Diversity Awareness Class – Race and Ethnicity – Due 11/8

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 251

Shown here is a multicultural box of Crayola crayons that depict skin color ranging from black to white with six other

shades in between.

RACE AND ETHNICITY 8

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 6 . R o u t l e d g e .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS AN: 1099295 ; Tim Delaney.; Connecting Sociology to Our Lives : An Introduction to Sociology Account: s4264928.main.edsebook

252 | CHAPTER EIGHT

Chapter 8 Introductory Story

The Social Construction of Race and Ethnicity

Racial and Ethnic Stratification in the United States

The We-They Character of Race and Ethnicity

Causes and Effects of Prejudice and Discrimination

Patterns of Interracial and Interethnic Contact

Summary, Glossary, Discussion Questions, and Web Links

INTRODUCTORY STORY

Finally, it was Friday. A great buzz filled the halls of Ridgemont High School. The Ridgemont Panthers were hosting the visiting Alcorn High School Indians in the annual contest between these two bitter crosstown rivals. Players, coaches, students, faculty and staff, and most of the Ridgemont community were looking forward to the big game. As was customary at Ridgemont High, a huge pep rally was scheduled for the last period of the school day. Pep rallies are designed to inspire young players to play hard and to remind them that the community backs them. Pep rallies also ignite fans into a near frenzy of anticipation as the student

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 253

body is encouraged to yell and scream in support of the team. Yes, everyone was stoked for the pep rally.

Well, not everyone. A couple of students, Naomi and Kevin, were feeling uneasy. Having attended many pep rallies in the past, they knew what to expect. The marching band and cheerleaders did not make them feel uneasy; nor did the players. It was the bonfire and burning effigy of an “Indian,” as well as the posters around campus that sported such slogans as “Scalp the Indians” and “Redmen Are Deadmen,” that bothered Naomi and Kevin. For you see, these two students were Native Americans. To them it was deeply offensive to reduce the Alcorn High Indians to caricatures and celebrate acts of violence against indigenous peoples.

The use of so-called Indian imagery in sports has come under criticism throughout the United States during the past few decades. Native American advo- cacy groups point out that Indian imagery (team nicknames, mascots, and logos) is based on negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. As this chap- ter shows, the use of such imagery exemplifies some of the issues that sociology addresses when examining the subject of race and ethnicity.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RACE AND ETHNICITY

As people interact with one another, especially strangers, they tend to examine each other based initially on physical characteristics. They may wonder, for exam- ple, Does the person who is approaching me pose a bodily threat? Or is this per- son a potential friend or maybe a future dating partner? If I were in trouble, would this stranger help me or take advantage of me?

Why do people judge others based on their outward appearance? Well, quite simply, it is the first thing we see, and we generally do not learn what is “inside” the vast majority of people we see in a given day. How, then, do we ascertain whether a stranger is a threat, a potential friend and ally, or something else? Most people rely on past experiences, trial and error, and stereotypes that accompany certain characteristics of people. For example, a stranger to a “tough” neighbor- hood may fear that a group of young adolescent males hanging out in front of the convenience store is a threat because the youths look like gang members. But how does the stranger reach the conclusion that the young people are gang members? What if they happen to be members of a local volunteer group meeting to do char- ity work and are simply cooling off by having a soda or sports drink?

When people make judgments about others based on limited information, they are generally using mental shortcuts rooted in stereotypes—and stereotypes are

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

254 | CHAPTER EIGHT

sometimes dead wrong (i.e., all groups of juveniles hanging out are not delin- quents or gang members). However, at times individuals make judgments about strangers based solely on their visible behavior and appearance, and they are cor- rect (e.g., law enforcement officers are trained to identify behavioral characteristics common to drunk drivers).

Among the many physical characteristics by which people judge one another is skin color. Indeed, races have traditionally been classified solely on the basis of their most easily observable anatomical trait: skin color (Marger 2006). Many Americans are described as white or black. But most humans are neither very fair nor very dark but some shade of brown (M. Harris 2004). A simple test can illus- trate this point. If a “white” person holds a sheet of white paper next to her skin, and a “black” person holds a sheet of black paper next to hers, they are both likely to find that their skin color is some shade in between white and black. It is worth noting that Crayola, the manufacturer of crayons and other markers, has a line of “multicultural” crayons described as an assortment of realistic skin tones that range from white to black with six other shades in between. These crayons will reveal that most “white” people’s skin is closer in color to peach than to white.

Skin color itself—in most animals, not just humans—results from the presence of an amino acid derivative known as melanin. While melanin protects the upper levels of the skin from being damaged by the sun’s ultraviolet rays (M. Harris 2004), it also decreases the body’s ability to produce Vitamin D in response to sun exposure. In general, the closer to the equator ancestral groups are from, the darker their skin, and the farther from the equator, the lighter the skin. However, there are significant individual differences in skin color; moreover, a genetic varia- tion known as albinism, in which the person has very little melanin, can and does occur in all racial groups.

Typically, a race is defined as a group of people who share some socially rec- ognized physical characteristic (such as skin color or shared hereditary traits) that distinguishes them from other groups of people. This definition uses a biological aspect to determine racial categories but acknowledges that such a classification scheme is socially constructed. Increasingly, the social sciences, including sociol-

ogy, have come to reject biological notions of race in favor of an approach that regards race as a social concept (Omi and Winant 2004).

Race

Although, as we have seen, race is largely a social construct, that is not to say it is not a scientifically valid way of dis-

What Do You Think?

Why is skin color used to determine races

of people? Why not use some other physical

characteristic, such as eye color, hair color,

or height? What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 255

tinguishing people. A number of academic disciplines utilize classification sys- tems for race. In biology, race refers to a population of humans based on certain hereditary characteristics that differentiate them from other human groups (Mar- ger 2006). Physical anthropologists distinguish racial groups either by pheno- type—visible anatomical features such as skin color, hair texture, and body and facial shape—or by genotype—genetic specifications inherited from one’s parents (Marger 2006).

The sociological origin of socially constructing the concept of race dates back (at least) to the nineteenth century, when Max Weber discounted bio- logical explanations for racial conflict and pointed instead to the social and political factors that helped to foster it (Omi and Winant 2004; Ernst 1947). During his 1904 visit to the United States, Weber correctly observed that African Americans were not fully assimilated socially and politically, and he predicted a rise in racial tensions between white and black America (Delaney 2004; Weber [1926] 1975). Considering that African Americans had not been fully assimilated in the United States prior to Weber’s visit, such a prediction was not an example of foresight out of the clear blue. After all, blacks were subjected to slavery in the South and generally unequal status in the rest of society, even during the post–Civil War decades, which consisted of the for- mation of the Ku Klux Klan, lynchings, and the Jim Crow era. The discussion of Weber’s view of race in the United States is interesting from a sociological perspective because it reveals how sociologists from different nations became aware of race relations as a sociological area of interest. Weber’s views on race relations were developed in Germany and reinforced during his only trip to the United States in 1904.

And just a few years after Weber’s visit, on the night of July 4, 1910, the ten- sions between blacks and whites erupted in massive race riots around the country as a reaction to the heavyweight championship fight in which the African Ameri- can boxer Jack Johnson defeated Jim Jeffries (popularly known as the “Great White Hope”) (New York Tribune, 7/5/10).

