3 different homeworks

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 1 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Sections Home Search Skip to content

Search

mhongtschalaer Log In 0 Settings Close search

search sponsored by Search NYTimes.com

Clear this text input Go

1. 1.

Regime Change in the Middle East

2.

Does Money Really Matter in Politics?

3.

Are Kurds Allies or Obstacles in Syria?

4.

Has Encryption Gone Too Far?

5.

Is There Action the U.S. Should Take in Syria?

6.

Crimes, iPhones and Encryption

7.

Prosecuting Doctors in Overdose Deaths

8.

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 2 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

November's Referendum on Justice

9.

Henry Kissinger: Sage or Pariah?

10.

Has Love Grown as Dating Apps Flourish?

11.

What Lies Ahead for Donald Trump

12.

Can Activists Be Politicians?

13.

Which States Should Vote First in the Primaries?

14.

Is It Wrong to Watch Football?

15.

Clinton's Email Habits: Careless or Criminal? 2. Loading...

Home Page Home Page World U.S. Politics New York Business Business Opinion Opinion Technology Science Health Sports

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 3 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Sports

Arts Arts Fashion & Style Fashion & Style Food Food Travel Magazine Real Estate

Video The Upshot Conferences

More

The Opinion Pages

facebook twitter pinterest email

Race and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs

Angela Onwuachi-Willig, a professor of law at the University of Iowa College of Law, is the author of "According to Our Hearts: Rhinelander v. Rhinelander and the Law of the Multiracial Family."

Updated June 17, 2015, 1:40 PM

Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites. Were race “real” in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries. Yet, a person who could be categorized as black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil or colored in South Africa.

Unlike race and racial identity, the social, political and economic meanings of race, or rather belonging to particular racial groups, have not been fluid.

Like race, racial identity can be fluid. How one perceives her racial identity can shift with experience and time, and not simply for those who are multiracial. These shifts in racial identity can end in categories that our society, which insists on the rigidity of race, has not even yet defined.

As I explain in my book "According to Our Hearts," whites in interracial black-white marriages or relationships frequently experience a shift in how they personally understand their individual racial identity. In a society where being white (regardless of one’s socioeconomic class background or other disadvantages) means living a life with white skin privileges — such as being presumed safe, competent and noncriminal — whites who begin to experience discrimination because of their intimate connection with someone of another race, or who regularly see their loved ones fall prey to racial discrimination, may begin to no longer feel white. After all, their lived reality does not align with the social meaning of their whiteness.

That all said, unlike race and racial identity, the social, political and economic meanings of race, or rather belonging to particular racial groups, have not been fluid. Racial meanings for non-European groups have remained stagnant. For no group has this reality been truer than African-Americans. What many view as the promising results of the Pew Research Center’s data on multiracial Americans, with details of a growing multiracial population and an increasing number of interracial marriages, does not foreshadow as promising a future for individuals of African descent as it does for other groups of color.

Unlike their multiracial peers of Asian and Native American ancestry who tend to view themselves as having more in common with monoracial whites than with Asians or Native Americans, respectively, multiracial adults with a black background — 69 percent of whom say most people would view them as black — experience prejudice and interactions in ways that are much more closely aligned with members of the black community. In fact, the consequences of the social, political and economic meanings of race are so deep that my co-author Mario Barnes and I have argued that whites who find themselves discriminated against based on racial proxies such as name (for example, Lakisha or Jamal), should have actionable race discrimination claims based on such conduct. In sum, the fact that race is a social construct, defined by markers such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape, ancestry, identity performance and even name, does not mean that racial classifications are free of consequence or tangible effects.

More than 50 years ago, Congress enacted the most comprehensive antidiscrimination legislation in history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Half a century later in 2015, the same gaps in racial inequality remain or have grown deeper. Today, the unemployment rate for African-Americans remains more than double that for whites, public schools are more

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 4 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

segregated now than they were in the 1950s and young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by the police than their white male peers. Even a white fourth- grade teacher in Texas, Karen Fitzgibbons, openly advocated for the racial segregation of the 1950s and 1960s on her Facebook page.

