
include:

Tribal: This style is based on the ancient tattooing style of the South Pacific Islands. It consists of solid black or blue
shapes which are usually abstract.

Celtic: This style comes from the Celtic art found in Ireland and Scotland. It involves a lot of detail. Some common Celtic
tattoos include Celtic knotwork, the Celtic cross, and mythological creatures.

Japanese: In the 18th Century in Japan, tattoos were forbidden for the working class. As a form of underground rebellion,
they got tattoos which were covered by their clothes. The artwork is based on watercolor paintings and woodcarvings and
is very rich in color. Some examples include Samurai warriors, koi fish, and swirling wave patterns.

Portraits: These tattoos look just like paintings or even real pictures of people or animals. This is a common way to
remember a relative who has passed away, a family pet, or even a famous celebrity.

Flash: “Flash” refers to the first style that became popular in the US. It is often very colorful and simple. Flash is a very
broad category but some examples of flash include spiderwebs, a heart with a knife through it, cartoon-like doves,
anchors, and skulls.

Custom: These are tattoos which are thought up or drawn by the person who wants the tattoo. They are one-of-a-kind
tattoos.

Popular placement of tattoos for men includes the upper arms, calves, chest, and upper back. For women it is the lower
back, ankles, and the upper back just below the neck. Despite their rising popularity, tattoos are frowned upon by many
employers if the tattoo cannot be easily covered. Recent surveys also suggest that many healthcare providers treat
people with tattoos more poorly than the rest of their patients.

As the times change, public opinion becomes more and more accepting than before. In the future, tattoos will continue to
become a bigger part of American culture.

Single People
Census statistics indicate that the single-person household has been the fastest growing type of household in the United
States since the 1980s. Singles make up more than 40% of the American adult population and head half the nation’s
households. Modern life, combined with extensive educational and career opportunities, makes the single lifestyle
attractive to both men and women. Divorce and deferment of marriage for career purposes are two major factors in the
rise of the single population, but so is simple choice. Marriage and family in the United States are institutions under great
stress today. American life is somewhat disjointed, making it difficult for singles to find life-partners, even if they truly want
to. Whatever the reason, the single life is an important facet of the life of the nation in general.

It is important to realize that the singles lifestyle cuts across all social and economic groups, and even generations. It is
also crucial to take into consideration that a single person may well have a stable romantic relationship with another single
person, even if the couple do not live together. At any given time, of course, millions of single Americans are looking for
other single people to become their companions or romantic interests. Singles resorts and social organizations serve
these needs, but organized dating services are an even more pervasive facet of American life, particularly over the
Internet. The dating industry in America is substantial.

Single people form an important part of the American market for goods and services. Those without families to support
often have significant purchasing power and spend much money on travel, recreation, restaurants and entertainment,
especially in those circumstances where they can meet each other. Apartment buildings in many cities cater to the singles
market, since singles tend to be renters. Many financial services target singles. The market for frozen prepared meals
would be a shadow of its present self without the singles market.

History of the Gay Rights Movement in the US

This material courtesy of Jeannine Pitas

One of the biggest social movements currently taking place in the United States right now is the LGBT (lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender) rights movement. After years of discrimination and marginalization from mainstream society,
queer people (gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people and other sexual minorities) are fighting discrimination
and in some cases seeking marriage rights. The global gay rights movement, which began in Europe over one hundred
years ago with the goals of changing the dominant cultural ideas of masculinity and femininity, has had varying degrees of
success in different countries. On the whole, the United States has been more receptive to this movement than many
other countries, but discrimination and homophobia—the fear of gay people—still dominate many people’s thinking.

The American gay rights movement dates back to 1924, when the Society for Human Rights in Chicago became the
country’s first gay organization. However, it was not until the 1960s that the movement began to make any real progress.
In 1962 Illinois became the first US state to decriminalize private homosexual acts between consenting adults, and the
civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam War protests of the ‘60s left many gay activists with the desire to create an
organized movement. In 1969 the Stonewall Riots—a three-day protest that took place when gay, lesbian and
transgendered patrons resisted a police raid on a New York bar—transformed the movement from the struggle of a few
isolated activists to a collective, wide-scale effort. Immediately after Stonewall, a few radical groups were formed. These
began fighting against the American Psychiatric Society's classification of gay as a disease, and in 1973 the Association
removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. At this time many LGBT's decided to “come out” - to speak
openly and proudly about their sexual orientation and make no attempt to conceal it- thus rejecting the old idea of
homosexuality as a source of shame.

The 1980's saw a difficult moment for the emergence of AIDS, a deadly disease which at first seemed concentrated in the
gay male population. This new obstacle changed the focus of the movement for many leaders in the movement and also
lead to radicalization. At this time many activists began to see the word “gay and lesbian” as too restrictive and began to
use the word “queer” to describe all sexual minorities.