Racial riots continued sporadically throughout the twentieth century. African Americans, however, were not the only racial group to experience discrimina- tion by the white majority in the United States. As we see in the next section of this chapter, discrimination has also been practiced against European immigrants (especially those from non-English-speaking countries), Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.

As the twenty-first century progresses, sociologists have increasingly placed the concept of race in a sociohistorical context (Omi and Winant 2004). Further- more, a number of sociologists, along with a growing number of citizens, have

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

256 | CHAPTER EIGHT

attempted to downplay classifying people by race altogether. Nonetheless, and despite the limitations of doing so, most social institutions (e.g., the media, poli- tics, and economics) and people themselves acknowledge racial categories based on skin color.

Ethnicity

An ethnicity is a category of people recognized as distinct based on social or cultural factors. An ethnic group shares cultural characteristics: nationality, reli- gion, language, geographic residence, values, and so on. Ethnic groups have a shared sense of history and fate that connects members together in a meaningful manner, and many ethnic groups take great pride in their cultural history. Ethnic groups have traditionally been described as subgroups of racial groups (Marger 2006). For example, the French, Irish, English, and Germans are ethnic groups under the Caucasian racial umbrella, while the Chinese, Japanese, and Filipi- nos are examples of ethnic groups found within the Asian race. The classifica- tion in recent U.S. censuses of Hispanics/Latinos as an ethnic rather than a racial group (consisting of such ancestral groups such as Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans) has clouded this idea of an ethnic group as a subgroup of a larger racial group. Ethnic groupings further illustrate the socially constructed aspect of race— albeit on a smaller level.

Racism and Other Terms

When an individual is judged solely on the basis of his or her race, that individual may fall victim to racism. The most commonly described form of racism is interra- cism, which occurs between different categories of races. When describing inter- racism, most people simply use the term “racism.” Racism involves any attitude, belief, behavior, or social arrangement that has the intent, or the ultimate effect, of favoring one racial category of people over another. Racism involves denying equal access to goods and services to all racial groups in society. A racist perspec- tive denies the idea of equality among all people and promotes an ideology that one racial group is superior to another (Doob 1999). Marger (2006) concurs and states that racism is “the belief that humans are subdivided into distinct hereditary groups that are innately different in their social behavior and mental capacities and that can therefore be ranked as superior or inferior. The presumed superi- ority of some groups and inferiority of others is subsequently used to legitimate the unequal distribution of the society’s resources, specifically, various forms of wealth, prestige, and power” (p. 25).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 257

The sociological perspective dictates that racism, in any form, is the result of learned behavior; that is, no one is born a racist. People become racist because they are exposed to significant others who display racist attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and thereby pass them on to others. The sociological perspective of rac- ism as learned behavior is further exhibited by the realization that a less described from of racism, known as intraracism, also exists. Intraracism (sometimes referred to as colorism) occurs between members of the same race who condemn those with darker or lighter skin tones than their own. For example, very dark-skinned African Americans may be discriminated against by lighter-skinned blacks for being so dark; conversely, darker-skinned blacks may view lighter-skinned blacks as not “black-looking” enough. In its acknowledgment of the existence of intra- racism, the National Association for the Advancement of Black People (2011), founded in 2003, proclaims on its home page that “Black/African Americans w/ Negroid features are welcome to join” but that “intraracism . . . will not be toler- ated, practiced, or allowed.”

As shown below in this chapter’s section titled “The We-They Character of Race and Ethnicity,” racism can be further distinguished via analysis of racism at the institutional versus the individual level. For now, we turn to a discussion of prejudice.

The word “prejudice” literally means a judgment formed without knowledge. Prejudice involves a mind-set whereby an individual or group accepts negative social definitions of others (LeMay 2005). Thus, prejudice can be defined as negative beliefs and overgeneralizations concerning a group of people involving a judgment against an individual based on a rigid and fixed mental image applied to all individuals of that group. Ethnic and racial prejudices are characterized by several features, including categorical or generalized thoughts, negative assump- tions about an individual based on group membership, and inflexible thinking. The ideas that all Polish people are stupid and all French people are arrogant are examples of prejudicial thinking.

A common type of prejudice is the stereotype. Stereotypes are oversimplified and exaggerated beliefs about a group of people. A stereotype presumes that any one person within a group possesses specific characteristics regarded as embody- ing that group. The beliefs that all black people make good athletes and all Japa- nese people make good scientists are examples of stereotypes. As Marger (2006) explains, “Once we learn the stereotypes attached to particular groups, we tend to subsequently perceive individual members according to those generalized images” (p. 63).

Bigots often employ stereotypes with their flawed reasoning. A bigot is a per- son who identifies strongly with his or her own group, religion, race, or political

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

258 | CHAPTER EIGHT

view and is intolerant of those who are different. Bigotry refers to a person’s use of a set of interrelated attitudes and beliefs to define an entire group of people in an inferior way. Archie Bunker, the main character of the 1970s television show All in the Family, expertly portrayed a bigot. (Note: All in the Family is still on the air via television syndication and YouTube.)

Another key term related to the analysis of racism is discrimination. Discrimi- nation refers to behavior that treats people unequally on the basis of an ascribed status, such as race or gender. Discrimination can be viewed as applied prejudice (LeMay 2005). That is, while prejudice refers to a negative belief about someone, discrimination refers to actual behavior that involves treating someone unequally. Thus, someone may be guilty of prejudice but not discrimination, whereas some- one who discriminates is by definition also prejudicial.

Racial profiling is connected to discrimination. As defined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2005), racial profiling refers to “the discrimina- tory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.” In this context, law enforcement officials include all those “acting in a policing capacity in public or private settings, such as security guards at department stores, air- port security agents, police officers, and, more recently, airline pilots who have ordered passengers to disembark from flights because the passengers’ ethnicity aroused the pilots’ suspicions” (ACLU 2005). Racial profiling examples include using race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (com- monly referred to as “driving while black or brown”) and the use of race to deter- mine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband. It is important to note, however, that “racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors” (ACLU 2005).

Proving instances of racial profiling by law enforcement is often problematic. Law enforcement agencies defend the inclusion of race as one of several factors in suspect profiling, arguing that criminal profiling based on any characteristic is a time-tested and universal police tool and that excluding race as a variable is illogi- cal. Thus, if a call goes out to patrol cars that a suspected burglary is in progress, police officers will benefit if they are given information about the suspected bur- glars. Information would include the number of suspects, gender, race, height and weight, age, clothing worn, and so on. The responding officers certainly cannot interrogate all citizens in the area of the burglary in their attempt to protect and serve the community. On the other hand, critics of racial profiling argue that all too often, responding officers are more likely to view minorities as suspects for the crime in question (see “Connecting Sociology and Popular Culture” Box 8.1 for a highly publicized incident that involved an allegation of racial profiling).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 259

Connecting Sociology and Popular Culture

Box 8.1 The Beer Summit: Deconstructing Racial Profiling

An allegation of racial profiling from July 2009 became

such a huge part of popular and academic discourse

that it gained a pop-culture reference as “The Beer

Summit.” The summit came about after an incident

near Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Based on a Cambridge Police Department incident

report (#9005127), an African American man named

Henry Louis Gates was placed under arrest at a

Ware Street residential location “after being observed

exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public

place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was

present investigating a report of a crime in progress.