Where will we be 50 years from now? Need I answer that question? It definitely won't be in a post-racial society.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

Topics: race

Previous

Why We Should Embrace the Racial Chaos

Kevin Noble Maillard Next

Racial Fluidity Complicates the Value of Race

Nancy Leong

83 Comments Share your thoughts. Share your thoughts.

All 83 Readers’ Picks 29

Newest

Jo

Canada 27 days ago

I'm black and honestly could not believe what I read. The statements in this article made me cringe. The author basically states that what Rachel Dolezal did (and anyone else who has ever done or will do the same)was perfectly fine. She implies that right at the beginning where she gives the example of a white person who experiences interracial relationship with a black person. The experience makes them less white because suddenly their privilege is lessened or potentially gone. Like, really?

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Caite Morris

Los Angeles 14 December 2015

okay i am 15 years old i am a white/asain high school sophomore and while you may be exponentially more intelligent than i could ever hope to be the last paragraph of your article was blatantly wrong you stated that "public schools are now more segregated than they were in the 1950s" that is mind numbingly idiotic for a women of your status. as a country we have made significant strides swards racial equality, now in the eyes of the law every man woman are equal. it is the way that a person is raised that that can segregate a certain race or gender. brown vs the board of education was in 1954 meaning before that a person with any african decent could not have attended any school in the US. you could not have gotten the education needed for you to become a law professor not only would you be a second class citizen because of your race your gender would also have held you back. as one final example before i return to my hw which is the only reason i have to read this article in the first place, i liked a black boy over the summer, now lets say i liked him in the 1950s his life would be in danger if i looked at him, now i can explore having a relationship with any race i chose and so can he, so you cannot actually believe that the public school system is more segregated today than it was 60 years ago.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Rachel Booker

Connecticut 7 January 2016

Ok, I can see your point that we've made a lot of progress in being less racist since the 1950's, but that doesn't mean that everything is perfect. Racism is definately still there, and it still poses problems for modern-day minorities. If I were you, I would trust the woman who actually reaserched this and can back up her claims.

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 5 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 25 June 2015

Please, Room for Debate Editors, read the long series of heated exchanges between Josh Hill and others in the comment section for this statement. Then do the following: Discuss future Room for Debate forums with a basic title something like:

American conceptions of race as held by distinctly different groups of researchers.

This would clearly require more than one Room for Debate forum.

One group of researchers would be those like Svante Pääabo, another might be American medical researchers contrasted with, for example, a set of European medical researchers.

These forums would keep my Connecticut friend, Josh Hill, fully occupied and I would have a ball reading the comments.

Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

as

New York 23 June 2015

There is a simple way to eliminate racism and a lot of other ills including patriarchy. Why not make having a baby the natural way illegal? To have a baby women donate an egg to the government egg bank. Have the government randomize fertilization and if a woman wants a baby she gets a "government egg" implanted. It might be chinese, korean or black. In nine months there would be no more racism. Right now less than half of the children in school in the US are white. In a decade everyone would be essentially mixed. Then racism would have to vanish. There would be no white skins and no very dark ones either. Everyone's skin would be the same. Why do we need races? Does race help anything? It just causes pain and trouble. Let us get rid of them.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Mark

New York, NY 20 June 2015

"Race is not biological. It is a social construct.... Were race 'real' in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries. Yet, a person who could be categorized as black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil or colored in South Africa."

I don't understand that argument. Somebody regarded as short in the NBA might not be viewed that way someplace else, but that doesn't mean that height "isn't biological."

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

DW

Philly 24 June 2015

You make many good points. What I'm trying to say - I admit it gets confusing, especially when the comments don't stay in order ... is that race is not a biological category. The things that constitute what we think of as race, are for the most part biological. It's just that they don't sum into a category called "race," because there isn't one. So again, height, skin color, eye color, hair texture - all biological. But NOT all determined by some sort of pre-set, almost Platonic category called "race." It's just a category that doesn't exist, biologically. That is not to say people don't have biological characteristics and it's not to say that we don't - in our minds - group people with similar biological characteristics together into a category we call "race." But it is SUCH a leaky, permeable category, that the more you try to pin down what a particular race is, the more it just dissolves on you.

