Structural Constraints and Lived Realities

Abstract

This study examines the racial and ethnic identity preferences of U.S.-born and foreign-born African Caribbeans, and the extent to which social contextual factors shape and alter these identities. Using qualitative and quantitative data, we address the following questions: Are African Caribbeans more likely to exhibit an ethnic identity, a racial identity, or both? What contextual factors (i.e., socioeconomic status, social distancing, discrimination, and region) affect the way African Caribbeans identify? The results indicate that foreign-born African Caribbeans are more likely to adopt an ethnic identity while U.S.-born African Caribbeans are more likely to identify racially. In addition, discrimination was a crucial factor in the identity preferences of African Caribbeans across both the qualitative and quantitative analyses. The results of the qualitative study showed that African Caribbeans were able to negotiate between their racial and ethnic identities which were inherently shaped by residing in the Midwest.

Keywords

African Caribbean identity National Survey of American Life in-depth interviews race and ethnicity

Although African Caribbean immigrants have had a long presence in the United States, since the passing of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act, the African Caribbean population has significantly increased in size. Currently, there are 6 million self-identified members of the Caribbean diaspora residing in the United States (McCabe, 2011). In addition, 1.7 million Caribbean-born Black immigrants represent just over half of all Black immigrants in the United States (Thomas, 2012).¹ In fact, the Caribbean-born population in the United States has increased by 17-fold over the past 50 years (McCabe, 2011).

The rapid growth of African Caribbean population presents an intriguing case for understanding the ways in which ethnicity complicates what it means to be Black in the United States. Several scholars have been intrigued with the African Caribbean population because of their potential to challenge racial hierarchies.² Scholars within this body of literature have either focused on African Caribbeans as the Black success story (Sowell, 1979), as an immigrant success story (Model, 2008), or have attempted to re-interpret this group’s success through the lens of racialized hierarchies in the United States (Bashi & McDaniel, 1997; Pierre, 2004).

Intricately tied to debates surrounding the socioeconomic success of African Caribbean immigrants is how they racially and ethnically define themselves. How African Caribbeans identify challenges the U.S. Black/White racial hierarchy, in which, Black ethnic diversity is typically overlooked (Omi & Winant, 1994). Despite pressure to racialize into the U.S. White/Black hierarchy, research suggests that West Indian immigrants possess a strong West Indian ethnic identity and make efforts to socially distance themselves from native Black Americans through negative stereotypes, prejudicial attitudes, and expressed feelings of superiority (Hintzen, 2001; Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999). Some scholars posit that identification largely determines the socioeconomic success of Caribbean immigrants, with racial identification being associated with downward mobility (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Waters, 1999). Others argue that Black immigrants do not have the option to choose their ethnic identity over a racial identity because the racial hierarchy in the United States categorizes them as Black (Bashi & McDaniel, 1997; Bonilla-Silva, 2004; Pierre, 2004). On the contrary, recent research shows that second-generation African Caribbean immigrants do not feel the need to choose between a racial or ethnic identity but are able to negotiate between both (Richards, 2014). In addition, African Caribbean identification in the United States is largely shaped by residing in a particular geographical location (Butterfield, 2004; Hintzen, 2001).

Overall, whether race or ethnicity is more salient for African Caribbeans is complicated. Using the National Survey of American Life (NSAL) and in-depth interviews, this study acquires a better understanding of how, and under what social conditions, African Caribbeans self-identify racially and/or ethnically. We contribute to the literature by offering an analysis that uses quantitative and qualitative approaches to explicate the complexities of identity among African Caribbeans. Furthermore, the qualitative interviews contribute to the findings of Richards (2014), Butterfield (2004), and Hintzen (2001) as the African Caribbean respondents in the in-depth interviews were able to negotiate between their racial and ethnic identities, which were inherently shaped by geographical location.

Background

Identity: Social Distancing, Discrimination, Socioeconomic Status (SES), and Generational Status

For African Caribbean immigrants, identities are shaped by different understandings of race in their country of origin, their social standing compared with African Americans, their SES, their experiences with discrimination, and generational status.³ Adjusting to the Black/White racial dichotomy in the United States may be difficult for West Indians (Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999). Vickerman (1999) found that respondents resisted being assigned an African American identity because it was constricting compared with the identity options available in their home countries. Furthermore, African Caribbeans also have different conceptions of their racial identity. West Indian immigrants might identify with being Black, but they do not attach the same meanings to their racial identities as African Americans (Benson, 2006; Rogers, 2001, 2006). For example, Rogers (2001) found that African Americans had a strong racial group identification and consciousness because of their experiences growing up in a racialized environment. African Caribbeans, however, shared racial group identification with African Americans but not a racial group consciousness. This was attributed to African Caribbeans’ different frame of reference, which is based on their ability to escape racism psychologically or physiologically by returning home.

African Caribbean identities are also shaped by their social standing vis-à-vis African Americans. Prior research has shown that White Americans’ negative stereotypes associated with Blacks encouraged West Indians to opt for a “West Indian” identity and adopt negative perceptions of African Americans (J. V. Jackson & Cothran, 2003; Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1991, 1999). Many African Caribbeans believed their cultural values and stronger work ethic produced greater economic success and higher educational attainment (Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999).

African Caribbean immigrants’ attempts to socially distance themselves from African Americans are also influenced by SES. Waters (1999) found that most West Indian immigrants identified as Black but distanced themselves from African Americans because they associated African Americans with downward mobility. Some respondents created an ethnic niche in a food service industry where their identity as West Indian enabled them to obtain jobs for themselves and family members. In this instance, West Indians maintained an ethnic identity over identifying with African Americans as a strategy for socioeconomic mobility.

Nonetheless, African Caribbeans’ identity and social standing relative to African Americans is also affected by their experiences (or lack thereof) with discrimination. Fear of racial discrimination has resulted in African Caribbean immigrants displaying an ethnic identity (Hall & Carter, 2006; Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999). Over time, West Indian immigrants discover that their ethnic identities cannot shield them from the realities of racial discrimination (Benson, 2006; Bobb & Clarke, 2001; Hall & Carter, 2006; Thornton, Taylor, & Chatters, 2013; Vickerman, 1999). African Caribbeans cannot completely extricate themselves from American society’s tendency to perceive them as Black, which leads them to distance themselves from African Americans in some social spheres but coalesce with them in others (Vickerman, 1999). Caribbean-born individuals might not see the benefits of losing their cultural distinctiveness to fully assimilate into the ranks of African Americans, yet they share concerns with African Americans regarding inequality (Fouron, 2003).