These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legiti-

mate purpose and caused citizens by this location to

stop and take notice while appearing surprised and

alarmed.” Sergeant James Crowley and Officer James

Figueroa were responding to a report by Gates’s neigh-

bor Lucia Whalen that two

men were forcing their way

into the home. When the 911

dispatcher asked Whalen

whether the two men were

black, white, or Hispanic,

she replied, “One looked

kind of Hispanic, but I’m not

really sure” (Goodnough

2009a).

As it turned out, the fif-

ty-eight-year-old Gates—a

highly renowned scholar

and Harvard professor—was

returning home from a trip to

China and had simply been

trying, with the help of his driver, to enter his own

house, whose front door was stuck. Unaware that a

neighbor suspected foul play, the two eventually suc-

ceeded in pushing their way into Gates’s home. When

Crowley arrived at the residence, he asked Gates

to come outside and speak with him and show his

identification. Gates yelled at Crowley, “Why, because

I’m a black man in America?” Gates reportedly contin-

ued, “Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside!” Gates’s

agitated state, apparently caused by the belief that he

was a victim of racial profiling, led Crowley to arrest,

handcuff, and transport him to police headquarters,

where he was held for hours (Goodnough 2009b).

A short time later, when asked about the incident,

President Barack Obama replied that the police had act-

ed “stupidly.” This upset many folks in law enforcement,

including Crowley. Crowley, a police academy expert on

racial profiling, insisted that he had “acted appropriately.”

While conducting an interview with WBZTV, Crowley

claimed, “Mr. Gates was given plenty of opportunities

to stop what he was doing. He didn’t. He acted very ir-

rational, he controlled the outcome of that event. . . . There

was a lot of yelling, there was references to my mother,

something you wouldn’t expect from anybody that should

be grateful that you were there investigating a report of a

crime in progress, let alone a Harvard professor” (WBZTV

.com 2009). Gates accused Crowley of entering his home

without permission. He also asked for the sergeant’s

name and badge number

because he was unhappy

about his treatment (WBZTV

.com 2009).

Although the charges

against Gates were sub-

sequently dropped, news

programs and outlets of all

sorts, including blogs, of-

fered emotionally charged

opinions about the incident.

In an attempt to defuse the

situation, President Obama

invited both Gates and

Crowley to join him at the

White House to sit down,

have a beer, and discuss things. On July 30, 2009,

Gates, Crowley, and Obama met and shared a beer.

(Vice President Joe Biden joined the group but did not

have a beer as he does not drink alcohol.) When Obama

learned that both Gates and Crowley had already spent

time talking to each other, he praised them for doing so.

In the end, Gates and Crowley “agreed to disagree”

about the confrontation that had led to Gates’s arrest.

Obama reported that the Beer Summit conversation

centered on moving forward and not reliving the events

of the previous two weeks.

What Do You Think?

Was Gates’s arrest the result of racial

profiling? Did Crowley act appropriately or

inappropriately? How might events have been

different if Gates had been white? Should race

be taken out of the criminal profiling formula

used by law enforcement? A 911 dispatcher’s

asking for a description that entailed race

might be considered profiling on the part of

the public, but it may also reveal that this is

standard police procedure What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

260 | CHAPTER EIGHT

As “Connecting Sociology and Popular Culture” Box 8.1 concludes, Gates, Crowley, and Obama felt it best to move on and “agree to disagree” about past events. In essence, the Gates-Crowley incident may have been defused, but the greater issue of racial profil- ing remained unresolved. This prompts us to ask, What can be done to lessen the animosity that exists between many members of diverse racial and ethnic groups? After all, it would appear that many people in society are intent on focusing on the differences rather than the similarities among people. This is problematic, to say the least. Perhaps if people focused on similarities, we would all come to see each other as members of the same race: the human race.

After all, we are all much more closely related than we might think. For example, genealogists have docu-

mented links between otherwise dissimilar individuals. President Barack Obama is a distant cousin of former vice president Dick Cheney, British prime minister Win- ston Churchill, and Civil War general Robert E. Lee. Obama is also a distant cousin of actor Brad Pitt. Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie, is a distant cousin of Hillary Clin- ton (Lavoie 2008). As for First Lady Michelle Obama, genealogical research pub- lished in 2009 indicates that she had at least one great-great-great-grandfather who was white and another ancestor believed to be Native American (Swarns and Kantor 2009). Indeed, genetic studies indicate that many people who look like they may belong to one particular race might actually have a significant proportion of genes of another race. Furthermore, DNA evidence reveals a genetic link between Jews and Palestinians, two groups who have been locked in a bitter struggle for more than a century yet share a common ancestry dating back 4,000 years (Kraft 2000).

You may be asking yourself, Why do diverse people not concentrate more on their social and genetic similarities than on their cultural differences? Part of the answer lies with our discussion in Chapter 4 of the power of culture. It is also partly explained by the “we-they” mentality that most people possess. (Note: The “we-they” distinction is discussed later in this chapter.)

RACIAL AND ETHNIC STRATIFICATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Chapter 7 explored stratification primarily from a social class perspective. Stratifi- cation also exists among racial and ethnic groups. Nearly all multiethnic societies

U.S. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden

meet with Sgt. James Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates

to discuss racial profiling while drinking a beer in the Rose

Garden outside of the Oval Office.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 261

have a hierarchical arrangement of ethnic groups wherein one establishes itself as the dominant group with the power to shape the course of ethnic relations. Other, subordinate ethnic groups possess less power and take a correspondingly subor- dinate position in the hierarchy, with the least powerful groups finding themselves at the bottom of this ranking system (Marger 2006). In this fashion, a system of ethnic stratification takes hold in society. Ethnic stratification, then, is a system of ranking ethnic groups with the dominant group on top and the less power- ful groups taking positions lower in the hierarchy. Using this system of ethnic stratification, sociologists are able to distinguish majority-minority and dominant- subordinate social systems.

In order to best understand the ethnic-stratification system in the United States, it is necessary to identify the major racial and ethnic groups that popu- late the nation. Typically, the following categories of people are recognized in the United States: white non-Hispanic, Hispanic, African American, Asian, American Indian, and “other” (e.g., Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander). The U.S. govern- ment modified these categories slightly on its Census 2010 form. Question 8 of the census asked respondents, “Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?” Respondents indicating yes to this question were given four suboptions: Mexican,

Angelina Jolie and Hilary Clinton are distant cousins.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

262 | CHAPTER EIGHT

Mexican American, Chicano; Puerto Rican; Cuban; and “Other,” with directions to specify, for example Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salva- doran, and so on. Census respondents were asked in Question 9, “What is Per- son 1’s race?” Respondents could check one or more boxes. The first option was “white” with no elaboration; that is, no suboptions were made available for ances- try. The other options for Question 9 were black, African American, or Negro; American Indian or Alaska Native (identify tribe); Asian Indian; Chinese; Fili- pino; Japanese; Korean; Vietnamese; Other Asian (with multiple options); Native American; Guamanian or Chamorro; Samoan; and Other Pacific Islander (with multiple options provided).

Five hundred years ago, the geographical area that is now the United States was populated almost entirely by indigenous peoples. As more and more people emi- grated from Europe, the population shifted toward a white majority, displacing the Native Americans. The Europeans also brought with them slaves from Africa, making blacks the largest minority group. Because of slavery, African Americans had consistently represented the largest minority group, until the early 2000s, when Hispanics became the largest minority group.