(The height of inanimate objects just seems irrelevant to me. The height a HUMAN attains is a biological characteristic of that person.)

Flag Reply

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 6 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 25 June 2015

@ Mark-maybe I can help you understand since I work at the Red Cross here in Linköping with refugees, many of them from Sub-Saharan Africa and none of those who would be assigned to a race in America are even familiar with the two end-member concepts of race, biological and socially constructed.

My Somali and Eritrean friends and acquaintances define themselves entirely in terms of their ethnicities and their roots in particular cultures in the Horn of Africa. They are well aware of the range of skin colors in the Sub-Saharan African population. Some Somalis use the term black to refer to individuals from, for example, the Congo, but do not see themselves as black.

The American race categories have their origin in the Constitution, and the slaves were distinguished from whites in the 1790 Census. With the passage of time various scientifically minded people created a fatal invention, the concept of race, and those founding fathers clearly saw each group as biologically distinct from the others. Sweden was one of the countries where some biologists thought in this manner. Then genome science came along and we now have Swedish born Svante Pääbo, perhaps a future Nobel Prize nominee, making very clear that the American racial classification, seen in biological terms, is absurd.

In the face of that, American sociologists, many of them, embraced social construction so they could continue to do research on groups that they still call black and white.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

See All Replies

Bran

Cullen 19 June 2015

Saying race is a social construct doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean people won't notice you are black. It doesn't mean Rachel Dolezal can be black. A white woman saying she is black should not make Black people question what it means to be black.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

as

New York 18 June 2015

It is not so much race but it is money. Interracial marriage is extremely common when the economic environment is equalized. One sees that, for example, in the US Army. One sees that with high earning blacks in every area. One reason a guaranteed annual income for all Americans would be helpful. How can a poor black woman hold down two fast food jobs and raise five kids properly?

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

David Chowes

New York City 18 June 2015

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT . . .

Unfortunately most people see the concept of race as biological. It is in fact just a social construct but most people don't understand this or in fact don't know what a "social construct" is. We have used the color or shade of one's skin to create different races and this has awful effects.

There is just one race: the human race.

Flag Reply 3Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Trey Lough

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 7 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Lake Oswego, Oregon 21 August 2015

Thank goodness someone on this message board gets it :D

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

turbot

Philadelphia 17 June 2015

I think that it is poverty and educational issues that lead to the disparities mentioned in the penultimate paragraph.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Bo

Washington, DC 17 June 2015

“Where will we be in 50 years?” I submit, at the same place we have been for nearly the last 400—fighting racism.

Sure, the Human Genome Experiment confirmed that race is not biological, but rather a social construction, America, as we all know, was not constructed on the basis of the Human Genome Experiment, but on the lie of white superiority/black inferiority.

As Jerrold M. Packard points out in his book, “American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow,” “The creation of color-based caste was accomplished in lucid steps by groups more powerful than their prey, for reason both social and economic. Its survival has been nurtured over numberless generations by, among others, Christian and Muslim clerics and slavers, by historians and the learned of science, and by ordinary people whose purses have grown through its perpetuation.”

Sure, engaging in high-brow conversations about race being socially constructed is good and useful on some level, however, it does nothing to remedy centuries of harm and brutality that undergirds America to this day, and will for decades or perhaps centuries to come.

Flag Reply 2Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Anthony

Texas 17 June 2015

Race is a social construct. OK, now, what exactly is a "social construct?"

Flag Reply 1Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Josh Hill

is a trusted commenter New London, Conn. 17 June 2015

"Race is not biological. It is a social construct." Will people just stop it? I mean, stop it! This is the most ridiculous claim I've ever read this side of the existence of God. Worse. You can't see God, so maybe he's hiding somewhere. But anyone walking down the street can see evidence of race.

Look, if race were not biological, it wouldn't be detectable in a DNA test. And yet my DNA test tells me that I'm part Caucasian, part Sub-Saharan African, and, perhaps, part Siberian/Amerindian. It even tells me something about where my ancestors hailed from within those groups.

