In order to discuss the mechanisms through which involuntary minorities are socially, economically and politically excluded primarily I am going to define the meaning of the term ‘involuntary minority’. Following this, a brief identification of the main direct and indirect mechanisms clarifies the direction of the discussion. To examine the mechanisms used I have selected three examples of involuntary minorities to focus on; Palestinians in Israel, black Americans in the U.S. and refugees/asylum seekers in Britain.
In order to decipher whether or not the effects of war are gendered it is of foremost importance to consider what is meant by the term ‘gender’. Therefore, primarily, I will briefly define this term followed by a consideration of what one means by ‘war’. Here I discuss feminist theories regarding war with particular reference to the work of Kelly. Furthermore, I will then move on to look at the effects of war with an analysis of the effects during war, the effects during the peace-making process and, finally, the post-war impacts. Each of the aforementioned will be discussed in turn, drawing on specific examples to highlight my arguments further. Ultimately, I conclude with the argument that the effects of war are often gendered, especially when one considers war from a feminist perspective.
The main body of the essay focuses on Palestinians in Israel since 1948 as a key example of an indigenous involuntary minority. I take a historical approach here so as to render the utilization of exclusionary mechanisms over a long time period. Black Americans who were brought to the U.S. as slaves (Ogbu, 1998:166) and refugees/asylum seekers in Britain are then drawn upon in turn as examples to depict the mechanisms through which migrant involuntary minorities are socially, politically and economically excluded. The focal point of the latter part of the essay will be based on the media as a key modern mechanism of exclusion, particularly for migrant involuntary minorities, concluding with the argument that the growth and force of the media will only strengthen the exclusion of involuntary minorities, meanwhile enforcing the effects of the other mechanisms discussed.
This article applies and discusses a historical institutionalist approach and a contextual approach to domestic receptiveness in Estonia and Romania on minority issues to leverage applied by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the European Union. It concludes that in this case a historical institutionalist approach provides a better explanation of receptiveness and offers more predictive power. The historical dimension of the country and its minority issues is better discussed by this structural approach.
Through a comparison of oil governance in Nigeria and Canada as it relates to the two marginalized communities within these oil-wealthy countries: the Ogoni, of Rivers State in the Niger Delta and the Lubicon Cree of Northern Alberta, the main thesis of this paper argues that even in countries as different as Nigeria and Canada, once they have been stripped of factors that are external to oil production and focusing only on the most vulnerable peoples and regions, oil governance conflicts with marginalized communities through a structural violence unconvincingly justified by an economic benefit for the greater public good. In making this comparison the examination of oil governance necessarily includes three parties as identified by discourse theorists Abiodun Alao & ’Funmi Olonisakin (2000) and James Fearon (2005): the governments, the communities and the industry.
The paper will proceed in four parts. First it, will briefly explore the general situation of Mexico’s Indigenous peoples. This will be followed by a discussion of the effects of NAFTA on the agricultural sector, paying close attention to the case of corn as it relates to the plight of Indigenous peoples. Third, it will explore the connections between the degradation of the agricultural sector, migration and Indigenous communities. Finally, it will conclude with a brief examination of the major resistance movement that opposes NAFTA in the name of Mexico’s Indigenous peoples, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) of Chiapas, and look at the human rights abuses that have occurred in connection with this uprising.
As this paper will argue, despite revamping of programs, creation of institutions and rebranding Mexico as a “pluricultural” and “multilingual,” (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2006—herein cited as CDI, 2006) [5]the Fox government has failed to improve the lives of the country’s first peoples. At best the new policies, inspired by neo-liberal views of development, encourage continued cycles of dependency. While in the worst cases, they function directly in conflict of the Accords.
In his essay, “Understanding a Primitive Society” Peter Winch claims that cultures are enclosed in language games which are both mutually unintelligible and equally valid. In doing so he is trying to prevent anthropologists from concluding that a culture is ‘wrong’ about reality (i.e. their belief system and how that informs their daily life) (Winch 79). Winch sees such judgement as an open door to cultural imperialism; if a culture is wrong than it stands to be corrected by the culture which judges it as such. He has every reason for such a noble pursuit. Writing in the time of African decolonization, he had born witness to the colonialists’ domination of innumerable cultures. Justified out of a ‘need’ to civilize the inferior savages and support the superior Europeans (through slaves and natural resources) this unequal cultural relationship allowed for utter destruction on the continent.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, Chapter 11 of the treaty was included to protect investors from state appropriation or ‘taking’ and, in theory, requires that the same treatment be given to foreign companies as domestic companies. In American law, the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights prevents the government from seizing private assets without due compensation. A ‘taking’, also referred to as eminent domain in Californian law, is a legal principle that governs how and why the federal, state, or local government can ‘take’ private property.
In “Theorizing European Integration: The Case for a Transnational Critical Approach,” Apeldoorn, Overbeek, and Ryner argue that orthodox approaches to European regional integration, such as realism, liberalism, constructivism, and traditional Marxism, overlook the diffused power of elite consensus. They believe Neo-Gramscian approaches can reveal the agency of elite interests, and their formation of a neo-liberal hegemonic bloc supporting integration schemes. Stephen Gill has applied this perspective to explain regional integration schemes with the theoretical framework of New Constitutionalism. Yet other Neo-Gramscians contend that New Constitutionalism is pessimistically determinist, focusing solely on the agency of a liberal elite while overlooking the agency displayed by progressive social forces in formulating regional integration policy.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