As the majority and dominant group throughout U.S. history, white non-His- panics have represented the power group among Americans. Demographic data from the 2005 census reveals that whites represent 68 percent of the population; Hispanics (a term used for people with ethnic backgrounds in Spanish-speaking countries), 14.5 percent; African Americans, 12.8 percent; Asians and others, 4 percent; and Native Americans, 1 percent. The demographics of the United States are changing quickly, and according to projections, by 2050 minorities will make up 49 percent of the total U.S. population (compared to 25 percent in 1990). Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States, and by 2050 there will be more Hispanics than all other minorities combined (Ginsberg 2003). The two primary causes of the rapid Hispanic population growth are mas- sive immigration and a high birthrate. The Asian population is also growing quite quickly, and the U.S. census estimates Asians will represent 8 percent of the total U.S. population by 2050 (Ohlemacher 2006b).

The following pages give a brief synopsis of each major racial and ethnic cate- gory in the United States. Clearly, such a review is succinct by design, as it would be impossible to provide full coverage of the diversity of each of these categories of people. However, the coverage provides a glimpse of the sociological perspective of each category. (Note: Most sociology departments offer a wide range of courses on race and ethnicity. Students interested in learning more about the topic are encouraged to take such courses.)

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 263

White Non-Hispanic Americans

Based on 2005 census data, white non-Hispanic Americans (sometimes referred to as European Americans) represent the largest racial group in the United States. At 68 percent, whites make up more than two-thirds of the total population. Dur- ing the seventeenth century, English immigrants colonized Massachusetts and Virginia. Along with the English, other immigrants from Western Europe, espe- cially from Wales, Scotland, and Germany, settled in North America. Since the earliest days of the United States, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPs, have dominated the socioeconomic and political landscape. They established their political power in 1790 with the passage of the Naturalization Act, legislation declaring that only white immigrants could apply for citizenship.

Between 1820 and 1992, nearly 60 million immigrants entered the United States legally. Most of them were white Europeans; however, despite being racially similar to the dominant race in the United States, they came from a vari- ety of countries, spoke many different languages, belonged to many different reli- gious, political, and ethnic categories, and were often victims of intraracism. As immigrants, they generally lacked the skills necessary to compete in the job mar- ket, struggled with learning English, and experienced prejudice and discrimina- tion. Some changed their names and denied their ethnic heritages to gain social and economic mobility in their pursuit of the “American dream.” These non- Anglo-Saxon immigrants resided in concentrated urban areas that became known as ethnic ghettos. Multiple-dwelling units became a source of profit for slum own- ers. Sanitation conditions were poor, and high-density living fueled crime. These early immigrants looked forward to moving out of the ghettos as quickly as possi- ble; as a result, they embraced assimilation. As one ethnic immigrant group, such as Irish Catholics, moved out of the ghetto, other, new immigrant groups, such as Eastern European Jews, moved in and replaced them. Each time this happened, the immigrant neighborhoods in the ghettos fell into further decay.

Although all white people, as a racial group, certainly do not enjoy a high socio- economic status, they fare much better financially today than most other groups in the United States. White Americans are very diverse and consist of a number of ethnic, or ancestral, groups (see Table 8.1 for a listing of the largest European ancestries in the United States in 2000).

Hispanic (Latino) Americans

There is debate among scholars—and, more importantly, among Hispanic or Latino people themselves—as to which term is more acceptable: “Hispanic” or

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

264 | CHAPTER EIGHT

“Latino.” In some regions of the United States, especially Southern California, the term “Chicano” is preferred. Chicanos identify with their indigenous ances- tors (Mayans or Aztecs) and are slightly militant in their insistence on usage of the term “Chicano.” Those who prefer the term “Hispanic” generally do so because they trace their roots to Spanish and indigenous ancestors who resided in Mexico and the Southwest (before it became a part of the United States). People who pre- fer the term “Latino” generally identify with ancestors from Puerto Rico, Ecua- dor, the Dominican Republic, and other areas of Central America. (Note: This text uses both “Hispanic” and “Latino,” and no disrespect is intended to those who prefer one term over the other.)

Until fairly recently, Hispanics were categorized as a racial group with many subcategories of ethnic groups. Today, because of their great diversity, Latinos are viewed as an ethnic group made up of distinct people of different geographic ancestry. As stated earlier in the text, Hispanics collectively constitute 14.5 per- cent of the total U.S. population and are the largest minority group. Marger (2006) puts the total number of Latinos in the United States in perspective by stating, “There are more people of Mexican origin in Los Angeles than in all but one city in Mexico; in New York City, there are more Puerto Ricans than in San Juan; and only in Havana are there more Cubans than in Miami” (p. 303). The three larg-

TABLE 8.1 Largest Reported European Ancestries in the United States in 2000 ANCESTRY NUM BER (M ILLIONS) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S.

POPULATION

German 42.8 15.2

Irish 30.5 10.8

English 24.5 8.7

Italian 15.6 5.6

Polish 9.0 3.2

French 8.3 3.0

Scottish 4.9 1.7

Dutch 4.5 1.6

Norwegian 4.5 1.6

Scotch-Irish 4.3 1.5

Swedish 4.0 1.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 265

est categories of Hispanics are Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cuban Americans.

Hispanic people are very diverse; as a result, it is difficult to describe a stereo- typical Hispanic. Still, most Hispanic ethnic groups have been influenced sig- nificantly by Spain and the Spanish language and culture. This heritage continues today. Most Mexican Americans are mestizos (meaning “mixed blood” and refer- ring to their blended Spanish and indigenous ancestry), whereas many other Lati- nos (e.g., Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Brazilians) have African heritage as well. “If a common theme runs through the unique histories and experiences of the several Hispanic groups in the United States, it is their intermediate ethnic status between Euro-American groups, on one hand, and African Americans, on the other. In several important respects, Hispanics are an ethnic minority ‘in between’” (Mar- ger 2006, p. 304). As an “in-between” group, Hispanics have not suffered from prejudice and discrimination to the same degree as African Americans; yet, nor have they historically enjoyed full participation in the American power structure.

African Americans

Based on our current knowledge of the origins of humanity, all our ancestors can be traced back to Africa. The migration patterns of our earliest ancestors led to the spread of the human race across the globe. Despite Africa’s legacy as the “cradle of humanity,” Africans have often faced prejudice and discrimination. No truer example of this reality can be found elsewhere than in the United States. The Afri- can American experience in the United States has been (and remains, for many) drastically different from that preached by American idealism.