So stop the absurd lies! Race *can* be a social construct, to be sure -- why else would someone who is 1/16 black be considered black? But it's absurd -- beyond absurd -- to pretend that it doesn't exist. And when you make that claim, you appeal to the ideological, but the people you want to reach -- the rational people who may have misinformation about race -- are going to roll their eyes. Surely, there are enough honest things to say about race that we don't have to perpetrate a lie?

Flag Reply 5Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 8 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

DW

Philly 21 June 2015

"Of course my DNA tells me where my ancestors hailed from! And of course they're genetically related!"

But that doesn't make them a "race." That's the point you miss. Of course you're "genetically related" to your brother or sister, and to your ancestors. But it is also true that if you could identify all your genes you would prove to have just as many, if not by quirk of statistics even more, genes in common with other people up and down your block or in your office building, and there would prove to be no direct link to the features that you think make you or your neighbor or friend or co-worker a particular "race." Of course there are many commonalities between you and people you perceive as being of your race, but they are 1) quite likely to vanish when you try to actually locate a particular set of genes that might cluster together to produce that impression and 2) nearly as well a product of your own and other people's perceptions.

Any one single feature that you possess that you think makes you a particular "race," lots of people from other "races" have it too. It becomes simple logic then - "race" isn't a biological category. It's the way we group things in our mind. Grouping together things it perceives as similar is a thing the human brain does.

There isn't "race": there are groupings, regroupings, and ungroupings of people. That's all there has ever been. The things we perceive as most often clustering together, usually originated as geographic clusterings.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 25 June 2015

@ Josh - Josh, I have written to you directly and have filed comments stating that the New York Times comment section just does not work as a place to engage in the discussion you want to have.

I have asked various Times Editors including Room for Debate Editors to engage a set of experts in genome research to discuss this subject. I am not going to take that point further here but I am going to suggest to you that your "race" comments might be presented a bit more calmly.

My first contact with you was at the NYT Lens Blog where you called not only me but all scientists who do not believe in your concepts of "race" "Intellectually Dishonest". Since my views are based in part on the research and statements of Svante Pääbo, a giant in the world of genome-based research, I could not then and still do not understand why you write as you do then and now.

Here are your phrases. "Stop it!" "This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever read..." "So stop the absurd."

Since you and I communicate directly I know that you are a man of reason and in discussing other subjects you present calm and reasoned statements. But not here.

I will be writing to you of course.

I will chance this suggestion. Avoid using "race" and instead write about differences among haplotype groups. Who knows, maybe the potential number of such groups is infinite. Then tell us how you want to use these.

Larry

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

See All Replies

Lindsey

NYC 17 June 2015

I just started reading an engaging, interesting book by History Professor, Yuval Noah Harari, entitled "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind." He presents a number of intriguing theories on the species and race. It's worth a read.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

WeRInDenial

Nashville, TN 17 June 2015

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 9 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

I completely agree with the comment that it is not correct to refer to "whites" as a monolithic group - people are people and have rich, varied, and dynamic experiences. My white brother and his wife went to jail for 2 years (misdemeanor environmental neglect - 1 count for each child) for being too poor to have a home with enough bedrooms for their 7 children (he had just lost his job and they had to live in a small 2 bedroom apartment) - white people also face social and economic injustice that can destroy their families. This is important because we must all unite around injustice to truly eradicate it. As a white woman married to a black man and with 2 beautiful biracial daughters - I have had to bail my husband out of jail after he was harassed by TSA for acting like "an angry black man" and not following their commands fast enough. In our early 20s, we had both been accepted to teach English in Japan but I was fired for being pregnant while he was allowed to go. Life is hard, we all suffer from injustice - can we not unite on the fact that discrimination in any form is abhorrent?

Flag Reply 3Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Donna

Hanford, CA 17 June 2015

So; now that we ALL can become Black- ( it sounds like the reverse premise of the wonderful book "Black No More"): Rather than having White Privilege, we can receive the Burden of suspicion, proving one's self-worth, economic, legal, judicial injustice etc. How many are willing to sign up?