The 1990's saw more victories for the LGBT movement. In 1993 the US military instituted the “Don't ask, don't tell policy,”
allowing gay people to serve in the military but prohibiting homosexual activity. In 2000 the state of Vermont became the
first to permit ¨civil unions¨ between gay and lesbian couples, granting them the same civil rights and benefits as married
people yet refusing to call these unions by the name of marriage, which the state has defined as a union between a man
and a woman. Since then, such civil unions have become legal in Connecticut, New Hampshire and New Jersey, while
actual same-sex marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts and most recently California. Currently the movement has
also made gains in securing legislation against workplace discrimination, as has been done in a bill approved by the
House of Representatives in 2007.

However, while the American LGBT movement has made great progress in meeting its goals of assuring equal civil rights
for gay people and deconstructing the common cultural concept of queer people as deviant or abnormal, much opposition
remains. Many political and cultural conservatives believe that, by trying to challenge and redefine age-old concepts of
marriage and family, the movement is a threat to the very foundations of American society. Some Christian groups,
referring to biblical passages that condemn homosexuality, view it as a moral wrong. Thus, opposition to the LGBT
movement continues in many parts of mainstream society, particularly in the states where gay marriage and civil unions
are banned. Thus, while in the more liberal sectors of American society, the movement has made great gains and is
widely accepted, among conservatives it remains controversial.

Understanding the Issue of Gay Marriage In America

This material courtesy of J. LaVelle Ingram, Ph.D.

The notion of gay marriage may seem foreign indeed to many immigrants to America, and in fact it seems alien to a great
many Americans. However, a growing number of American citizens are supporting the notion that couples of the same
sex should be allowed to marry in all of these United States. In many ways this issue reflects some core dichotomies in
the American ideology of right and wrong. On the one hand America is built on the notion that individuals within a society
should all hold certain civil rights, and that no government should be allowed to withhold these rights from any of its
members. It is on this standard that African-Americans advocated for equal rights in the 1960s and were able to gain full
voting, employment and other social rights guaranteed by our constitution. On the other hand, America has long held to a
standard of rather strict social censure. The laws could be written to allow maximum freedom because the religious
community held citizens to tightly controlled behavior. This pattern continued until the 1960s.

At that time the sexual revolution hit the American mainstream, and individual citizens (mostly young adults) began to take
full advantage of their sexual options. During that time sex outside of marriage lost much of its taboo as did women
engaging (almost) as freely as men in their choice of sexual activity. This freedom occurred primarily for the heterosexual
population, while at the same time gays and lesbians were just starting to fight for their right to exist in America without the
threat of death, arrest or other harassment. AIDS curtailed much of this perceived sexual freedom, and for some it brought
a new attention to the status of gays. For some, AIDS reflected God’s judgment against gay men for their sexual
practices, while for other Americans it brought home the reality that these men are our sons, brothers and fathers.

So today America finds itself in a quandary, with some citizens railing against their perception that America has lost
ground in the world because of its social excesses (those same freedoms permitted since the sexual revolution). These
Americans often express the sentiment that allowing homosexuals to marry reflects the extent of “moral decay” in this
country. They see this advocacy as the “last straw” and act against it with righteous indignation. On the other hand the
advocates for gay marriage see it as the latest civil rights struggle, and wonder why each oppressed minority in America
must go through these long, difficult legal battles to gain the very rights guaranteed by our constitution, that is, to be
treated like everyone else.

Of course gay marriage strikes to the heart of some Americans’ religious beliefs. With a predominantly Christian
population, many Americans hold to the Biblical notions that marriage is not simply a legal institution it is also a religious
institution. From their point of view, the only version of marriage that should ever be considered is that between a man
and a woman. Also from a conservative Christian point of view, homosexuality is a sin, and certainly not one to be given
explicit sanction with the blessing of marriage.

This conservative Christian view stands against a liberal Christian view that advocates for the rights of all people to
participate in core Christian rites and blessings. Such Americans would recall that inter-racial marriage was also once
banned partially on religious grounds. They would remind us that the strong statements against homosexuality are made
in the Old Testament rather than the New Testament, and reflect that contemporary Christians are compelled to operate
from the New Testament call to compassion rather than the legalistic stance of the Old.

In short, Americans are struggling with the issue of gay marriage, and will likely continue to struggle with it for some time.
Because it reflects so many conflicting values, we may end up with a wide range of responses to this advocacy. Hopefully,
this struggle can continue to occur with thoughtful reflection on our core values and dignified, safe consideration of the
whole American family.