Africans have had a unique experience in the Americas. They came with the earliest Europeans, usually as indentured servants; however, by the late 1600s, more and more Africans were transported to the colonies as slaves. The history of slavery in world civilization has often been told, but a quick recap is in order. Ancient cultures such as the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Romans held slaves, and the practice continued in Europe and Asia throughout the Middle Ages. Any- one, regardless of race or ethnicity, could be enslaved as a result of military con- quest, piracy, or an inability to pay his or her debts. As Islamic culture flourished in the ninth and tenth centuries, Arabs began to invade the sub-Saharan regions of the continent and enslave black Africans. Portugal and eventually other Euro- pean nations became involved in the African slave trade in the 1400s. When the Europeans started settling in the Americas and developed large plantations (e.g., tobacco, sugar, indigo, and cotton), they increasingly brought African slaves with them. The slave trade became highly lucrative for Europeans.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

266 | CHAPTER EIGHT

For more than two hundred years, Africans suffered as slaves. In an attempt to justify their behavior, slave owners developed a racist ideology that included view- ing Africans as less than human. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865 (by vir- tue of the Thirteenth Amendment) and Africans were granted citizenship by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, they still suffered from extreme prejudice and discrimi- nation. The Reconstruction period that immediately followed the end of the Civil War ushered in the Jim Crow era—typified by efforts to deny African Americans equal access to goods and services, the right to vote, and so forth. Segregation also characterized this period. The Supreme Court’s 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision established a “separate-but-equal” philosophy designed to continue the unfair treatment of blacks. After World War II, the effects of Jim Crow were diminishing but had not disappeared. During the 1950s and 1960s, blacks stood up for their rights and challenged the dominant power structure of the United States. In 1954, for example, the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka invalidated the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Because so many Africans were brought to the United States as slaves, they have historically been the largest minority group. However, as previously stated, Hispanics now occupy that status. Still, African Americans make up 12.8 percent of the total U.S. population. The largest percentage of blacks can trace their ancestral roots to the African slave trade, but a number of ethnically diverse U.S. blacks trace their heritage to the West Indies and such Caribbean nations as Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, and the Dominican Republic. Although a number of African Americans have gained great success in the United States, many still suffer from prejudice, discrimination, low education levels, and high rates of incarceration.

Asian Americans

As with every other category of Americans, Asian Americans are also quite diverse. Generally looked upon as members of a single racial category, Asian Americans consist of many ethnic groups (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Filipino American). Asian Americans share a number of characteristics with other immigrant groups; specifically, they were victims of prejudice and discrimination upon their earliest arrival in the United States.

The Asian experience in the United States can be divided into two distinct eras of immigration: the first wave and the second (and current) wave. The first wave occurred roughly from the middle of the nineteenth to the early twentieth

What Do You Think?

African Americans have long been the

largest minority in the United States. Now

that Hispanics outnumber them, what will the

socioeconomic effect, if any, be on blacks as

the second-largest minority group? What do

you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 267

century. The Chinese were the first to arrive, followed by the Japanese, and then smaller numbers of Koreans and Filipinos. These early Asian immigrants were employed mostly as unskilled laborers for construction and agricultural work (Marger 2006). Asian immigration was quite limited during this first wave because of strict U.S. laws limiting it. For example, the Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477) was designed to limit the immigration of Chinese men who would serve as a cheap source of labor and “immoral” Chinese women (who would engage in prostitution) (Peffer 1986; Museum of Learning 2010). From 1882 to 1943, the U.S. government severely curtailed immigration from China to the United States via Chinese Exclusion Laws. In 1882 an act (22 Stat. 58) suspended immigra- tion of Chinese laborers for ten years and prohibited the naturalization of Chinese already in the United States (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 2010). In 1892, passage of the Act to Prohibit the Coming of Chinese Persons into the United States (27 Stat. 25), referred to as the Geary Act, also severely restricted Chinese immigration (U.S. National Archives and Records Administra- tion 2010). When China and the United States became allies in World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Act to Repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts, to Establish Quotas, and for Other Purposes (57 Stat. 600-1). Nonetheless, until the Immigration Act of October 1965 (79 Stat. 911), numerous laws contin- ued to restrict Chinese immigration (U.S. National Archives and Records Admin- istration 2010).

The second (and current) wave of Asian immigration began with the shift in U.S. immigration policy brought about by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The new Asian immigrants are far more diverse. Some are highly educated and trained for skilled jobs, while others come from such war-torn areas as Viet- nam, Laos, and Cambodia. This second wave of Asian immigration has contrib- uted to this group’s comprising 4 percent of the total U.S. population. In many areas, Asian Americans equal or exceed white Americans in income, educational attainment, life expectancy, and so on. Conversely, poorer Asian Americans suffer the same plight as other people of lower socioeconomic status: they are victims of prejudice and discrimination.

Native Americans

When the European explorers first arrived in 1492, the Western Hemisphere was populated by many diverse cultures and tribes of indigenous people who became known collectively as “Indians” to Europeans. Christopher Columbus thought that he had arrived in India, when he actually landed in San Salvador, and he mistakenly labeled the native people he encountered “Indians.” The misnaming

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

268 | CHAPTER EIGHT

of the indigenous people of the Americas by the Europeans foreshadowed the misunderstandings, distrust, and hostility that later developed between the two races of people.

The great diversity of native peoples is illustrated by the estimated 260 dif- ferent nations (or tribes) that inhabited the Americas (Winik 1999). They were differentiated by, among other things, great differences in geography and climate in the United States. The Indian way of life in the forested Northeast was not the same as that in the muggy, near-tropical jungles of Florida and Louisiana or on the grassy plains of the Dakotas or in the arid Southwest. Thus, any collective gener- alization about Native Americans is difficult, to say the least.

However, at least one major characteristic is shared by all native people: the harsh treatment they were subjected to by the Europeans and, later, white Ameri- cans. The indigenous peoples of the North and South American continents were decimated by European explorers and settlers between the sixteenth and eigh- teenth centuries, then by North American westward expansion in the nineteenth century. The Europeans did not simply exterminate millions of people; they con- ducted a sustained population reduction over hundreds of years through mass eradication campaigns, starvation, and the introduction of diseases (Marsico 2010). Such policies are an example of genocide, the intentional attempt to exter- minate a race of people by a more dominant population.

After facing near extinction, Native Americans, once described as the “van- ishing Americans,” have made modest gains in their population (see “Connect- ing Sociology and Popular Culture” Box 8.2 for a discussion of the use of Indian imagery in sports). Today, they represent over 1 percent of the total U.S. popula- tion. Unfortunately, Native Americans as a group suffer from many social prob- lems, including the highest rate of poverty and the shortest life expectancy of any category of Americans. The extreme poverty Native Americans suffer from has led to many other problems, including high rates of alcoholism, poor health, and high rates of depression and suicide (Winik 1999). A 2009 Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention report revealed that 11.7 percent of Native American deaths between 2001 and 2005 were due to alcohol; the national rate is 3.3 percent (Post- Standard, 8/22/09). In brief, despite the positive increase in population growth, Native Americans suffer disproportionately (when compared to all other racial and ethnic groups) when it comes to any number of social problems.

The feud between Native Americans and the U.S. government is not limited to the past. On occasion, the U.S. government has had direct conflicts with Native American organizations or tribes. For example, in 1973 followers of the American Indian Movement (AIM) staged a seventy-one-day occupation of Wounded Knee, South Dakota. In response, the U.S. Marshals Service was called in to assist in

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 269

a resolution. The AIM surrendered on May 8, 1973. Two Indians were killed, and one marshal was seri- ously wounded (U.S. Marshals Service 2010). Among the biggest contemporary concerns of native peoples is the Indian Trust Fund lawsuit. Congress first estab- lished the Indian Trust in 1887 to hold proceeds from government-arranged leases of Indian lands (Belczyk 2010). The Indian Trust consists of about 56 million acres of land; 10 million of those belong to individual Indians, and the other 46 million acres are held in trust for various tribes (Streshinsky 2009). In 2009, the U.S. government announced that a settlement agree- ment worth more than $3.4 billion had been reached in a thirteen-year class-action lawsuit claiming misman- agement of trust funds against the U.S. Department of the Interior. For those who brought the suit, the settlement agreement was about more than money; it was about anger and frustration stemming from years of pov- erty and victimization, decades of unfunded mandates, and a piecemeal web of legacy laws (Streshinsky 2009).