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

waldenlake

Charlotte, NC 17 June 2015

I appreciate the author's definition of race (as a social construct) and her ability to delineate the stakes of racial affiliation for light and dark skinned Americans. However, what I would like to hear her discuss a bit more are strategic ways to modify the black and white (or ‘white’ and ‘non-white’) binary that continues to drive racial ideology in the United States. This requires us to discuss the potential role of Asian Americans and Hispanics in adjusting these terms, as well as redefining what race means today.

In the past, the 'melting pot' was offered as an ideological means of creating a common culture that was capable of binding a nation of immigrants. (This ideology is partially reflected in the optimistic ways people interpret current trends in intermarriage.) However, this generally only offered material benefits to those who could visually approximate some degree of whiteness. And while the Dolezal case could have compelled white Americans to realize their potential affiliations with black Americans, and thus garner more sympathy between these two camps, most people (including her parents) just wanted to stabilize older categories: ‘Dolezal is white. End of story’.

In my mind, the best lesson the Dolezal case offers us is an increased awareness of our desperate need to transcend the white and black binary we continue to use in this country. (Yes, we need to discuss race, but using the old labels merely reifies their discriminatory function.)

Flag Reply 3Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Carl Jensen

USA 17 June 2015

I found her premise of no genetic markers to be faulty, there are a number, including the neanderthal gene, but I'd agree that it is meaningless and what we face is a sort of collision of cultures and world views. The Melting Pot ideology is very much a part of my character as I am a number of national ancestries, many of whom warred before integrating into the US. I feel no conflict, I identify my culture as being US, and I identify all citizens as being as equal as they care to be. What is commonly called "white privilege", however, I disagree with. From the perspective of humanity as a whole, the situation of a majority enjoying natural benefit from being a majority can be found in almost every nation. As a white man, I'd be a second class citizen in Japan or Zimbabwe as whites simply are not as represented in their societies. Ideally, we will mature past that at some point in our societal evolution, but we have not yet. This is simply an observation, I have no supporting thesis, but it seems evident to me. Now, transcending the black and white binary. I absolutely agree that old labels and terms have become laden with emotional charge, such that dialogue often runs afoul of accidental insult and indignity. I have come to blame both sides of the racial narrative for wanting to talk but not wanting to listen. I wait for emotions to settle, but it may get worse before it gets better.

Flag Reply 1Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 25 June 2015

A footnote on white. The US Census Bureau classifies Kurds, Iranians, various kinds of Iraqis as belonging to the USCB white race. I can assure anyone that a hijab bearing women from any of these ethnicities does not have all that much white privilige here in Sweden and probably in the USA.

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 10 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Larry

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Mary

Boston suburb 17 June 2015

For years, it's been known that - among humans, there is only one race: human. For years, I've been speaking this scientific fact to those who use race incorrectly - and commenting in NYT and other places. One's background may be African, Asian, Caucasian, etc., or a mix of many biological origins. Print and online newspapers and other media content must use language that reflects this truth. Sad but silly blurbs headline photos online that say: 10, 20 stars you don't know are black. Photo is always a light skinned, Caucasian featured human. ((Guess it's still considered an embarrassment by some that another human is hiding a "drop of black blood." - as people used to say.) So, why denigrate the woman who calls herself black. She seems to have done much for justice for African American (black, add your own positive term) groups. Through the years. She also seems troubled by anger and sad family circumstances. Language is important. Suggestion: Mark/write"human" or "other" when asked on forms to denote your race. Official forms must change. Suggestion: "biological background." Better suggestions, anyone? (The listed options might include: unknown, uncertain, several, primary. Researchers do use human biological background stats in their work)

Flag Reply 3Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 25 June 2015

@ Mary - Hi Mary, you and I and blackmamba just below your comment have been writing your first sentence for years, to little or no avail. What has come to fascinate me from looking at my home country from a distance is how fiercely my fellow Americans want to preserve classification by race. Josh Hill is the best example of this. Josh and I communicate calmly and directly about various matters but as you can see by his many comments when it comes to "race", look out.

Interestingly, he and blackmamba both have explained in some detail that they have family trees with many different roots and they both say they are "black". But if I have understood them correctly, Josh wants to declare that he belongs to a black "race" but blackmamba" simply wants to say, IMWHOIM and part of that is being black.

Would like to see them discuss this with each other - calmly - but blackmamba retains his anonymity so I cannot communicate with him directly as I do with Josh.