Not only is social distancing complicated by discrimination, but more recent scholarship has also found that social distancing between African Caribbeans and African Americans may not be as pervasive as previously thought. Thornton and colleagues (2013) showed that 84% of African Caribbeans report feeling “fairly” or “very” close to Blacks in the United States. In addition, those who reported higher levels of discrimination and higher educational attainment were more likely to report feeling close to Blacks in the United States. These findings point to a more nuanced depiction of social distancing.

Diverging from scholars who highlight identity options and social distancing (Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999), some researchers assert that identity is shaped by racial hierarchies, which hinder the ability for individuals racialized as Black to claim solely an ethnic identity. Bobb and Clarke (2001) critiqued studies that create a dichotomy of ethnic West Indian success and Black American failure, which reinforces an ethnic myth that perpetuates racism. Bonilla-Silva (2004) argued that all Black immigrants are racialized in a “collective Black” category with African Americans due to their phenotype and poorer socioeconomic outcomes compared with Whites. Furthermore, Greer (2013) revealed in her theory of the elevated Black minority that Black immigrants might attempt to elevate their status as superior to African American, but the modifier of Black never disappears; thus, they are still subjected to the same discrimination and inequities as African Americans. Thus, African Caribbeans’ racial and ethnic identities as well as their attempts to socially distance themselves from African Americans must be understood as a reflection of the broader social and economic reality of Black disadvantage within the United States.

Identities for second-generation West Indians are even more complicated. Unlike their parents, second-generation West Indians are less likely to have accents and are more likely to be perceived as African American (Waters, 1999). According to Waters (1999), identities were shaped by socioeconomic factors: Those who opted for an ethnic identity were middle class and believed in their parents’ values of hard work and education as a means for social mobility. Those who identified as African American were usually lower class and adopted similar “oppositional identities” as their African Americans peers, which resulted in their downward mobility. This assumption reinforces West Indian exceptionality, while pointing to African American underachievement.

Other scholars demonstrate that for second-generation African Caribbean immigrants, racial and ethnic identities are not mutually exclusive. Butterfield (2004) found that West Indian respondents in New York successfully navigated between their racial and ethnic identities. Similarly, Richards (2014) found that second-generation youth had created an all-encompassing West Indian identity that was based on Jamaican culture as a “cool commodity” while still cognizant of their racial identity as being Black. In sum, the literature points to the strong possibility that racial and ethnic identities among African Caribbeans are complex, and perhaps dependent on contextual factors such as region and locational racial or ethnic diversity, the topic to which we turn next.

The Salience of Region and Diversity

African Caribbean immigrant identity and attempts to socially distance are also intricately linked to the racial and ethnic composition of the receiving city and neighborhood. Studies on African Caribbean immigrants have been conducted in large urban areas like New York, Miami, San Francisco, and Toronto (Bashi, 2007; Bobb & Clarke, 2001; Butterfield, 2004; Hintzen, 2001; Jones, 2008; Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999). These areas have relatively large populations of African Caribbeans and are conducive to the development of ethnic enclaves. Residing in ethnic enclaves enable first-generation West Indians to maintain psychological and physical isolation from racist stereotypes, which makes it easier to maintain their ethnic identity (Bashi, 2007; Bobb & Clarke, 2001). Because of their loss of foreign markers, second-generation African Caribbeans are less protected from racism and more likely to interact and identify with African Americans (Bobb & Clarke, 2001).

The racial and ethnic composition of neighborhoods and schools affects identity among second-generation West Indians (Butterfield, 2004). In a study conducted in New York, those who lived in a predominately West Indian neighborhood were more likely to have an ethnic identity compared with those in more diverse neighborhoods (Butterfield, 2004). Also, second-generation African Caribbeans’ who attended colleges and universities that had a diverse student population were more likely to develop an identity around being second-generation immigrants with individuals from other ethnic and racial backgrounds. Individuals who attended predominately White colleges and universities were more likely to adopt a Black racial identity with other African Americans at that institution. Ultimately, identity for second-generation West Indians is fluid, with racial composition in social settings having a crucial impact.

Region and ethnic composition play a large role in shaping the identity of African Caribbeans. Residing in an area with a large African Caribbean population is conducive for creating ethnic neighborhoods that cater to African Caribbean immigrants. These neighborhoods also aid in shielding African Caribbean first-generation immigrants from racism and discrimination. Since region and ethnic composition play significant roles in shaping identities, it is essential that West Indian identities be explored outside of large metropolitan areas. The qualitative portion of this article addresses this issue by focusing on African Caribbeans in the Midwest.

A Mixed-Methods Approach: Using Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

To obtain a better understanding of identity for African Caribbean immigrants, this study employs quantitative and qualitative analyses, to draw on the strengths of each approach. The quantitative analysis assesses whether generational status, SES, social distance, and discrimination affect identity. The qualitative analysis demonstrates the complexity of identity for African Caribbeans by emphasizing the ways identities are fluid and contextual. Unlike previous studies conducted in large metropolitan areas (e.g., Rogers, 2001; Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999), our study demonstrates that residing in the Midwest can reshape how African Caribbeans understand their racial and ethnic identities. Although the sample size of the qualitative study is modest, the richness of their experiences advances research by focusing on African Caribbeans outside of New York City and Miami. Exploring both quantitative and qualitative methods is imperative to acquire a more comprehensive depiction of why African Caribbeans racially and ethnically identify, and what social and structural processes affect their decisions.

Research Questions

We ask, “Are African Caribbeans more likely to exhibit an ethnic identity, a racial identity, or both?” The quantitative results speak to the impact of nativity on identity options by distinguishing between U.S.-born and foreign-born African Caribbeans. The additional factors taken into account in the quantitative analysis include SES, social distancing, and discrimination. The qualitative study contributes a greater understanding of how residing in the Midwest can potentially affect the identity preferences of African Caribbeans.