Transgendered People
The term “transgender” (TG) as used in the United States can mean many things. At its minimum, it refers to people or
groups of people whose lifestyles vary from traditional gender roles. In legal and political spheres, transgendered people
are generally associated with the gay rights movement, but the quality of being transgendered does not necessarily
connote sexual orientation. Transgender people may be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual. What they have
in common is that in some way they are not comfortable with the gender into which they are born. The oft-use rubric
“Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) community” seems to tack on transgender at the end, for understandable
pragmatic reasons, but not every transgendered individual identifies with the practice.

The 50 American states differ on the legal status of transgendered people. Some states have passed legislation to protect
these people from discrimination in healthcare, employment, and public services, but the federal government has not.

The term “transsexual” refers to a person, male or female, with a strong desire to become a member of the opposite
gender, one who often desires or resorts to sex reassignment surgery and other means of gender transition. A
transsexual is, by definition, transgendered, but not all transgendered people are transsexuals.

The term “transvestite” refers to persons of one gender who dress as persons of the other. The term “cross-dresser” is
now more widely used. Although cross-dressing can occur in either gender direction, most cross-dressers are biologically
male. They may be heterosexual or homosexual. They enjoy dressing as women for erotic, aesthetic, emotional or other
reasons. Occasional cross-dressers are not truly transgendered, although they may identify with the issues of the
transgendered community. In the world of entertainment, “drag queens” and “drag kings” are performers who specialize in
mimicking the appearance of their opposite genders, sometimes with great precision, often as broad caricatures.
The term “she-male” generally refers to a male who works in the sex trade, who has undergone hormone therapy, breast
augmentation or other procedures, who may appear in all outward respects female, but who retains male sexual organs.
An entire subculture of pornography and theatrical performance revolves around these she-males. The term “tranny,”
which is usually pejorative, is more general but does tend to connote a subculture devoted to female impersonation.
Transgendered people who live lives that are less oriented toward sex and exhibitionism understandably distance
themselves from these lifestyles, and resent being linked with them.

New Age
The “New Age” lifestyle (or movement) grew during the second half of the 20th century to focus on spiritual awareness.
The term “new age” encompasses a broad range of activities, practices and views, in general not dependant on traditional
religious practices or dogma. The term is one of convenience in general conversation and the media. New age has a
strong association with the American notion of self-help and personal improvement. It borrows aspects of both eastern
and western mysticism, encompassing Hindu and Buddhist meditation, and the many American variations that have
arisen. An important part of new age revolves around the field of psychology, and its many schools and varieties. Holistic
health and non-traditional medicine also fit in under the new age umbrella. New age people are often interested in health
disciplines like yoga, Tai-Chi, Reiki, and vegetarianism. One of the best serious descriptors of new age is the focus on the
interrelation of mind, body, and spirit as one indivisible whole.

A holistic health newspaper in one American city publishes advertisements for practitioners that give a good cross section
of some new age pursuits and concerns: “Advanced Healing,” “Alternative Wellness,” “Angelic Guidance,” “Ascended
Masters Meditation,” “Channeling,” “Emotional and Spiritual Wellbeing,” “Energy Psychology,” “Integrative Medicine,”
“Past Life Revelations,” “Shamanic Self-Mastery,” to name but a few.

Beyond the mind, body, spirit connection, a certain new age element also exists that focuses on reincarnation and past
lives, auras, channeling, speaking with the dead, UFO's (unidentified flying objects), astrology, tarot cards, palm reading,
numerology or any of an assortment of belief systems.

Artists
The United States has a fine tradition in many aspects of the arts. Despite this, creative artists have always worked
outside the American mainstream. The federal government and state and local governments do promote the arts to an
extent, but less so than in many other western countries. When governmental budgets need to be cut, the arts often suffer
first. Faced with a free, unsubsidized market for their services, artists with real talent have to struggle to make a living.
Lifestyle compromises artists make include teaching art, working as commercial rather than fine artists, or working in
unrelated professions.

Large arts-oriented cities like New York and Los Angeles are a case in point. They attract many young people with
aspirations in the theater, films, dance, music, or the visual arts. Of course, many of these people, although they may be
reluctant to admit it, have no talent. For those that do have talent, the competition for attention is fierce. Artists who
succeed are usually the same types of competitive people who would do well in the professions or in business. Even
among this group, however, the art-buying public has the final word. Outside the large cities, tastes in art are not
particularly sophisticated. When artists do succeed in generating broad popular appeal for their work, say in the case of
painters, they are commonly not among the avant-garde. The enormous success of the American painter Thomas
Kinkade, who specializes in broadly realistic themes, is just one clear example.

Ultimately, the position of creative artist does not enjoy a very high rank in the American social structure. Unless they are
artists themselves, American parents do not commonly dream of their children becoming painters or ballerinas. Americans
born with talent will continue to express themselves nevertheless, despite the long odds.