Kenneth Prewitt of course has a whole chapter in What Is Your Race devoted to changes that he hopes will be made in the US Census form. Language(s) and country of birth of parents are two useful ones. When somebody new turns up at the Red Cross I ask them "Vilka språk kan du?" and of course every single one starts in contrast with the former president of Harvard names at a minimum two and often 4 or more. Keep trying. Larry Logan in August, I hope!

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

blackmamba

IL 17 June 2015

Race is biological as in East African origin evolutionary DNA human.

Color is a social construct with a defining and confining colored American historical reality.

Flag Reply 2Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 11 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 25 June 2015

@ Welcome here blackmamba. I admire your ability to say "it" simply. I would agree with you that "color" as used by Americans is used to support social construction. However, I want to note that Spencer Piston, a political scientist who is experimenting a bit with the relationship between "self-described" skin color and voting behavior seems to be moving into territory where he would have to use scientifically measured skin color.

As you know from reading my comments, I have learned from some of my Somali born friends that they use color to distinguish Somalis from Africans where for them African is a person who is "black". Anyone who opens Tony Morrison's book and starts to read the first chapter "Sweetness" will learn a few things about the use of color to classify.

We learn a lot about what lurks in the minds and hearts of (American) men (and women) from reading comments - take a look at Josh Hill's for example.

Those comments teach me how far we have to go.

Ciao Larry

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

aburt

Amherst, MA 17 June 2015

It goes too far to say that race is a social construct. But the significance of race as an identifier is. When I grew in NYC, one knew easily who was Irish, Italian or Jewish. One even spoke of the "Irish race", "Jewish race," and so forth. A marriage across those lines, and also across Protestant-Catholic lines was a "mixed" marriage and cause for remark. Black too, obviously, and the barriers to crossing that line was stronger on both sides. Those old distinctions have largely lost their significance, even though we still recognize the same national and religious differences.

So, who makes skin color "significant" today? For one thing, the people in positions of established power are largely non-colored, and power groups always try to preserve their power by claiming some distinguishing feature as a virtue and ground for entitlement. Time always erodes those claims, as Jews, Irish, and catholics, all once socially unacceptable in one way or another, have largely found their way into the mainstream.

We make racial difference significant and a tool for bigots simply by trying to keep track, starting with census questionnaires. Why should a mixed heritage person have to decide if he or she is white or black, (caucasian [from the Caucasus, hah!] or African [another hah!], Asian [pity the bi-continental Turks, and do Syrians really look Asiatic?] or European, and how far back to go? Let the government set an example, and stop asking people to identify by race.

Flag Reply 1Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

waldenlake

Charlotte, NC 17 June 2015

I appreciate your comments and can agree with many of them. However, the following sentiment is not true for all racial groups:

"Time always erodes those claims, as Jews, Irish, and catholics, all once socially unacceptable in one way or another, have largely found their way into the mainstream."

This phenomenon was historically true for European immigrants because the mainstream definition of American citizenship was based on whiteness. Thus, Jewish, Irish, and Catholic 'races' began to reap the benefits of shared racial affiliation by being considered co-ethnics and co-religionists.

For obvious reasons, this version of the melting pot ideology primarily works today for Hispanics willing to assimilate as fellow white ethnics. The path toward mainstream assimilation for Asian Americans--whose ethnicities are incredibly diverse, with some having dark skin and most having phenotypical traits that depart from Europeans--will likely be more difficult.

African Americans, while legally accepted as citizens, were (and are still) viewed as ‘culturally’ incapable of assimilating to white ideals like 'the Protestant work ethic'. Their skin color remains a visual emblem of this stereotype, which targets them for economic neglect and disproportionate policing--making their lack of assimilation a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We need more than ethnicity and the melting pot to bring all social groups together.

Flag Reply 1Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 12 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 17 June 2015

I have contact with two different worlds as concerns "race thinking", one the world of American social scientists and medical researchers, the other the world of refugees from Sub-Saharan Africa whom I get to know at the Red Cross, Swedish medical researchers, and Swedish sociologists.

In that second world - inside Sweden - we live by Professor Ounwuachi-Willig's first paragraph, a world of endless ethnic variation but no races. (The exception is that the Swedish nazi-based SD party has representatives who believe in races only one of which can be superior.

In the first world, the world I left in 1996 even researchers who can state a truth as concisely as Ounwuachi-Willig does in the first paragraph cannot let go of race thinking. Look at the use of race in the rest of this statement.

Neither the USA nor any other country will ever become post-racism but they can become post racial by ending the practice of assigning people to races. Once a person has stated as O-W does that:"There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites. Were race “real” in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries." then calling African-Americans a "race" is absurd. Ethnicity, fine.

Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com

Flag Reply 1Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Nonplussed

California 17 June 2015

But did you read the rest of Professor Ounwuachi-Willig's essay? For me, this statement stands out:

"In sum, the fact that race is a social construct, defined by markers such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape, ancestry, identity performance and even name, does not mean that racial classifications are free of consequence or tangible effects."

Race may not be real in the genetic sense, but it is quite real in its effects, particularly for those classified (whether as a matter of race or ethnicity) as African-American. Social constructs have power, and wishing them away is less useful than confronting them head on.

Flag Reply 4Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Larry Lundgren

Linköping, Sweden 25 June 2015

@ Nonplussed - Yes indeed, I read the entire statement three times. You reply as if I wrote that I believe that the American practice of assigning people to "races" does not have power but I did not write a word about that.

However, I must suggest that perhaps you are really writing about "racism". I often write in comments that racism is forever since people will continue to discriminate against people that differ from them and will do so for many reasons.

You write that ""race" is "quite real in its effects". I beg to differ. It is the use of race by racists that results in effects.

If you would like to discuss further my Gmail is at Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Our Road to Hatred

U.S.A. 17 June 2015

In fifty years things don't have to be even close to where we are now with racial disparity. That's because although those in the know about race being a social construct are relatively few. Spend the next fifty years educating our children early on about the discoveries of the Human Genome Project, The Genographic Project, and more; and over

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 13 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

time the dinosaurs of bigoted ideas will give way to the scientific information about human equality.

Flag Reply 3Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

GEM

TX 17 June 2015

We've known for a long time that the biological classifications of race are not valid. However, the current instantiations of affirmative action are based on an implicit biological definition. We see with the current uproar that a self-proclaimed social construction of 'race' was used to manipulate various policies. How will a social construct interact with such policies?

Asians are currently claiming a negative policy based on their race? Is that a biological categorization?

There are unintended consequences to using social or biological factors in determining identity for policy decisions. Are they thought out?

Flag Reply 2Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

William Case

Texas 17 June 2015

Social scientists long held that race is a social construct that has no biological basis, but this orthodoxy has been destroyed by the recent decoding of the human genome. Humans share the set of genes, but they come packaged in alleles. The frequency in which specific alleles are distributed among ancestral groups produce the differences in human appearance that we classified as race. Whether these biological differences affect the behavior of human population groups is undetermined. Today, social scientists reluctant to admit that race is biological, refer to ancestry groups rather than racial groups, but they mean the same thing.

As the author asserts, racial identity can be fluid. The biological characteristics that make up race developed as human population groups evolved in relative isolation from one another. Now that population groups are no longer isolated, racial distinctions may gradually disappear.

Flag Reply 3Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

William Case

Texas 18 June 2015

So far, we only know that genetic factors produce differences in physical appearance between races. It is apparent that people of the same race behave differently. So stereotyping individuals by their racial characteristics is obviously unsound. The controversy is over whether genetics impact group behavior in a way that creates cultural differences.

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

William Case

Texas 18 June 2015

President Obama has said many times that he identifies himself as black because people perceive him as black, despite his mixed-race heritage. People regard him as black because he looks black. The physical characteristics, including skin color, that make the president look black are biological, not sociological, traits. The United States has racial sub-divisions similar to South Africa, but we no longer use them because they are considered derogatory. For example, we refer to President Obama as black or mixed race rather than mulatto, because words like mulatto or quadroon smack of the plantation.