It is somewhat amazing that so many people have forgotten, or choose not to accept, that Native Americans (Indians) were settled in the Americas long before European settlers arrived. Perhaps one of the most ignorant things a racist can say to an Indian is, “Why don’t you go back to your own country” (see “A Closer Look” Box 8.3 for a story of a Native American professor who was told by a stu- dent to do that).

Is the Term “Minority” Outdated?

The demographic changes in the United States increasingly mean that whites are no longer the majority (defined as comprising at least 51 percent of the popula- tion): as of 2006, this was the case in four states (California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas). In other states (Maryland, Georgia, and Nevada), the share of white people fell below 60 percent in 2006. Most likely, by 2060 there will be no clear majority racial or ethnic group in the United States. Thus, from a statistical stand- point, it becomes increasingly pointless to speak in terms of a majority-minority relationship. However, as sociologists point out, the term “minority” extends beyond a numbers game; it also refers to a differential in power. In this manner, a minority group is a group of disadvantaged citizens—specifically, the underprivi- leged at the lower end of the stratification hierarchy.

This sign “No Sovereign Nation, No Reservation” depicts the

ill will shown by many non-Native Americans toward Native

people.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

270 | CHAPTER EIGHT

A growing number of people is perceiving the application of the word “minor- ity” to specific racial and ethnic groups as offensive; as a result its usage has fallen out of vogue. However, it would seem that until all groups share equally in socio- economic and political power, some will be designated as holding minority status. This is due in part, as sociologists point out, to the fact that minority status can be applied to groups based on characteristics beyond race and ethnicity, such as gender, age, and physical disability.

Connecting Sociology and Popular Culture

Box 8.2 The Use of Indian Imagery in Sports

This chapter’s introductory story briefly introduced

the idea that many Native Americans consider the use

of Indian imagery in sports offensive. Sports teams

routinely use nicknames, logos, and mascots as a

means of conveying an identity. There is a great deal of

symbolism involved with sports nicknames, logos, and

mascots. “A group’s symbols serve two fundamental

purposes—they bind together

the individual members of a

group, and they separate one

group from another. . . . Using

symbols to achieve solidarity

and community is a common

group practice” (Eitzen 1999,

p. 29). Many sports teams use

Native American imagery for

their nicknames, logos, and

mascots and insist that they

are doing this to bring honor to

Native Americans.

However, various Native

American groups and aca-

demic scholars argue that

the practice of using Indian

imagery amounts to a form of racism. In their view, the

use of Indian mascots places Native Americans on a

parallel level with animals, relies on racist logos and

practices, and constitutes an obscenity, considering

the history of genocide perpetrated against native

peoples by Europeans and Americans (Meyer 2002;

Davis-Delano 2009). Is it any wonder that descendants

of a people who were nearly obliterated by Europeans

and Americans find it very difficult to accept “Indians”

as sports mascots?

Sports teams that use Indian imagery often also

engage in behavior known as

“playing Indian.” Playing In-

dian involves building a type

of team spirit by displaying

stereotypical Native American

behaviors for entertainment

purposes (King and Spring-

wood 2001). For example,

students at Simpson College

in Indianola, Iowa, shout “a

victory cheer known as the

‘Scalp Song’ and use idioms

of Indianness in their annual

rituals such as homecoming”

(King and Springwood 2001,

p. 3). Playing Indian may

include wearing face paint,

which had spiritual meaning for native peoples. An-

other example is the “tomahawk chop” and the chant

that goes with it, practiced by Florida State University

and Atlanta Braves fans. This practice is a sort of team

Many Native Americans and sociologists consider the

“Redskin” nickname as the most racist of all U.S. sport

franchises. Shown here are fans of the Washington

Redskins dressed in Native American costume.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 271

THE WE-THEY CHARACTER OF RACE AND ETHNICITY

As discussed in Chapter 4, cultures around the world are quite unique and cher- ish their own sets of norms, values, and beliefs. There also exists a tendency among like-minded people to view their way of life as “right” or proper. This line of thinking is known as ethnocentrism. Recall that ethnocentrism refers to the tendency of people from one cultural group to judge other cultures by the

cheer, used especially when the team is doing par-

ticularly well, to express the idea that the “Indians”

are about to attack, crying out with their well-known

war whoops as they chop up their opponents with

small axes. Most Native Americans find this conduct

demeaning to them.

Of the many professional sports teams that uti-

lize Indian imagery, perhaps none is as offensive

as the National Football League’s Washington

Redskins. The Redskins organization argues that

the word “redskin” is neutral and that its use of the

name “Redskins” honors American Indians. Many

Native Americans strongly disagree that the con-

cept of redskin is an honor and have challenged

the use of that term in various courts of law. For

example, in 1992, seven Native Americans filed

an action before the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office to cancel six Red-

skins trademarks because

they were “scandalous”

and “disparaging” to Na-

t i v e A m e r i c a n p e o p l e s

(MacDowall 2010). More

recently, in 2009, Native

Americans again unsuc-

cessfully challenged the

u s e o f t h e w o rd “ R e d -

skins” by the Washington,

D.C., franchise in Harjo v.

Pro Football Inc. (565 F.3d

880; D.C. Cir. 2009) (Mac-

Dowall 2010). It should be

pointed out that nearly all dictionaries characterize

“redskin” (the R word) in the same way as they do

“nigger” (the N word)—that is, as an offensive term

or offensive slang. Native American advocates

point out that people should be as uncomfortable

saying the R word as they are saying the N word.

Furthermore, they find it more than ironic that the

Redskins franchise is located in the U.S. national

capital city, considering that Washington, D.C., has

long been the symbol of broken promises to and

treaties with Native Americans.

The issue of sports teams using Indian imagery

in nicknames, logos, and mascots will not disappear

until offensive usages of such imagery no longer exist

in sports. Some believe Native Americans are being

honored by teams who use Indian imagery (Davis-

Delano 2009). In the U.S. military there is an expres-

sion: “No honor is given if no

honor is received.” In other

words, one cannot claim to

have honored another if the

other does not view the act

as such. Other people try to

ignore the Native American

nickname, logo, and mas-

cot issue by saying, “It’s just

political correctness.” That

is not true. Native Ameri-

cans are people. They are

not mascots. Eliminating

offensive Indian imagery is

a matter of correctness.

What Do You Think?

Many Native Americans, academics, and

others believe that sports teams should

eliminate the usage of Indian imagery.

Imagine the social reaction, they say, if the

Washington team changed its nickname to

“N***ers” and claimed that it did so to honor

African Americans! That is what they say

people should imagine every time they see

the Redskins’ logo. Do you find the use of

Indian imagery offensive? What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

272 | CHAPTER EIGHT

standards of their own. An ethnocentric viewpoint generates a “we” feeling that is shared by members of a group. Ethnocentrism promotes group solidarity and group pride (a positive aspect), but it also generally involves viewing other groups as inferior (a negative aspect).