The Disabled
In the United States, people with disabilities enjoy a wide range of legal protections at federal, state and local levels.
These disabilities may be physical, but are sometimes intellectual or sensory. The well-organized disability rights
movement in the United States sprang out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The movement has had a
considerable level of success in changing American attitudes towards people formerly called “handicapped.” Today,
discrimination based on disability sits at the same level as discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated that all organizations receiving federal funding provide a range of accessibility
programs and services for disabled people. A more far-reaching law is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.
Under this law, state and local governments, labor unions, and most employers may not discriminate against people with
disabilities in hiring, firing, job training and compensation. These organizations must go to reasonable lengths to provide
physical access to disabled people, adding ramps next to steps, for example, or maintaining disabled-friendly restroom
facilities. Other organizations that must accommodate disabled people include schools, public transportation providers,
restaurants, hotels, retail stores and many others. The modifications must be “readily achievable,” meaning reasonable in
cost for the organization, a standard that often leads to legal wrangling. A small neighborhood restaurant may need to put
a “handicapped parking” space directly in front if its entrance and nothing more, while a large chain restaurant may be
forced to install special access ramps.

Many businesses and organizations take great care to accommodate the disabled with special parking spaces,
convenient ramps in public buildings, kneeling busses and other devices. Newer buildings have signs and elevator
buttons in Braille for blind people. They may even have talking elevators. Some communities have talking or beeping
pedestrian crossing signals for the blind.

While politically, the disabled, and the non-disabled people who support them, act as a cohesive unit, people with specific
disabilities do tend to identify with others who share their experience. All these groups have specific support groups and
specific organizations designed to help them. Good examples are the organizations that provide recorded books for the
blind, or those that subsidize physical therapy for stroke victims.

The Elderly
Please note that Life In The USA has an entire chapter filled with detail on Retirement and Aging.

As the so-called “Baby Boom” or “Boomer” population (Americans born between 1946 and 1964) begins to reach
retirement age, the elderly cohort of the population will continue to increase. As in most of the western world, the
population of the United States is getting older.

Elderly people (sometimes called, politely, “senior citizens,”) have a great deal of political power. They get out and vote,
and support political candidates who cater to their agendas. At the same time, America has a mobile, changeable, youth-
oriented culture that does not respect or accommodate age. The extended multi-generational family that exists in many
other countries is rare in the United States.

While the elderly as a group are fairly well off and tend to own property, for many among them, being older in the United
States presents a true financial challenge. The greatest issue is healthcare, but income security is not far behind. A
hidden issue is the innate prejudice among young Americans against the old, or, for that matter, the difficulty older
Americans have in accepting the ways of the young. In many other societies, the generation gap is not so palpable. Older
Americans may enjoy certain privileges, such as senior citizen discounts, but the young, who must pay more, probably
resent them. The nation’s social security system is in a state of perpetual crisis. As it becomes dramatically less self-
sustaining, more and more, the young will bear the burden of supporting the old. They are unlikely to like or accept this.

As a privileged generation, the Baby Boom tends to deny the effects of aging. Indeed, many Baby Boomers look younger
than their predecessors did at the same age, and lead more active lives. They “think young” and expect a great deal from
life even as they age. Not every one of them can be satisfied, however. Age is always a cultural and political issue in the
United States.

The Homeless
Estimates on the number of homeless people in the United States vary widely according to the organization doing the
estimating. They range from half a million to several million on any given night, including individual homeless people as
well as homeless families. Some homeless people are able to find occasional shelter and even employment, while others
live in a state of perpetual insecurity. Some profit from access to organizations and agencies designed to help them while
others, particularly those who are mentally ill, fail to get the help they so urgently need.

Homelessness has increased steadily in the United States since about 1980 and has become a major national issue. With
improvement and “gentrification” of inner-city neighborhoods, many homeless people are having a harder time finding
affordable housing. In rural areas also, homelessness is on the rise, and the proportion of homeless families is increasing.
Legislation on both the federal and local level has not been able to solve the problem. The great majority of efforts by
private organizations and the government have had little effect, although there are organizations like Habitat for Humanity
that have succeeded in helping homeless people one person at a time.

Homeless people do what they can to survive, sometimes peddling objects they find or frequently begging. Personal
security is a major problem for the homeless, as is basic personal hygiene, the ability to keep and store food, and access
to clean clothing. Discrimination also takes its toll, leaving the homeless less liable to avail themselves of public services,
or even have a reliable address to give to agencies that can help them. As homelessness becomes a true lifestyle, if
involuntary, the homeless find it increasingly difficult to find employment of even the simplest kind. Drugs, alcohol,
violence, and crime also take their toll.