Jewish Population in the United States, 2012

Sheskin, Ira M.; Dashefsky, Arnold

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5204-7_5

Cited by 27 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Jews have advanced socially and economically in the United States, they have also attained high spatial mobility across the continent. In many typical destination areas in the West and South, for example, Phoenix (Arizona), Atlanta (Georgia), or Palm Beach County (Florida) (Chenkin and Miran, 1979;Sheskin and Dashefsky, 2008), the emerging geographic dispersion has generated a critical mass of settlers for the establishment or expansion of the institutions and services necessary for religious life and vital community activities and for the provision of opportunities to observe major holidays and observances on the Jewish calendar. Just the same, the provision of parochial services does not develop in a cultural vacuum; it attests to increasing demand for such activities on the part of potential constituencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews¹

Rebhun¹

2011

Sociological Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines changes between 1985–1990 and 1995–2000 in relationships between migration and religioethnic identification among U.S. Jews. The results of multivariate analyses of the 1990 and 2000 National Jewish Population Surveys show that Jewish background characteristics have lost their significance as determinants of internal migration and, especially, migration across state boundaries. Concurrently, migration no longer constitutes a serious threat to group continuity and erstwhile negative effects on major religious and social behaviors have disappeared. When the two surveys were integrated into one data set, it was found that “time” enhances the inclination of Jews to move and strengthens their religious and ethnic commitments (though not their commitments to informal Jewish networks). The results are discussed in reference to three competing perspectives of migration‐identification relationships—“selectivity,”“disruption,” and “heightening”—and in the wider theoretical context of religious and ethnic processes in the contemporary United States.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews¹

Rebhun¹

2011

Sociological Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Practically, however, targeting Jewish individuals and institutions are made considerably less feasible in areas where the community is exceptionally tiny or non-existent. To highlight this disparity in targeting opportunity, three states, New York at 26.2%, California at 18.2% and Florida at 9.5% are home to more Jews than all of the other forty-seven U.S. states combined (Sheskin and Dashefsky 2013). This disproportionality can be further appreciated when thinking about institutional rather than individual targets.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Ethnoreligious Minority Targeting: Variation in U.S. Anti-Semitic Incidents

Feinberg¹

2020

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades alone, the United States has suffered well over ten thousand religion-motivated hate crimes. While racism and religion-motivated prejudice have received considerable attention following the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville that resulted in deadly violence, there is little systematic scholarship evaluating where and when incidents targeting ethnoreligious minorities by non-state actors are likely to occur. Utilizing the FBI’s reported anti-Semitic hate crime data from 2001–2014, my main theoretical and empirical exercise is to determine which factors best explain where and when American ethnoreligious groups are likely to be targeted. I propose that there are four essential mechanisms necessary to explain variation in minority targeting: “opportunity” (target group concentration), “distinguishability” (target group visibility), “stimuli” (events increasing target group salience) and “organization” (hate group quantity). My models show that variables falling within each of these theoretical concepts significantly explain variation in anti-Semitic incidents in the United States. Of particular importance for scholars and practitioners alike, Israeli military operations and the number of active hate groups within a state play a major role in explaining anti-Semitic incident variation.

show abstract

“…65 (Michigan also had just under 100,000 Jewish residents in 1968.) 66 These realities explained why, in his first interview about Warren's replacement, Griffin indicated that he would support Arthur Goldberg. As the summer progressed, he repeatedly cited this assertion to prove his good intentions.…”

Section: Journal Of Supreme Court Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Lyndon B. Johnson and the Fortas Nomination

Johnson¹

2016

Jnl of Supreme Court History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jewish Population in the United States, 2012

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews¹

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews¹

Explaining Ethnoreligious Minority Targeting: Variation in U.S. Anti-Semitic Incidents

Lyndon B. Johnson and the Fortas Nomination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Jewish Population in the United States, 2012

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews1

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews1

Explaining Ethnoreligious Minority Targeting: Variation in U.S. Anti-Semitic Incidents

Lyndon B. Johnson and the Fortas Nomination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews¹

Migration, Time, and Religioethnic Identification Among U.S. Jews¹