Quantitative Study

Data and Method

Data are from the NSAL. The NSAL is the first national probability study of Blacks of immediate Caribbean descent (J. S. Jackson et al., 2004). The survey population includes African American, African Caribbean, and non-Hispanic White adults, age 18 and over residing in households in the coterminous United States. Here we use only the African Caribbean sample. According to the NSAL, African Caribbeans (also referred to as Caribbean Blacks by the principal investigators of the study) are persons who self-identify as Black and answered affirmatively to any of the following: (a) They were of West Indian or Caribbean descent, (b) they were born within a Caribbean-area country, or (c) they had parents or grandparents who were born in a Caribbean-area country. The data were collected between 2001 and 2003, and interviews lasted an average of 2.3 hours (for additional sampling design details, see Heeringa et al., 2004).

A total of 1,621 face-to-face interviews with African Caribbeans were completed. Individuals from the Spanish-speaking Caribbean (e.g., Cuba, Dominican Republic) were dropped from the sample (n = 183). We then conducted list wise deletion to eliminate individuals missing on any of the dependent and independent variables, and retained 89% of the sample (N = 1,277) which includes 351 U.S.-born⁴ and 926 foreign-born African Caribbeans.⁵

Dependent measure

For identity preference, respondents were asked the following open-ended question: “People use different words to refer to people whose original ancestors came from Africa. What word best describes what you like to be called?” We developed four categories of identity preference which include “Ethnic,” “Black,” “Black American,” and “Other.” Respondents were placed in the “Ethnic” category if they mentioned their specific Caribbean country or nationality (e.g., Jamaican, Trinidadian). “Black” includes respondents who reported “Black” as their identity preference. The Black American category includes those who reported “Black American,” “African American,” “Afro-American,” “Negro,” or “Colored.” Respondents who preferred to be called “American,” simply by their names given at birth, “human/person,” “Brother/Sister,” “Mixed,” or “Nigga,” were placed in the “Other” category.

Independent measures

We included three groups of independent measures: SES, social distancing, and discrimination. Three measures of SES are used: education, employment, and household income. Education includes three categories: less than high school, high school diploma/some college, and college graduate. Employment is dichotomous (employed = 1). Annual household income is assessed in US$10,000s, and top-coded at US$200,000.

Social distancing

For closeness to groups, respondents are asked, “How close do you feel in your ideas and feelings about things to Black people in this country?” Respondents were asked the same question as it pertained to Caribbean Blacks and Whites. The response categories range from 1 to 4 and include not close at all, not too close, fairly close, and very close. The common fate item asks the following: “Do you think what happens generally to Black people in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life? And will it affect you a lot, some, or not very much?” The response categories range from no (1) to a lot (4). For stereotypes, respondents were queried, “Many different words have been used to describe (Black people/Black Americans) in general. Some of these words describe good points and some of these words describe bad points. How true do you think each of these words is in describing most (Black people/Black Americans)? How true do you think it is, that most (Black people/Black Americans) are—intelligent, lazy, hardworking, give up easily, are proud of themselves, and are violent?” Response options were very true, somewhat true, a little true, and not true at all. The same battery of questions was asked about Caribbean Black people. A mean standardized scale for the six items was created, with lower values indicating more negative views. These scales have moderate internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α = .60 for stereotypes about Blacks, .66 for stereotypes about Caribbean Blacks).

Discrimination

To assess major discrimination, respondents were asked nine questions which included items such as whether they had been unfairly fired, prevented from moving into a neighborhood, or denied a bank loan. A count variable assesses the number of discriminatory experiences, with a range of 0 to 9. Everyday discrimination measures more routine and relatively minor experiences. It sums nine items that capture the frequency of the experiences in the day-to-day lives of respondents such as being treated with less courtesy than others and being called names or insulted (Cronbach’s α = .89). Response categories for each item range from never (1) to almost every day (6). Higher values indicate greater frequency of everyday discrimination. Both of these discrimination measures have been validated and utilized in past research (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997).

Controls

Region categories include South, Midwest, Northeast, and West. The majority of the sample is from the Northeast. Given the small number of individuals residing in the Midwest (n = 8) and West (n = 11), South, Midwest, and West were combined and are referred to collectively as “all other regions” in the quantitative analysis. We also include controls for gender and age. Length of U.S. residency and age at immigration are controlled in the analysis for the foreign-born group.

Analytic strategy

The quantitative analysis proceeds in the following steps: First, descriptive statistics for all the variables are presented. We conduct chi-square and t-tests to assess whether identity and the independent variables varies significantly by immigrant status. Second, we run regression analyses to assess which factors are associated with identity. Because the identity variable is categorical, we use multinomial logistic regression, a procedure that allows simultaneous analysis of determinants of the different categories of ethnic and racial identity. The ethnic identity category is the reference category. Odds ratios (also referred to as relative risk ratios) and standard errors are reported in Tables 2 and 3. All analyses were conducted with Stata 12 (Stata, 2011).

Results

Table 1 shows means and standard deviations for U.S.-born and foreign-born African Caribbeans. There are significant differences in identity preference between U.S.-born and foreign-born African Caribbeans: 82% of the U.S.-born and 51% of the foreign-born identify as either Black or Black American. A total of 41% of the foreign-born identify ethnically while only 11% of the U.S.-born identify as such.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Dependent and Independent Measures.