The "one-drop" rule was a social convention. Race is fluid. A white person with a far-distance black ancestor may have inherited none of the alleles that produce physical characteristics we identify as black. The same is true of a black person with a far distant white ancestor. Racial genetic differences appeared as human population groups evolved in continental isolation. Now that population group are no longer isolated, racial differences may gradually disappear,

Flag Reply Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

See All Replies

casual observer

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 14 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Los angeles 17 June 2015

Angela Onwuachi-Willig presents the most cogent and sound description of race and what it represents that I have yet read. The irony is that if we would all appreciate the same things that she describes we would understand that we could rid this country of racism in one generation. Race was an old theory about how the species could be categorized that has been proven inaccurate in so far as biology is concerned but the social conventions about race have been profoundly determinant of how people are stereotyped and treated by others according to those stereotypes. Because of how it affects people it has become part of their sense of identity in a social context, solely because it is a determinant of what they experience living in this country. Yet, by simply appreciating that it is a custom which could and should be rejected it could easily be something that nobody in the future need worry about.

Flag Reply 4Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Donna

Hanford, CA 17 June 2015

With all due respect to esteemed Professor; Hogwash! This examination of the lying, fantastical tales of Rachel- now reduced to esoteric academic debates, refuses to address that which must be: Rachel indeed has a mixed "racial" heritage- all European. Yes, "race" is a construct, but based on distinct commonalities in groups.No one for instance confuses someone with two Asian parents of being Italian/African America or European. I can no more choose to "become" Asian no matter how proficient I am at using Chop- sticks or co-opt any particular custom or dress of someone with two Korean parents. Rachel did not have Black (descendents of Africa) parents. As the case with millions of people who are descents of African Slaves- I have a mixed heritage- predominately African American; the Native American, French and Irish- is buried somewhere and came out in my skin color- but there is no mistake my "majority" is African. I have relatives with siblings ranging from shoe-shine black skin to near Albino.- but the features are recognizably black. Rachel, concocted a fan-tabulous lie about what she was and her life: South Africa? Hunting for food with bows and arrows? Living in a hut? The stereotypes are as insulting as her hairdo. She seems to have tried her best to morph herself into Eldridge Cleaver's wife Kathleen Cleaver (look at their photos). In some cultures the one drop rule is reversed; one drop white make one white. Rachel doesn't even have that much "black blood".

Flag Reply 5Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

DW

Philly 17 June 2015

"Rachel indeed has a mixed "racial" heritage- all European."

Hm, so Native Americans are now European.

Flag Reply 2Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter

Read More

How Fluid Is Race? The chatter over Rachel Dolezal's identity highlights America's growing racial ambiguity. Read More »

Debaters

Identity Is Your Lived Experience

Heidi W. Durrow, novelist

Why We Should Embrace the Racial Chaos

Kevin Noble Maillard, Syracuse University

Race and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 15 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Angela Onwuachi-Willig, University of Iowa College of Law

Racial Fluidity Complicates the Value of Race

Nancy Leong, University of Denver

Hispanic and Latino Identity Is Changing

Mark Hugo Lopez, Pew Research Center

Being Able to Negotiate Identity is Important

Amanda Kay Erekson, MAVIN

Related Discussions

Racial Reparations and the Limits of Economic Policy

Would the universal social benefits Bernie Sanders campaigns on address the problems that black Americans continue to face?

And the Oscar Goes to ... White People

How can the Academy increase diversity in nominations and awards?

Debates That Got Your Attention

Here are the 10 Room for Debate discussions that got the most readers to weigh in with their comments.

Racism, Based on a Name

What can be done about the racial bias those with African-American names face in the job market?

3 friends like this

The New York Times Opi… 359k likesLike PageLike Page

2/28/16 8:52 PMRace and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs - NYTimes.com

Page 16 of 16http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Recent Discussions

Regime Change in the Middle East

Does Money Really Matter in Politics?

Are Kurds Allies or Obstacles in Syria?

Has Encryption Gone Too Far?

Is There Action the U.S. Should Take in Syria?

© 2015 The New York Times Company Home Search Contact Us Work With Us Advertise Your Ad Choices Privacy Terms of Service Terms of Sale

Site Map Help Site Feedback Subscriptions

Go to the next story