SO 001 787 Social Distance and Race Attitudes: Astudy of the White Population of Princeton, Maine and the Indian Population of I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 054 994 SO 001 787 AUTHOR Little, Craig B. TITLE Social Distance and Race Attitudes: AStudy of the White Population of Princeton, Maineand the Indian Population of Indian Township, Maine. INSTITUTION New Hampshire Univ., Durham. PUB DATE Feb 70 NOTE 183p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 *American Indians; Behavioral ScienceResearch; DESCRIPTORS . *Caucasians; Conceptual Schemes; Cultural Factors; Intergroup Relations; Masters Theses;*Race Relations; *Racial Attitudes; SocialAttitudes; Social Isolation; *Social Relations;Socioeconomic Influences IDENTIFIERS Maine, French Canadians; Parks (Robert E.) ABSTRACT The essentially descriptive study ofthese two racially and culturally distinctpopulations started with Robert E. Park's conception of social distance asthe degree of understanding and intimacy which characterizespersonal and social relations. The social distance phenomenon was brokendown into three levels of analysis: perceived socio-economic status,attitudes of perference for association, and :frequency and intimacyof interaction between members of groups. Based on historicalbackground and contemporary intergroup relations theory, six hypotheses werepresented to be tested. Two probability samples oftwenty-five respondents each were selected. Similar interviews employing bothattitude measurement techniques based on the conceptualizationof social distance and questions requiring more qualitative responses wereadministered. Participant observations were also compiled.Although statistical associations were somewhat low, the resultsgenerally indicated that among the whites sampled racialcharacteristics (vi'hie physical differences) were the most salient cues to -ance attitudes expressed. Frequency and intimacy of contact e utosc highly associated with Indian social distanceattitudes. These findings led to a discussion of culturil andsocio-economic factors which differentiate the*white and Indian populationsstudied. The c-Inclusion was that relations between whitesand Indians are stalemated at a stage of accommodation in termsof Park's race relations cycle.(Author) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE CTN. OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRO- Cr DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIG- INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN- IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY LC\ REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU- CATION POSITION OR POLICY. C=1 LLi SOCTia, DI:STANCE, AND 1-tACI.." ATTITUDBS: A STUDY OF THE WT:1ITEPOPULAION OF PRINCETON, MAINL /1/7:D THE INDIAN POPULATION OF INDIAN TOWNSHIP, MAINE by CRAIG B. LITT'.;5.,Z. B. A., Colby Colleeze, 1966 A THrsys. Submitted to the University of New'Llapallize InPartial Fulfillment of The Requirements fortheDegree0C NaSter of Ar:its Gradua-Z7e Sciccol Department o f Sociology Februarv,11970 This thesis has been examined and approved. Thesis Director, Frederick Saouels, Asst. Prof. of Sociology Stuart Palmer, Professor of Sociology- _ Richard Downs, Associate Prof. of Anthropolovy 6 9 Date 2 ACKNOWLEDGBMENTS Partial financial support for thisresearch project was providedby the Universii-' of NewHampshire in the form of a SummerFellowship for Teoching Assistants and Teaching Fellows for 1968. Mr. Edward Hinckley, formerCommissioner of Indian Affairs for the Stateof Maine, was most generous withhis time and knowledgein our few meetings before the datacol- led-Lion phase of thestudy. Among the members of theDepartment of Sociology at the University of NewHampshire, I wish to thank Professor Frederick Samue/s, who served asthesis committee chairman and Professors StuartPalmer and Richard Downs, who offcred most helpful advice indirecting this research. While all those aforementionedprovided valuahlr,. assistance, 1-accept fullresponsibilit.y th,, methods of data collection, analysis, andInterpretation in this report. TABLE OF CONTENTS - Page LIST OF TABLES vi _ . LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS ABSTRACT CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1 1. The Problem: ConteMpoa:ary Indian-White Social Relations 3. 2. The Focal Point of the-Researth: Social Distance 3 3, The Setting. 6 4. Description of the PopulationsOOOOOO ...... 00 8 5. Rconomic Statistic .10 6. Social Organizations 14 7. Political Relationships...- 00 9 9 15 8, **' Fi%___,: sory of the Area......, OOOOOO 0000. 18 Xl. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 40,000000. 21 1. An Overview of Indian-White Relations :r the United States *41.A40 21 2. Sociological Significance of these Relatiops 27 3. Maine's State Department of Indian 29 4. The Dispute over Land 32 5. The paper Company Dispute 34 4 CIIAPTER Page III, THEORWICAL ORIENTATION AND HYPOTHESES 36 1. Theoretical Background- 36 2. The Underlying Assumption 41 3. Hypotheses 44- 4. Summary of the Hypothsen 53 IV. METHODS 54 1. Selection of the Samples for Interviews 54 2, Development of the Research Instrumentsavow*, 56 3. The Interview Schedule 57 4. Interview Observation Schedule 62 5. Contact Observation Schedule,. 9.,... ....... 63 6. Field Routin 63 RESEARCH FINDINGS 64 1. In-Group Preference 64 2. Frequen:ly-Intimacy of Contact an-a Preference for Association 66 . 3. VisiblePhvsical Difference and Preference for Association 71 4, 'Perceived Socio-Economic Status and Preference for Association 5. Perceived Competition and Preference for Association 80 6, "Fair Competition" and Economic Gains 84 VI. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 88 1. Analysis of Social Distance 2. The Possibility of Racism 92 3. Limitations of the'Findings 94 4. The EthDic FacLor 98 iv Page 5. Passamaquoddy "culture of Poverty"'' 102 6. Social.Distance and Pa-r-k's Race Relations Cycle 111 7. Prospects for the Future 116 8., Concluding Remerks 119 The Method 120 The Problem in Wider Perspective 121 Possibilities for Change . 122 BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 APPENDIX I: Background Tables and Geogrz,phic Distribution of the Interviews ......0 . 130 -APPENDIX II: On Passamaquoddy-Alcohol Consumption. 140 APPENDIX III: The Marc)inal Mon 143 APPENDIX IV: The Research Instruments . 0. 148 Interview Schedule 149 Interview Observation Schedule 160 Contact Observation Schedule 171 .LIST OF TABLES . Page 1, The Age Distribution ofPrInceton and Indian Township, Percent of the TotalPopulations . 9 2, Education of Adults Surveyed inPrinceton and Indian Township: Manpower Resources, 1966 . 10 3, Populations of Princeton andIndian Township Maine, 1900 to 1960 19 4. Preference for Association: Rank Order and Mean Scores for Each Sample . 65 6, White Sample: Associations Between Frecluency- Intimacy of Contact and Preference for Association 69 6.. Indian Sample: Associations BetweenFrequency- Intimacy of Contact and Preferencefor Association 70 7. Expected andObserved Results in the Test of HypothesisIII for the White Sample .. 8. Expected andObserved Results in the Test of HypothesisIII for the Indian Sample . 75 9, White Sample: Associations Between Perceived SES and Preference for Association . 78 10. Indian Sample: Associations Between Perceived SES and Preference for Association 79 11. Responses to Question 13 of theInterview 65. Schedule 12. Responses, to Question 14 of the Interview .Schedule .85 13. Indian Sample: Associations Between Frequency- -Intimacy of Contact and Perceived &ES -619 vi }?age 14. White Samble: Associations Between Frequency- Intimacy of Contact and Perceived SES . 90 15. Attitudes on Reservation Living 100 16. Religious Faiths Indicated in the Two Samples 101 Maine Department of Indian Affairs Outlay 17. for the Passamaquoddy Tribe, 1965-66 103 LIST. OF MAPS ANDILLUSTRATIONS . Paae liaps 1 IndianTownshipPrinceton Area 7 Figures Differences Among 1. Visible Physical 73 the Six Groups . 2. -Association Among theThree Components of Social Distance 91 CHAPTER I BACk:GROUND.A7D INTRODUCTION 1. The Problem: Contenoorary Indian-White Relatiwas There is scarcely a major issue of policy in the United States that has not been involved in the rela- tionsIzips of Indians and whites. Questions of uni- versal citizenship and franchise; of land use and conservation; of the 'melting pot' versus pluralism; of prejudice, discrimination, and segregation; of colonialism; of separation of church and state; of private property and communal property; and of the extent and nature of government responsibility for education--to mention several basic issucs--have all involved policy questions concerning Indians.1 Rather little docilmentation is needed to support the contention that there is a need to hotter understand the relations between Indian and white Americans. If any- thing, the amount of potential interaction between Amerinds and whites will increase simply on the basis ofan American Indian birth rate two times greater than the Americanpopu- lation as a whole.2 Indians are by no means a dying race; 1Geerge SiMpson and J. Milton Yincer,- in The Annals of the 'American Academy of Political and Sociaf- Stiences,Vol.311: (May 1957),p. vii. 2"The Indian birth rate is high. In 1959 there were 41.4 Indian live births for each 1,000 of thepopulation for,,the-twenty-four:fede:z'al reservation states, which is almost .tWice .the .rate :Of the countryas a.whole (24.1); and :the. 41.4 may be too-low because many-Indians view the birth or- deb.th of. a child .as a personal matter which needs no nor arethey, for the most uart, posse,isorsof dying cul- has, for the foreseeable tures. The rdservation system American Indians future,guaranteed the latter fact. socialized intheir unique sub-cultures and whiteAmericans socialized in theculture of themajority,group will .inevitably engage ininter-group relations for many years