No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
Studies of southern and eastern European ethnic groups in the United States often become submerged in the ongoing argument of assimilation vs. cultural pluralism. As a result, underlying factors affecting the persistence or dissolution of a particular group are obscured or ignored. Social, historical, cultural, religious, political, and economic aspects of ethnic differences are useful targets of analysis. However, much of the research on ethnicity is devoted to documenting the loss or retention of specific cultural traits such as language, religion, or custom. Thus, two distinct though related problems emerge: 1) a tendency to “rate” ethnic groups in terms of degree of assimilation or cultural distinctiveness; and 2) a reliance on cultural indicators as the sole measure of ethnic persistence.
1. This approach is derived primarily from the works of Fredrik Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1969) and John Bennett, Northern Plainsmen: Adaptive Strategy and Agrarian Life (Chicago: Aldine Publ., 1969).Google Scholar
2. The concept “adaptive capacity” was introduced by Charles Wagley and Marvin Harris, in Minorities in the New World (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), p. 264. It is defined as “those elements of a minority's cultural heritage which provide it with a basis for competing more or less effectively with the dominant group, which afford protection against exploitation, which stimulate or retard its adaptation to the total social environment, and which facilitate or hinder its upward advance through the socio-economic hierarchy.”Google Scholar
3. The concept “opportunity structure” represents a distillation of ideas put forth by, among others: Ulf Hannerz, “Ethnicity and Opportunity in Urban America” in Urban Ethnicity ed. Abner Cohen (New York: Tavistock Publ., 1974); William Yancey et. al. “Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation,” American Sociological Review. 41, (1976), p. 391.Google Scholar
4. Milton Yinger, “Ethnicity in Complex Socities: Structural, Cultural and Characterological Factors,” The Uses of Controversy in Sociology, ed. Lewis Coser and William Larsen (New York: Free Press, 1976).Google Scholar
5. The phrase “silent but shared understanding” is quoted from Stanford Lyman and William Douglass, “Ethnicity: Strategies of Collective and Individual Impression Management,” Social Research. 40 (1973), p. 344.Google Scholar
6. Slava, or krsna slava, is an annual celebration by the Serbian household of its patron saint.Google Scholar
7. Joel Halpern and Barbara K. Halpern, A Serbian Village in Historical Perspective (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Publ., 1972) p. 123.Google Scholar
8. The following observations were made after a period of fifteen months of research on Serbs in the Milwaukee area. Data collection techniques included life histories, participant observation, the collection and utilization of documents and published materials, and a semi-structured interview of thirty-five Serbian households.Google Scholar
9. The case, known as Serbian Orthodox Diocese v Milivojevich, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1976), was argued before the United States Supreme Court on March 22, 1976. A decision was rendered on June 21, 1976 in favor of the “unity” faction, and became effective on July 20, 1979.Google Scholar
10. Djuro Vrga, Changes and Socio-Religious Conflict in an Ethnic Group: The Serbian Orthodox Church in America (San Francisco: R & E Associates, 1972).Google Scholar
11. Other ethnic groups settling in Milwaukee at this time included: Slovenians, Croatians, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Hungarians, Greeks, and Poles. The latter are currently Milwaukee's second largest group, second only to German-Americans, with an estimated 150,000 living in the area.Google Scholar
12. The Displaced Persons Act required individual or group sponsors to give assurances that they would provide housing and job assistance without displacing local citizens.Google Scholar
13. This quote was taken from a booklet published to commemmorate the dedication of St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 30-31, 1958.Google Scholar
14. Bertha Milkovich “What Today is a Mere Embryo …” Almanac American Serbian (Pittsburgh, Pa.: Serb National Federation, 1939).Google Scholar
15. Estimates of the Newcomer influx are difficult to make. Based upon current numbers and upon parish records, at least 1,000 families migrated to Milwaukee between 1950 and 1955.Google Scholar
16. Increased in-migration into the United States from Yugoslavia was made possible by the Act of October 3, 1965 (Public Law 89-236) which became effective in July, 1968. This new immigration law loosened previous immigration restrictions based upon nationality.Google Scholar
17. United States Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1969 Annual Report. (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
18. Charles Ward “The Serbian and Croatian Communities in Milwaukee” General Linguistics, 1:3 (1975).Google Scholar
19. Herbert Gans “Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America” Ethnic and Racial Studies. 22:1 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar