Search results

Concentrates on HIV/AIDS prevention practitioners and how the AIDS epidemic can be recognized in such a way as to influence individuals to assist in prevention. Highlights how the gay community, in particular, have managed to reduce deaths and infection but that the newer members of the community seem to be falling by the wayside now. Discusses social and psychological theories involved in the fight in AIDS prevention. States that in the USA the effective interventions being discontinued are the poorly funded or not at all. Concludes the fight against AIDS through publicity and knowledge must go on.

Analyses how HIV/AIDS has affected African Americans, who are acknowledged as a vulnerable racialized group, along with Puerto Ricans. Defines the term of racialized social system as a society where part of the stratification system is designed to reank people based on their racial classification. Sheds light on AIDS and ethnicity through copious use of figures and tables. Summarizes that there is little control over tehir own community economics for African Americans, legitimately, as HIV runs riot. Urges a race‐conscious approach to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

In 1989 the Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Foundation began a $24.6 million program community-based alcohol and drug abuse elimination project, called “Fighting Back.” Along with the U.S. Dept HHS, Community Substance Abuse Program (CSAP), the Fighting Back projects were alternative approaches to the Police War on Drugs. The 15 RWJ communities were given up to $200,000 for two-year planning grants to develop community-based organizations that would focus on better coordinating existing resources and attracting new resources to address high-density alcohol sales, drug trafficking, and drug abuse in low-income middle size communities. In the first year implementation phase, each project was given up to $700,000. None were to provide direct services; each organization was a catalyst for social change.The initial theories used to begin this project were community empowerment and resource mobilization. Based upon site visits and in-depth interviews, this chapter reviews the lessons learned from organizing such projects based upon these theories. We review the strategies used to successfully address their central challenges and these theory's utility. The RWJ and CSAP projects suggested a variation of community empowerment where consensus among keys players in and outside of each community was a precondition to community mobilization. Also community empowerment and resource mobilization were not sufficient. Through trial and error, each project learned important new lessons and strategies that were already available in other theories — collaboration, exchange, and general theory of race relations. It is suggested that use of additional theories based on prior experiences in successfully mobilizing the community could have further improved the successes of the RWJ and CSAP projects.

Racism occurs in many ways and varies across countries, evolving and adapting to sociocultural history, as well as contemporary economic, political and technological changes. This chapter discusses the multilevel dimensions of racism and its diverse manifestations across multiracial societies. It examines how different aspects of racism are mediated interpersonally, and embedded in institutions, social structures and processes, that produce and sustain racial inequities in power, resources and lived experiences. Furthermore, this chapter explores the direct and indirect ways racism is expressed in online and offline platforms and details its impacts on various groups based on their intersecting social and cultural identities. Targets of racism are those who primarily bear the adverse effects. However, racism also affects its perpetrators in many ways, including by limiting their social relations and attachments, and by imposing social and economic costs. This chapter thus analyses the many aspects of racism both from targets and perpetrators' perspectives.

The boundaries of Little Italy are not precise, and have shifted over time. In the 19th century, the district extended south of Canal Street into the area identified by Jacob Riis as the “Mulberry Bend,” and described as “the foul core of New York’s slums.”³ By the 1960s, Little Italy had retreated across Canal Street, as the Italian population began to leave the neighborhood for other areas in the city. For the purposes of this paper, Little Italy shall be understood as comprising three census tracts in New York City’s Manhattan county, numbers 41, 43, and 45. This area, lying within a short walking distance of City Hall, is roughly bounded by Canal Street on the south, Bowery on the East, Broadway on the west, and East Houston street to the north. Nicknamed the Mulberry District, it became the first and largest Italian enclave in the United States between 1870s and 1924. While there had been an Italian community in New York for generations, historian George Pozetta has argued that the winter of 1872–1873 was pivotal in the development of this community, when more than 2000 poor Italian immigrants, arrived at Castle Garden, the immigrant reception center, unable to care for themselves.⁴ These immigrants were quickly fitted in to the preexisting Italian community, taking advantage of the contacts provided by the bossi, typically northern Italian men who had arrived earlier, to find jobs in such local enterprises as groceries and saloons, and with American employers. Once the new comers settled, a process of chain-migration began. By the later 1870s, the bossi were acting as agents for gangs of labor sent out from New York to work in other areas across North American. As a result, the Mulberry district became a sort of transshipment point for Italian labor.

Cultural visibility is closely linked to physical and social mobility, and access to – or denial of – free movement through private and public spaces powerfully shapes individual and social identities. As Liam Kennedy has shown in the context of urban space, “the operations of power are everywhere evident in space: space is hierarchical – zoned, segregated, gated – and encodes both freedoms and restrictions – of mobility, of access, of vision” (2000, pp. 169–170). A consideration of how film articulates a relationship between space and identity might thus begin by breaking down the concept of space itself into three distinct yet interconnected areas of analysis: first, the notion of socially produced space, as shown in the work of Henri Lefebvre and others; second, the idea of audience space or the architectural space of the theater; and finally, the theory of film space or the space of the screen. Given this essay’s limited scope, the latter will be examined in more detail than the first two, but I would like to stress the underlying interconnectedness of the three. While, for example, formalist studies of film aesthetics may be just as valuable as in-depth studies of changing viewing habits, audience demographics, and exhibition technologies, film interpretation should strive to keep in view the variety of spatial formations and conditions that might come to bear on any particular visual text.

Barack Obama has had considerable support among scholarly circles since his win in the Iowa primary in early 2008. A segment of the Association of Black Sociologists (ABS), “Black and Progressive Sociologists Obama Working Group (BPSOWG),” was particularly active during the 2008 campaign. The purpose of this chapter was to determine if the level and type of activism among this group differed from other progressive groups of sociologists.

The data for this study were collected from a web-based survey administered to approximately 800 professional sociologists in the United States. The survey consisted of items that focused on the extent to which respondents supported the Obama campaign for the presidency and the extent to which they were satisfied with and/or agreed with his policies during first two years of his presidency.

The response rate for the survey was 40% (N=305) and 96% of respondents (N=293) submitted surveys with complete information. Over two-thirds of participants were members of the American Sociological Association Section on Race and Ethnic Relations and 5.5% of respondents identified themselves as members of the BPSOWG. A slight majority (53.6%) of study participants were females and the largest two racial groups making up the study population were whites (47.1%) and African Americans (36.1%). Most of the respondents provided support for President Obama during his first campaign, including financial contributions (66%).

Sociologists who responded to the survey were generally positive about Barack Obama as a candidate and a President. However, the subtle differences between groups about Obama administration policies and the use Presidential power highlighted key areas in which diverse coalitions for progressive change are needed.