	U.S.-born African Caribbeans (n = 351)		Foreign-born African Caribbeans (n = 926)		Range
	M	SD	M	SD	Range
Dependent measure
Identity preference^a
Ethnic identity (ref.)	0.11	—	0.41	—	0-1
Black identity	0.34	—	0.38	—	0-1
Black American identity	0.48	—	0.13	—	0-1
Other	0.07	—	0.08	—	0-1
Independent measures
Socioeconomic status
Household income (in US$10,000’s)	4.55	3.51	4.18	3.43	0-20
Employment status (employed = 1)	0.72	—	0.75		0-1
Education
Less than high school^a (ref.)	0.13	—	0.19	—	0-1
High school/some college	0.60	—	0.56	—	0-1
College graduate	0.27	—	0.25	—	0-1
Social distancing
Closeness to Blacks^a	3.40	0.72	3.27	0.77	1-4
Closeness to Caribbean Blacks^a	3.38	0.72	3.50	0.68	1-4
Closeness to Whites	2.40	0.81	2.50	0.85	1-4
Common fate^a	2.67	1.17	2.23	1.16	1-4
Stereotypes about Blacks^a	0.05	0.57	−0.03	0.58	−2.41-.90
Stereotypes about Caribbeans	−0.01	0.63	<0.01	0.59	−2.08-.71
Discrimination
Major discrimination^a	1.77	1.71	1.09	1.40	0-8
Everyday discrimination^a	0.26	0.72	−0.08	0.67	−.94-3.27
Controls
Region
Northeast	0.71	—	0.68	—	0-1
All other regions (ref.)	0.29	—	0.32	—	0-1
Female	0.61	—	0.60	—	0-1
Age^a	35.17	14.43	42.63	15.01	18-88
Length of U.S. residency
Less than 5 years in United States (ref.)	—	—	0.11	—	0-1
5-10 years in United States	—	—	0.15	—	0-1
11-20 years in United States	—	—	0.33	—	0-1
20 or more years in United States	—	—	0.40	—	0-1
Age at immigration
Less than 12 years old (ref.)	—	—	0.18	—	0-1
13-17 years old	—	—	0.15	—	0-1
18-34 years old	—	—	0.50	—	0-1
35+ years old	—	—	0.17	—	0-1

Source. National Survey of American Life, 2001-2003.

Indicate that there are significant differences (p < .05) between U.S.-born and foreign-born African Caribbeans based on chi-square tests for categorical variables or t-tests for continuous variables.

Compared with the U.S.-born, foreign-born African Caribbeans are more likely to have less than a high school education. With regard to social distancing, the U.S.-born feel significantly closer to and are more likely to share a common fate with Blacks. The foreign-born feel significantly closer to Caribbean Blacks, and are more likely to hold negative stereotypes about Blacks. U.S.-born African Caribbeans report more major and everyday discrimination compared with the foreign-born. The majority of both groups reside in the northeast. On average, U.S.-born are younger than the foreign-born, and both samples over-represent women. The majority of the foreign-born has lived in the United States for over 11 years (73%) and immigrated as adults (67%).

Regression Results: Identity for U.S.-Born

Table 2 provides estimates for U.S.-born respondents. Statistically significant odds ratios that are greater than 1 indicate that respondents are more likely to adopt the non-ethnic (i.e., Black, Black American, or Other) identity. The factors associated with identity preferences for the U.S.-born include SES, perceived closeness to Caribbeans, and discrimination. SES factors have countervailing effects: Higher income respondents are more likely to opt for a Black identity, but having a college education (compared with having less than a high school education) is associated with preferring an ethnic identity over a Black identity.

Table 2.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Identity Preference, U.S.-Born African Caribbeans (n = 351).

	Ethnic identity vs. Black		Ethnic identity vs. Black American		Ethnic identity vs. Other
	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Socioeconomic status
Household income	1.17*	.09	1.10	.08	1.05	.11
Employment status	0.61	.31	0.82	.41	0.57	.38
High school^a	0.34	.24	0.92	.66	0.35	.31
College graduate	0.22^†	.18	0.52	.43	0.34	.36
Social distancing
Closeness to Blacks	1.46	.53	1.62	.57	1.21	.55
Closeness to Caribbean Blacks	0.56	.22	0.51^†	.19	0.40^†	.19
Closeness to Whites	0.78	.20	0.72	.18	0.84	.32
Common fate	1.19	.21	1.12	.19	1.25	.31
Stereotypes about Blacks	1.58	.66	1.33	.53	0.77	.43
Stereotypes about Caribbean Blacks	0.51	.23	0.56	.24	0.50	.28
Discrimination
Major discrimination	1.31	.21	1.22	.19	1.71**	.34
Everyday discrimination	0.42**	.14	0.58^†	.18	0.42^†	.19

Source. National Survey of American Life, 2001-2003.

Note. All models control for region, gender, and age.

The reference category for education is “less than high school.”

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

With regard to social distancing, only closeness to Caribbean Blacks predicted identity preference: The closer the U.S.-born group feels to Caribbean Blacks, the less likely they are to identify as Black American (OR = .51, p < .10) or Other (OR = .40, p < .10). Major discrimination increases the likelihood of opting for an “Other” identity (compared with an ethnic identity). However, an increase in everyday discrimination is associated with a lower likelihood of adopting a Black, Black American, or Other identity. In other words, individuals who report more frequent everyday discrimination are more likely to possess an ethnic identity as opposed to any other identity.

Regression Results: Identity for Foreign-Born

Estimates for the foreign-born are shown in Table 3. The factors associated with identity include stereotypes, discrimination, and region. Stereotyping operates in expected ways. More positive views about Caribbean Blacks are associated with an affinity for an ethnic identity. Similarly, the more positive views the foreign-born have about Blacks, the more likely they are to adopt a Black, Black American, or Other identity as opposed to an ethnic identity. For foreign-born African Caribbeans, greater frequency of everyday discrimination is associated with a higher likelihood of identifying as Black American or Other, as opposed to an ethnic identity.

Table 3.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Identity Preference, Foreign-Born African Caribbeans (n = 926).

	Ethnic identity vs. Black		Ethnic identity vs. Black American		Ethnic identity vs. Other
	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Socioeconomic status
Household income	1.03	.03	1.02	.04	1.05	.04
Employment status	1.15	.23	0.79	.21	1.20	.43
High school^a	1.19	.26	0.92	.28	0.86	.33
College graduate	1.11	.29	0.90	.33	1.14	.50
Social distancing
Closeness to Blacks	1.21	.15	1.00	.17	0.86	.17
Closeness to Caribbean Blacks	1.00	.13	1.21	.23	0.87	.18
Closeness to Whites	0.96	.09	1.04	.14	0.87	.14
Common fate	1.05	.07	1.01	.10	0.84	.10
Stereotypes about Blacks	1.80***	.29	1.57*	.36	2.85**	.88
Stereotypes about Caribbean Blacks	0.65**	.10	0.61*	.13	0.41**	.11
Discrimination
Major discrimination	0.91	.06	0.87	.08	1.00	.10
Everyday discrimination	1.13	.16	1.52*	.28	2.06**	.44

Source. National Survey of American Life, 2001-2003.

