The Reluctant Welfare State Outgroups

0 Comment

Unlike European immigrants, people of color did not have access to most white-headed social service agencies, not sparing even many settlement estates which spearheaded social justice goals. Responding to these, services formed by clubs of the women, mutual aid, churches, self-help groups and generous societies, came up with an idea of racial or ethnic boost, which combined rudiments of cultural satisfaction and social absorption that differed with conceptions of mainstream about social justice which stressed the overall union (Deckard, 1979).
These struggles were totally constrained by a lack of assets and opposition from both white social welfare leaders and members of their own population. With their distrust of the white people, African Americans viewed almost all of life’s events as sensible through their race lens. The same justifications also existed among Mexican and Asian immigrants in the West and Southwest. Jewish and Catholic immigrants witnessed the same in the main Eastern and Midwestern cities. Mexicans formed mutual self-help organizations to preserve their cultural stabilization under cruel economic and social environment.
Other immigrants from China, Japan, Korea and Filipino concentrated on economic gains and educational progression and achieved significant success on the West coast (Rivera and Erlich, 1998). Jewish and Catholic immigrants from Europe formed well-prepared systems of social services, which incorporated many features later accepted by mainstream organizations.
According to Jansson (2005), there were policies implemented to be used as a tool to correct the misconceptions that went on. These were: opportunity enhancing policy, land policy, positive policy, punitive policy, domestic policy, social policy and welfare policy.