Land, labour and group formation

Blacks and Indians in the United States

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Why did a comprehensive racial consciousness emerge early among African-Americans in the United States, but only relatively recently among Native Americans? An understanding of group formation must take into account the opportunity structures - not only economic and political but conceptual - that foster or discourage particular bases of collective identity and action. Critical to the Indian/Black comparison is the fact that Blacks were of interest to the larger society primarily for their labour, Indians primarily for their lands. This difference set in motion two distinct trajectories of group formation which, in turn, were shaped by particular political relationships and by the classifications made by dominant-group members. In the Black case labour-based relations broke down indigenous group boundaries and encouraged comprehensive racial consciousness. In the Indian case land-based relations sustained indigenous group boundaries and discouraged the rapid emergence of comprehensive group consciousness. Yet group formation is not entirely determined by such constraints. Within the limits of the opportunity structure, both Blacks and Indians asserted their own notions of who they were, demonstrating that group formation is a negotiated and contested process, conditioned but not wholly determined by circumstantial factors. Th.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)368-388
Number of pages21
JournalEthnic and Racial Studies
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1990
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

group formation
labor
consciousness
collective consciousness
collective identity
collective behavior
group membership
Group
economics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Anthropology
  • Cultural Studies

Cite this

Land, labour and group formation : Blacks and Indians in the United States. / Cornell, Stephen E.

In: Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1990, p. 368-388.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{945d0a9fdbae4099963d3382b1d27585,
title = "Land, labour and group formation: Blacks and Indians in the United States",
abstract = "Why did a comprehensive racial consciousness emerge early among African-Americans in the United States, but only relatively recently among Native Americans? An understanding of group formation must take into account the opportunity structures - not only economic and political but conceptual - that foster or discourage particular bases of collective identity and action. Critical to the Indian/Black comparison is the fact that Blacks were of interest to the larger society primarily for their labour, Indians primarily for their lands. This difference set in motion two distinct trajectories of group formation which, in turn, were shaped by particular political relationships and by the classifications made by dominant-group members. In the Black case labour-based relations broke down indigenous group boundaries and encouraged comprehensive racial consciousness. In the Indian case land-based relations sustained indigenous group boundaries and discouraged the rapid emergence of comprehensive group consciousness. Yet group formation is not entirely determined by such constraints. Within the limits of the opportunity structure, both Blacks and Indians asserted their own notions of who they were, demonstrating that group formation is a negotiated and contested process, conditioned but not wholly determined by circumstantial factors. Th.",
author = "Cornell, {Stephen E}",
year = "1990",
doi = "10.1080/01419870.1990.9993678",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "368--388",
journal = "Ethnic and Racial Studies",
issn = "0141-9870",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Land, labour and group formation

T2 - Blacks and Indians in the United States

AU - Cornell, Stephen E

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - Why did a comprehensive racial consciousness emerge early among African-Americans in the United States, but only relatively recently among Native Americans? An understanding of group formation must take into account the opportunity structures - not only economic and political but conceptual - that foster or discourage particular bases of collective identity and action. Critical to the Indian/Black comparison is the fact that Blacks were of interest to the larger society primarily for their labour, Indians primarily for their lands. This difference set in motion two distinct trajectories of group formation which, in turn, were shaped by particular political relationships and by the classifications made by dominant-group members. In the Black case labour-based relations broke down indigenous group boundaries and encouraged comprehensive racial consciousness. In the Indian case land-based relations sustained indigenous group boundaries and discouraged the rapid emergence of comprehensive group consciousness. Yet group formation is not entirely determined by such constraints. Within the limits of the opportunity structure, both Blacks and Indians asserted their own notions of who they were, demonstrating that group formation is a negotiated and contested process, conditioned but not wholly determined by circumstantial factors. Th.

AB - Why did a comprehensive racial consciousness emerge early among African-Americans in the United States, but only relatively recently among Native Americans? An understanding of group formation must take into account the opportunity structures - not only economic and political but conceptual - that foster or discourage particular bases of collective identity and action. Critical to the Indian/Black comparison is the fact that Blacks were of interest to the larger society primarily for their labour, Indians primarily for their lands. This difference set in motion two distinct trajectories of group formation which, in turn, were shaped by particular political relationships and by the classifications made by dominant-group members. In the Black case labour-based relations broke down indigenous group boundaries and encouraged comprehensive racial consciousness. In the Indian case land-based relations sustained indigenous group boundaries and discouraged the rapid emergence of comprehensive group consciousness. Yet group formation is not entirely determined by such constraints. Within the limits of the opportunity structure, both Blacks and Indians asserted their own notions of who they were, demonstrating that group formation is a negotiated and contested process, conditioned but not wholly determined by circumstantial factors. Th.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930557274&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930557274&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/01419870.1990.9993678

DO - 10.1080/01419870.1990.9993678

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 368

EP - 388

JO - Ethnic and Racial Studies

JF - Ethnic and Racial Studies

SN - 0141-9870

IS - 3

ER -