Note. All models control for region, gender, age, length of U.S. residency, and age at immigration.

The reference category for education is “less than high school.”

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In sum, across both groups, the factor that affects identity is everyday discrimination. For the foreign-born, however, stereotypes about Blacks and Caribbean Blacks exert a powerful influence on whether the foreign-born opt for an ethnic identity.

A limitation of the quantitative study was the lack of substantial respondents living outside of the South and Northeast. Only 11 respondents reside in the Midwest. Of those 11, 4 are foreign-born and 7 are U.S.-born. For the U.S.-born (n = 7), 4 identify as Black and 3 as Black American. For the foreign-born (n = 4), 2 identify ethnically, 1 identifies as Black, and 1 as Other. Given the lack of information about these respondents, we follow-up the quantitative results with in-depth interviews of respondents in the Midwest.

Qualitative Study

About 69% of Caribbean immigrants reside in Florida and New York (McCabe, 2011). However, the Midwest region is a new destination for some African Caribbeans. In Indiana, 5% of the foreign-born population is of Caribbean descent; in Illinois, 3% of the foreign-born are from the Caribbean (Acosta & de la Cruz, 2011). In-depth interviews were conducted with African Caribbeans residing in the Midwest in order to understand how region shapes identities.

Sample

The qualitative study included in-depth interviews conducted in 2010 in a town that will be referred to as “Midwest City” that houses a large university with a population of 40,000 undergraduate and graduate students. This university has a Black student population of 4% and a racially under-represented population of 13%. The town has 80,000 residents, with 86% racially identifying as White and 4% identifying as Black/African American (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

The sample originally consisted of African, African Caribbean, and African American participants (n = 12), but for the purpose of this study, we have excluded the responses of individuals not of Caribbean ancestry. The African Caribbean participants include three female students and one male student. Three were first-generation immigrants and one was second-generation. Respondents identified Trinidad/Tobago (n = 2), Grenada (n = 1), and Barbados (n = 1) as their ancestral origins. Their ages ranged from 20 to 45 years. Three were doctoral students, and one a college sophomore. One was a native of another Midwest City. All respondents’ families came to the United States for employment or educational opportunities. Participants were recruited via an email forwarded to campus departments and organizations with large populations of African, African American, or African Caribbean students. Respondents were also obtained through social networks and the snowball method. Interviews lasted from 1 to 3 hours.

Questions

Respondents were asked two sets of questions. The first set focused on racial and ethnic identities. Respondents were asked to identify themselves in terms of race and ethnicity, define their racial and ethnic identities, describe how membership into their racial and ethnic identities was determined, illustrate how traveling or moving outside one’s country of birth affected their identities, and explain their identities in their day-to-day lives. The second set of questions focused on racism and discrimination. Participants were queried about whether they experienced racism or discrimination due to their race or ethnicity, and if they believed racism or discrimination hindered their ability to succeed.

Results

Defining Racial and Ethnic Identities

All the first-generation African Caribbean respondents identified Black as their racial identity. The second-generation African Caribbean respondent saw her racial identity as African American. In terms of ethnicity, two respondents identified with their national identities as Trinidadian, one constructed her own ethnic identity as a “Caribbean, Brazilian American who practices Yoruba,” and the second-generation respondent identified as West Indian. Thus, in terms of racial identities, all the respondents either identified as Black or African American, while their ethnic identification was more flexible.

Participants were also asked to define their racial and ethnic identities. Most respondents saw their racial identities tied to phenotype. Others saw it as being linked to racial hierarchies in the United States. The first-generation Grenadian respondent saw her racial identity as something that is usually associated with negativity, while one first-generation Trinidadian male associated Blackness as being defined through Whiteness. Another first-generation Trinidadian female respondent saw her Black racial identity as something that made her susceptible to cultural stereotypes assigned to African Americans. People assumed that because she was Black that she was familiar with hip hop music. Thus, despite her ethnic identity, this respondent felt vulnerable to stereotypes as a Black individual.

Ethnic identities were seen by participants as reflective of their own cultural practices. For example, two Trinidadian respondents saw their Trinidadian ethnic identity as something that merged several races under the umbrella of cultural and national practices such as Carnival and Calypso. The second-generation Barbadian respondent’s ethnic identity was shaped by her parents’ cultural traditions taught to her at home.

Region, Peer Groups, and Racial/Ethnic Composition

Identities were fluid and contextual, based on the racial and ethnic composition of where the respondents were located, how people perceived them, and how they navigated other people’s perceptions of them. Respondents’ understandings of their identities were not static but evolved throughout their lives. The female Trinidadian respondent exemplifies this process as follows: She arrived in the United States when she was 12 years old and moved to a primarily White town in New Jersey. At a pivotal time in early adolescence, she adapted to a new culture and environment. This adjustment resulted in an erasure of any visible markers of her ethnic identity and an adoption of a racial identity. The adoption of a Black identity was shaped by college peers. When asked about her racial identity, she explained as follows:

Respondent:

“I am going use Black as a catchall word; put it this way I didn’t know what to consider myself when I first moved here. When I was younger, because I moved to an area that was predominately White, so there was some African American kids at this school, but I didn’t consider myself African American, I don’t really think I heard the term black until much later on. At that point I had no conception of . . . I just knew I was different. (First-generation Trinidadian female respondent, 26)

Interviewer:

Would you say that realization of your blackness was not until you were in college?