When one group deems itself superior, it usually displays acts of intolerance toward others. Stereotypes, racism, and prejudice are by-products of intolerance. This section examines the social effects of “we-they” thinking in group interac- tions and group identity. It also describes how racism can exist on both the individual and the institutional level. Finally, it scrutinizes the “color-blind,” or race-neutral, perspective and explores why race continues to matter in a society that claims to hold equality as an ideal.

A Closer Look

Box 8.3 “Go Back to Your Own Country”

What does it mean to tell a Native American, “Go back to

your own country”? Is this a sign of hate or perhaps of ig-

norance? Or it is a Halloween prank gone terribly wrong?

A colleague of mine at the State University of New York,

Oswego, Kevin White, a Native American (Akwesasne

Mohawk), had to wrestle with these questions and more

while teaching, ironically, his “Native Americans 100”

class shortly before noon on October 31, 2003. During

class a student wearing a headdress ran into Professor

White’s classroom, fired a suction cup arrow from a bow,

and shouted, “Go back to your own country” (Mohr

2003a, p. B1). The student claimed he was simply in-

volved with a Halloween prank. A number of students in

White’s class were outraged and considered the incident

a hate crime. One student was quoted as saying, “I’m

part Native American and

this was the biggest form

of racism I’ve ever seen”

(Mohr 2003a, p. B1). The

student who dressed and

acted like a stereotypical

“Indian” was charged not

with a hate crime but with

disorderly conduct. Still, the

incident stirred the passions of many Native American

academics across the nation and among White’s friends

and colleagues. The student offender maintained that

the incident was simply a prank. The university did not

charge the student with a hate crime because of the

language of its policy on hate crimes. That language

has since been changed so that such an incident today

could be classified as a hate crime (White 2010).

As Professor White (2010) explained, the student

appeared before a local judge in city court (Oswego,

New York) on disorderly conduct charges and was or-

dered to apologize to the entire class. The student left

school on his own accord, saying that he was suffering

after having been identified as the culprit publicly and

that the humiliation was more than he could endure.

Professor White wonders

whether the student thought

about his being humiliated

before or after the incident.

As for his reaction to being

told, “Go back to your own

country,” Professor White’s

reaction was, “I am already

here!”

What Do You Think?

Why is “Why don’t you go back to your own

country” an odd question to ask of a Native

American? What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 273

“We” Groups

As we learned in Chapter 5, social interaction plays a significant role in an indi- vidual’s life, and it is important for us to feel as though we belong, or fit into a group. Individuals like to experience a sense of unity with their fellows. Group participa- tion provides a sense of “we-ness,” where saying “we” is natural. For example, members of a specific racial or ethnic group might say, “We have long been victims of prejudice and discrimination.” The creation of the “we” category involves a sense of community. Ethnic communities are deeply rooted in common sentiments, com- mon experience, and a common history. Sharing a common history not only gives an ethnic group a common ancestry and descent but also becomes a significant basis for organizing the present. Often, the historical past is selectively interpreted from the perspective, and from the needs, of the present. Ethnic groups often share spe- cial-purpose associations to further their political and/or economic needs (e.g., the American Jewish Committee, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Urban League).

However, racial and ethnic groups are not completely autonomous and self- contained. “Instead, they are a part of a larger societal system that influences, shapes, and partially determines their life circumstances. Internally, groups often attempt to maintain their distinctive ‘we-ness’” (Shibutani and Kwan 1965, p. 47). Once an in-group establishes itself as a “we” group, its members come to seen by external groups for their “they-ness” (Rose 1981). Thus, the creation of a “we” parameter implies that a “they” label has also been established to refer to out-groups. As Ringer and Lawless (1989) explain, “When an ethnic group defines itself as a distinctive group it must face the fact that the larger society also perceives it as a distinctive entity” (p. 19).

“They” Groups

Interestingly, although it is made up of other “we” groups, “they” is generally viewed or recognized as representing the larger society itself. Even more ironi- cally, the outside society, or “they,” comes to view the initial “we” group as a “they.” Thus, the determination of “we” and “they” groups is a matter of perspec- tive. “However, despite this apparent agreement on the designation of distinctive- ness, major differences exist between the ethnic group and larger society over the specifics of this definition. For example, on the cognitive level, larger society’s definition of the ethnic group is primarily a function of its own beliefs about the group, which may not basically correspond with the group’s own beliefs about itself nor even with the ‘real nature of the group’” (Ringer and Lawless 1989,

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

274 | CHAPTER EIGHT

p. 19). The larger society comes to view specific ethnic groups in an oversimpli- fied manner and may fail to grasp the social realities of such groups. Historically, misunderstandings between “we” and “they” groups result in discriminatory treatment by dominant groups over smaller, less powerful ones.

The “we-they” dichotomy was influenced by the work of famous French lin- guistic anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (1962) and his concept of binary oppo- sition. Some of his binary opposites are fairly straightforward, such as raw versus cooked, while others are used as a means of creating a social hierarchy. Consider, for example, the Western cultural meanings of “white” and “black,” wherein white is associated with purity and goodness, and black is considered a sign of darkness and evil. Such interpretations of white and black carried over to the realm of race, where Europeans, who are white, viewed Africans as inferior because of their skin color and the meanings associated with being black.

In should be noted that the “we-they” social relationship extends beyond racial and ethnic distinctions. Street gangs identify one another on the basis of affiliation. Athletes and sports fans have long drawn distinctions between “us” and “them.” Budgetary concerns between different departments within the same organization often create adversarial rivalries expressed in such ways as, “If that other department (them) receives its requested funds, there will not be enough money left for us to make our budgetary requests.” Charities also compete with one another when requesting funds from the government and public donations.

Individual and Institutional Racism

Earlier in this chapter, the term “racism” was introduced. It is now important to point out that racism occurs at two lev- els: the micro level (individual or interpersonal racism) and the macro level (institutional or ideological racism). Indi- vidual racism refers to unequal treatment and behavior on the part of a member or group of one race against a person

or group of another race. For example, a store manager may refuse to hire a quali- fied person just because of his or her race or ethnicity. Although individual racism is fairly common, most researchers indicate that the total number of incidents of prejudice and discrimination is declining (Tepperman and Blain 2006). However, as Doob (1999) indicates, “While individual racism is surely less common than in the past, the impact of particular incidents can be shocking” (p. 7). An informed person who watches the news can find daily examples of shocking acts of indi- vidual racism.

What Do You Think?

Think of the groups you belong to (“we”

groups) and determine the corresponding

“they” groups. Is there any way to avoid the

“we-they” group parameter in life? What do

you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 275

Institutional racism involves widespread, large-scale, structured discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. “Institutional racism involves impersonal forces that are likely to disproportionately impact on minority group mem- bers, restricting opportunities for success in mainstream society by providing inferior facilities and limiting access” (Doob 1999, p. 8).

Many social institutions are arranged in such a manner as to disadvantage those without socioeconomic or politi- cal power. As Sage (1993) explains, “Racism is a salient aspect of the structure of American society. The most important aspect of this form of stratification is that it excludes people of color from equal access to socially valued rewards and resources. These people tend to have less wealth, power, and social prestige than do other Americans. Moreover, racism has built-in policies and practices that sys- tematically discriminate against people in employment, housing, policies, educa- tion, health care, and many other areas. These conditions result in fewer human resources and diminished life chances for African-Americans” (p. 6).