Respondent:

Yeah, I mean, I think sometimes in high school, my best friend, one of them was from Barbados, one of them was Trinidad, and I had one African American friend, so again I knew that I was different than the African American people, but at the same time, the perception from other people was that I was Black. I didn’t think about it much because I was surrounded by people who were from different places anyway. When I got to college is primarily when most of my friends were African Americans, um, not just African, none of them were actually from the Caribbean, um, so I identified in the same ways that they identified, just as black. (First-generation Trinidadian female respondent, 26)

Thus, adopting a Black identity was based on the racial and ethnic composition of her peer group and the city where she resided.

Another respondent’s racial and ethnic identity shifted when he came to the United States and people reacted to him as an “exotic tour guide.” When asked about how his identity changed since coming to the United States, he replied as follows:

By and large, I feel pretty comfortable even in [Midwest City], but there are several situations where I feel as if I am in the minority, and that does feel strange sometimes. Trinidad is different in that everyone assumes that you are from there. Here, you feel exotic, so you feel yourself constantly explaining, where Trinidad is, what people do there, why they do it; you feel like a tour guide a lot of the time. You kind of have to explain who you are and why you speak the way you do, so you feel like you are a constant tour guide, when you are in the US. At least this part of the US, if you are in Brooklyn, New York, it is very different because a lot of other people are also from the Caribbean so chances are they know more about you and you don’t have to keep explaining. (First-generation Trinidadian male respondent, 32)

Similar to the previous respondent, context shapes how he understands his identity. In a predominately White institution and town, where there is a lack of a Caribbean population, the respondent felt as if he was an “exotic tour guide,” walking Whites and African Americans through the cultural terrain of Trinidad. Transforming into an “exotic tour guide” made him feel more like a minority than he had in New York or Trinidad.

The second-generation Barbadian female respondent felt a sense of ethnic invisibility in Midwest City because she did not have an accent and it was not physically obvious that she was from Barbados. This could explain why the respondent was the only one to identify as African American. It is plausible that she identified this way because most people assumed that she was African American.

These responses indicate that African Caribbeans’ identities are complex, and peer groups and context determine how they negotiate these identities. In addition to these factors, social distancing coupled with discrimination experiences affected respondents’ identities. In fact, although all the respondents had experienced some form of racial discrimination, it was discrimination they experienced because of their ethnicity that they expressed more vividly.

Racial and Ethnic Discrimination and Social Distancing

All the respondents saw their fates linked to African Americans because of their shared racialization as Black. They also acknowledged that regardless of ethnicity, Whites in the United States still saw them as being Black and trying to separate ethnically was perceived as unproductive. This perception diverged from the respondents’ parents and people in their native country who encouraged them to socially distance themselves from African Americans because of negative perceptions of African Americans. Although most respondents admitted to experiencing racism, all respondents reported experiencing discrimination from African Americans because of their ethnic identity.

Most respondents reported discrimination because of their Black racial identities. Three respondents indicated experiencing racial discrimination ranging from being teased at school, being racially profiled and perceived as dangerous, to being unfairly treated in work settings. Unlike earlier studies, where participants thought that by asserting an ethnic identity they could potentially escape from racial discrimination (Waters, 1999), one respondent thought she was still susceptible to discrimination like any African American. A first-generation Trinidadian female illustrates this point when she justified her racial identity as Black:

I consider myself Black because if a White person sees me, that is what they see. They don’t know where I am from and what my culture is, and in some ways that is all that matters . . . it is not all that matters but it has a very big influence. So, some people make the point that no matter where you think you are from or who you think you are, you look like (a Black person) . . . and so you will be treated just as unequally as somebody who is African American. (First-generation Trinidadian female respondent, 26)

In addition to racial discrimination, all respondents reported feeling discriminated against because of their ethnic identity. One Trinidadian female explained that she felt excluded from the Black/African American community because she was not familiar with Black American history, or African American contemporary culture. The second-generation Barbadian respondent was teased by friends because of her mother’s accent, the way her mother dressed and her mother’s “African” hairstyle. Even though this individual could “pass” as African American, she still felt the brunt of ethnic discrimination.

Two participants also claimed that ethnic discrimination inhibited their employment opportunities. The Trinidadian male was denied a job as a research assistant because the head of the research project, who happened to be African American, thought that his accent would confuse the participants in the study. Although he shared the same racial identity as the head researcher, his accent limited his ability to obtain a job. A different West Indian female also revealed that her identity as a Yoruba priest and healer was disparaged by the African American community because it was not affiliated with Christianity. Although her healing work was geared toward African Americans, White patrons were more willing to work with her. In all, ethnic differences between African Caribbeans and African Americans are not just limited to differences in cultural background. For African Caribbeans, being of a different ethnic background can limit work opportunities as well. These results indicate that African Americans play a role in discriminating against African Caribbeans. This stands in contrast to studies conducted in New York which have shown that West Indians place an emphasis on differentiating themselves from African Americans (Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999).

Nonetheless, social distancing was still prevalent among African Caribbeans; two respondents disclosed that their parents and their ethnic communities had negative views of African Americans, and they were encouraged to distance themselves from African Americans. A Trinidadian male noted that people in Trinidad had very bad perceptions of African Americans. Prior to coming to the United States for college, he was told by his extended family, neighbors, and teachers that he should stay away from African Americans. The negative perceptions he obtained from people in Trinidad initially hindered his interactions with African Americans. However, when he started befriending African Americans, he soon discovered that many of the stereotypes were not valid. Another first-generation Trinidadian female discussed her mother’s tendency to make blanket statements about African American women being divisive and argumentative. Similar to the Trinidadian male, she did not adopt her mother’s view. Ultimately, the respondents reinforced Vickerman’s (1999) finding that longer duration of time in the United States results in less social distancing among African Caribbean immigrants and African Americans.

In essence, the fascination with social distancing among Black immigrants and African Americans assumes an innate racial unity that ignores the very rich cultural diversity among the Black population in the United States. Our findings allude to the relational complexities between African Caribbeans and African Americans. Individuals of African descent share similar racial identities and experiences with racism and discrimination, but their cultures are different. Experiences with slavery and colonization have cultivated a sense of racial unity among Blacks globally; yet, this assumed racial unity often masks cultural differences rooted in divergent socio-historical experiences. Thus, the differentiating evident among African Americans and African Caribbeans in our study could be a very strong reflection of their diverse experiences.

Discussion and Conclusion

Using survey data and in-depth interviews, this study explored the nuances of ethnic and racial identity among African Caribbeans. We find that racial and ethnic identities for African Caribbeans are inherently complex. The strength of this study was its inclusion of quantitative and qualitative approaches.⁶ Although national survey data are useful for generalizability, the qualitative interviews captured how individuals understood their identities. As such, there was both consistency and inconsistency in our results compared with prior research. First, the quantitative analysis revealed that U.S.-born African Caribbeans were most likely to identify racially, while foreign-born African Caribbeans were most likely to identify ethnically. The fact that some U.S.-born African Caribbean immigrants identified as African American could reflect their tendency to see the term “African American” as a racial identity (e.g., the U.S. Census uses the terms “African American” and “Black” synonymously). This finding aligns with prior research that suggests that as immigrant groups become socialized in the United States, they gravitate toward a more “Americanized” racial identification (Bashi & McDaniel, 1997; Benson, 2006; Waters, 1999).

Second, SES was associated with the identity preferences of U.S.-born African Caribbeans. Higher income individuals were more likely to identify as Black as opposed to ethnic. Higher income individuals are more likely to work in higher prestige occupations and in workplace settings that are majority White. As a result, higher income African Caribbeans might be more likely to identify racially (i.e., Black) due to their visible status as members of a racially under-represented group, similar to a finding articulated in research on Black elites in the workplace (Jackson, Thoits, & Taylor, 1995). College graduates were more likely to identify ethnically (in comparison with Black). As African Caribbean young adults enter college settings, they are more likely to encounter the presence of Caribbean organizations on college campuses (Butterfield, 2004). The non-significance of SES for foreign-born African Caribbeans suggests that their identities are less affected by SES due to their status as immigrants. Because foreign-born individuals were born in the Caribbean and many migrated as adults, their ethnic identities are firmly established and might be less likely to be affected by their socioeconomic circumstances.

Third, with regard to the impact of social distancing, for U.S.-born African Caribbeans, feeling close to other African Caribbeans produced an affinity for an ethnic identity. For foreign-born African Caribbeans, strong negative stereotypes about Blacks were associated with a greater likelihood of identifying ethnically. Negative stereotypes about African Caribbeans were associated with a lower likelihood of identifying ethnically. These findings yield support for the importance of social distancing as an important conduit through which identity preference emerges, with feelings of closeness being important for U.S.-born groups and stereotypes playing a crucial role for the foreign-born group.

In the qualitative findings, residing in a predominantly White location in the Midwest contributed to feeling a sense of linked fate with other African Americans. Furthermore, being in a college setting where students are working toward a common goal, a college degree, could have contributed to respondents perceiving a linked fate with and less of a tendency to socially distance themselves from African Americans. Unlike previous studies (Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999), respondents were able to successfully navigate both racial and ethnic identities. Similar to Butterfield (2004) and Richards (2014), the African Caribbean respondents neither saw their racial and ethnic identities as being mutually exclusive nor did they see identifying solely in terms of ethnicity and distancing themselves from African Americans as viable options.

Fourth, discrimination affected identity but was dependent on which type of discrimination (everyday vs. major) and immigrant status. Quantitative results reveal that among U.S.-born African Caribbeans, major discrimination increased the likelihood of identifying as “Other” as opposed to ethnic. Perhaps such serious discriminatory experiences left such a major imprint on these individuals that they may choose to develop a different identity altogether that neither emphasizes ethnic nor racial background. Everyday discrimination, however, led U.S.-born African Caribbeans to embrace their ethnic identities more so than any of the other identity options. Perhaps these respondents sensed that maintaining ties to their ethnic identities and communities might shield them from the day-to-day hassles of unfair treatment. For foreign-born African Caribbeans, a different picture emerges. Major discrimination had no effect on identification, but everyday discrimination was associated with a greater likelihood of identifying as Black or Other compared with ethnic. On initial arrival, prior research indicates that African Caribbean immigrants are likely to identify ethnically (Waters, 1999). However, over time, as this particular group experiences the day-to-day unfair treatment inflicted on them, they may opt to either embrace their “Blackness” or some other form of identification that is free of racial and ethnic specification. These findings should be further explored in future work because they indicate that not only does the effect of discrimination differ across generational groups, but discrimination type also has differential effects.

A limitation of the quantitative portion of the study was lack of information regarding the “sources” or perpetrators of unfair treatment, which would have enabled us to ascertain whether African Caribbeans were reporting discrimination from other Blacks, Whites, or other groups. The in-depth interview respondents indicated experiencing discrimination because of their race and ethnicity and from Whites as well as Blacks. Their experiences ranged from everyday discrimination like being teased at school to more serious forms of discrimination like being racially profiled and unfair treatment at work. Racial discrimination contributed to respondents embracing a Black racial identity with other African Americans. Despite seeing themselves linked to African Americans through context (residing in the Midwest and attending college) and racial discrimination, African Caribbeans reported ethnic discrimination from African Americans and also indicated being told by their parents and/or community to distance themselves from African Americans. This finding is interesting given that prior researchers (Hintzen, 2001; Vickerman, 1999; Waters, 1999) only emphasize social distancing on the part of African Caribbeans. However, one recent study revealed that African Americans participate in social distancing as well: Nunnally (2010) showed that while most African Americans feel linked to the experiences of Blacks in the United States overall, they simultaneously feel less linked to Caribbean and African people in the United States context. Future studies should examine the ways in which both African Americans and African Caribbeans differentiate and exclude each other. They should also explore what factors contribute to social inclusion and collaboration.

In sum, as the United States becomes increasingly more diverse, ethnically and racially, it is essential to examine how this demographic change challenges the Black/White hierarchy. A persistent legacy from this hierarchy is the belief that the Black population is monolithic and devoid of differences in culture, religion, or politics. Our study challenges this notion, by highlighting the identity preference of a growing segment of the Black population in the United States. Identity for African Caribbeans is a complex process that entails both structural constraints and lived realities. As the current study demonstrates, identities are fluid, contextual, and constantly being negotiated and re-negotiated. While our study demonstrates the identity preferences of African Caribbeans using a nationally representative sample and within a collegiate setting in the Midwest, future work should explore the identity preferences of African Caribbeans who have resided in the Midwest for a prolonged period of time. Exploring both permanent as well as transient African Caribbean residents will highlight the complexities of African Caribbean identity. Furthermore, research on racial and ethnic identities among individuals of the African diaspora can be advanced by examining how residing in regions outside of traditionally studied metropolitan areas affects the choices individuals make with regard to how they identify, and the groups with which they align themselves. More studies on regional context will also reveal nuances regarding how racialization operates differently (or similarly) across different regions of the United States. Ultimately, this study is an attempt to acquire a better understanding of and contribute to a broader discussion regarding constructions of race and what it means to be Black in the 21st century.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful for helpful feedback on this article from Jennifer Lee and Dana Prewitt.

Authors’ Note

This article received a 2013 Graduate Student Paper Award from the Association of Black Sociologists. The authors contributed equally to the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The second author acknowledges the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholars program for its financial support.

Notes

Author Biographies

Caralee Jones is a PhD candidate in the Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies at Indiana University. Her research interest examines race, ethnicity, and immigration with a specific focus on the interpersonal relationships among West Indians, Africans, and African Americans in the United States.

Christy L. Erving is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholar at University of Wisconsin−Madison. She received her PhD in sociology from Indiana University. Her research spans the areas of racial and ethnic disparities in physical and psychological well-being, as well as racial and ethnic identity among racial minorities.

References

Acosta

Y. D.

de la Cruz

G. P.

(2011). The foreign born from Latin America and the Caribbean: 2010, American Community Survey Briefs. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Bashi

(2007). Survival of the Knitted: Immigrant social networks in a stratified world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bashi

McDaniel

A. C.

(1997). A theory of immigration and racial stratification. Journal of Black Studies, 27, 668-682.

Benson

J. E.

(2006). Exploring the racial identities of black immigrants in the United States. Sociological Forum, 21, 219-247.

Bobb

V. F. B.

Clarke

A. Y.

(2001). Experiencing success: Structuring the perception of opportunities for West Indians. In Foner

(Ed.), Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York (pp. 216-236). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bonilla-Silva

(2004). From bi-racial to tri-racial: Towards a new system of racial stratification in the USA. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27, 931-950.

Butterfield

S. P.

(2004). Challenging American conceptions of race and ethnicity: Second generation West Indian immigrants. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24, 75-102.

Fouron

(2003). Haitian immigrants in the United States: The imagining of where “home” is in their transnational social fields. In Yeoh

Charney

Kiong

(Eds.), Approaching transnationalism: Studies on transnational societies, multicultural contacts, and imaginings of home (pp. 205-250). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academics.

Greer

C. M.

(2013). Black ethnics: Race, immigration, and the pursuit of the American dream. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

10.

Hall

S. P.

Carter

R. T.

(2006). The relationship between racial identity, ethnic identity, and perceptions of racial discrimination in an Afro-Caribbean descent sample. Journal of Black Psychology, 32, 155-175.

11.

Heeringa

S. G.

Wagner

Torres

Duan

Adams

Berglund

(2004). Sample designs and sampling methods for the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Studies (CPES). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 221-240.

12.

Hintzen

P. C.

(2001). West Indian in the West: Self-representations in an immigrant community. New York: New York University Press.

13.

Jackson

J. S.

Torres

Caldwell

C. H.

Neighbors

H. W.

Nesse

R. M.

Taylor

R. J.

. . .Williams

D. R.

(2004). The National Survey of American Life: A study of racial, ethnic, and cultural influences on mental disorders and mental health. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 196-207.

14.

Jackson

J. V.

Cothran

M. E.

(2003). Black versus Black: The relationships among African, African-American, and African Caribbean persons. Journal of Black Studies, 33, 576-604.

15.

Jackson

P. B.

Thoits

P. A.

Taylor

H. F.

(1995). Composition of the workplace and psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America’s Black elite. Social Forces, 74, 543-557.

16.

Jones

T. A.

(2008). Jamaican immigrants in the United States and Canada: Race, transnationalism, and social capital. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly.

17.

McCabe

(2011). Caribbean immigrants in the United States. Migration Information Source. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=834

18.

Model

(2008). West Indian immigrants: A black success story? New York, NY: Russell Sage.

19.

Nunnally

S. C.

(2010). Linking blackness or Ethnic othering? African Americans’ diasporic linked fate with West Indian and African peoples in the United States. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 7, 335-355.

20.

Omi

Winant

H. A.

(1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Pierre

(2004). Black immigrants in the United States and the “cultural narratives” of ethnicity. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 11, 141-170.

22.

Portes

Zhou

(1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 74-96.

23.

Richards

B. N.

(2014). Ethnic identity on display: West Indian youth and the creation of ethnic boundaries in high school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37, 978-997.

24.

Rogers

(2001). Black like who? Afro-Caribbean immigrants, African-Americans, and the politics of group identity. In Foner

(Ed.), Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York (pp. 163-192). Berkeley: University of California Press.

25.

Rogers

(2006). Afro-Caribbean immigrants and the politics of incorporation: Ethnicity, exception, or exit. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Sowell

(1979). Ethnicity: Three Black histories. The Wilson Quarterly, 3(1), 96-106.

27.

Stata. (2011). Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Author.

28.

Thomas

K. J. A.

(2012). A demographic profile of Black Caribbean immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute.

29.

Thornton

M. C.

Taylor

R. J.

Chatters

L. M.

(2013). African American and Black Caribbean mutual feelings of closeness: Findings from a National Probability Survey. Journal of Black Studies, 44, 798-828.

30.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010—2010 demographic profile data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

31.

Vickerman

(1999). Crosscurrents: West Indian immigrants and race. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32.

Waters

M. C.

(1991). The role of lineage in identity formation among Black Americans. Qualitative Sociology, 14(1), 57-76.

33.

Waters

M. C.

(1999). Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

34.

Williams

D. R.

Jackson

J. S.

Anderson

N. B.

(1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 335-351.