One example of institutional racism is redlining, which involves marking out specific areas where some people (usually based on race or ethnicity) are refused goods or services. Mild forms of redlining may include denying taxicab service or delivery of takeout foods to certain neighborhoods. More extreme forms of redlin- ing occur in real estate and the banking and mortgage industries (e.g., Federal Housing Administration policies from the 1930s to the 1960s). In these cases, minority members will not be shown homes in certain neighborhoods, and quali- fied minority members will have their loan requests denied. Although redlining in real estate and mortgage lending has been illegal since 1968, when the Fair Hous- ing Act became law, critics charge that it still takes place today.

Institutional racist policies also extend to other social institutions. For exam- ple, in 2004, the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel was ordered to pay $8.7 million to settle allegations that it mistreated black customers and discriminated against black employees. More than forty plaintiffs in sixteen states claimed that blacks were denied service, assigned to segregated seating, subjected to racial slurs, and even served food taken from the garbage (Post-Standard, 9/10/04). Based on numerous news reports in 2006, Rose Rock, mother of African American come- dian Chris Rock, claimed that she had been a victim of discrimination at a South Carolina Cracker Barrel restaurant (Tapper 2006). She reported being seated but then ignored for thirty minutes. (Note: At this writing, Cracker Barrel authorities were still investigating the accusation.)

What Do You Think?

Based on your observations and experiences,

do you think acts of individual racism are

commonplace or isolated incidents? Have

you noticed any of your friends or family

members acting in a racist manner? What do

you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

276 | CHAPTER EIGHT

In 1998, Nationwide Insurance was ordered to pay a record $100 million in a fed- eral suit over racial redlining. Civil rights advocates hailed the judgment as a civil rights landmark, arguing that the decision underscored redlining practices in sectors beyond the banking and mortgage industries—which have long been held up as exemplars of institutions that employ discriminatory redlining practices (Fulwood 1998).

Why Race Matters

Some are uncomfortable with categorizing people by race and ethnicity. As we shall see, however, race does matter—and for a wide variety of reasons. It matters because society is not color-blind. Most people see others based on their skin color. If this were not true, racism in all its forms would not exist. But as we know, racism, prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance exist in the United States and throughout most parts of the world.

If race did not matter, society would be color-blind, and the playing field would be level for all people regardless of their race. “The color-blind or race neutral per- spective holds that in an environment where institutional racism and discrimina- tion have been replaced by equal opportunity, one’s qualifications, not one’s color or ethnicity, should be the mechanism by which upward mobility is achieved. Color as a cultural style may be expressed and consumed through music, dress, or vernacular but race as a system which confers privileges and shapes life chances is viewed as an atavistic and inaccurate accounting of U.S. race relations” (Galla- gher 2009, p. 91). A majority of white Americans believe discrimination no longer exists against racial minorities; however, a majority of black Americans see a field that remains quite uneven (Gallagher 2009).

Believing that today’s society is color-blind allows one to think of institutional racism as a thing of the past, but again, this is not reality. Higginbotham and Andersen (2009) would have us consider two more points: schools in the United States are now more segregated than thirty years ago, and some successful plans for desegregation are being dismantled (Frankenberg, Lee, and Orfield 2003). There is a 61 percent gap between black and white household incomes (DeNavas- Walt, Proctor, and Lee 2006). Based on interviews of nearly 77,000 Americans age sixteen or older, a 2005 Justice Department study found that black, Hispanic, and white motorists are equally likely to be pulled over by police, but blacks and His- panics are much more likely to be searched, handcuffed, arrested, and subjected to force or the threat of it (Sniffen 2005).

Race complicates the legal system with regard to crime on Native American reservations. The system relies largely on race to determine jurisdiction and then charges law enforcement and prosecutors with the sometimes delicate task of

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 277

determining a person’s race (Missoulian, 9/6/10). In most states, federal and tribal authorities can arrest and prosecute Indians on Indian lands, but criminal offenses by non-Indians are handled by federal or state authorities (Missoulian, 9/6/10). According to B. J. Jones, director of the Tribal Judicial Institute at the University of North Dakota School of Law, there is no clear-cut definition of who is an Indian (Missoulian, 9/6/10). The Shane Maggi case illustrates many of these points. Maggi was accused of terrorizing a Native American couple at their home on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana for more than two hours on the night of May 16, 2007. Maggi was tried as a Native American for committing crimes against a Native American couple on a reservation and was sentenced to more than forty-two years in prison. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned Maggi’s March 2010 conviction because he did not meet the definition of Native American: he was not enrolled in the tribe. As a result, tribal police were not allowed to arrest or prosecute him (Missoulian, 9/6/10).

Race matters for reasons beyond the social; certain medical issues pertain to race as well. Thus, having knowledge about one’s own race may be critical to disease prevention and treatment and long-term care for individuals. Consider, for exam- ple, the fact that although nearly all people of northern European descent can enjoy milk and milk products, many people of other races are lactose intolerant, meaning that they cannot drink milk or consume dairy products without an adverse diges- tive reaction. About 75 percent of African American, Jewish, Native American, and Mexican American adults cannot digest much milk; neither can about 90 percent of Asian Americans. Lactose intolerance can be managed by taking a chemical called lactase, which is available in pill form and in some dairy-based products such as specially formulated milk (vos Savant 2005). As another example, young blacks are twenty times as likely as whites to suffer heart failure. This illness strikes one in every one hundred blacks under the age of fifty (Post-Standard, 3/19/09). Interestingly enough, there is a specific treatment for heart disease that is most effective for blacks: BiDil. BiDil represents the first medication approved by the Food and Drug Admin- istration for a specific racial group (Jewell 2005).

For years, medical research had shown that African American patients do better on kidney dialysis (a life-sustaining process for removing waste and excess water from the blood that acts as an artificial replacement for lost kidney function in people with renal failure) than their white counterparts (Johns Hopkins Medicine 2011). However, 2011 Johns Hopkins research has shown that younger blacks— those under the age of fifty—actually do much worse on dialysis than equally sick whites who undergo the same blood-filtering process (Johns Hopkins Medicine 2011). Dorry L. Segev, the lead medical doctor who headed this research at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, claims that black patients between

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

278 | CHAPTER EIGHT

the ages of eighteen and thirty are twice as likely to die on dialysis than their white counterparts; those ages thirty-one to forty are one and a half times as likely to die (Johns Hopkins Medicine 2011). As a result, younger black patients are advised to opt for a kidney transfer instead of dialysis. As we can see, when it comes to kid- ney treatment options, race matters.

Another relatively new medical procedure that is giving new hope to patients with a number of cancers and immune-deficiency disorders is bone marrow trans- plantation. Bone marrow is a spongy tissue found inside the bones, and patients with leukemia, aplastic anemia, and some immunodeficiencies have their healthy stem cells destroyed along with unhealthy ones during chemotherapy and radia- tion therapies (Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center 2010). There is a 35 per- cent chance that a patient’s sibling will be a perfect bone marrow match (Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center 2010). A patient without a close relative to serve as a match can turn to national registries to seek donors. However, the picture is significantly different depending on the patient’s race, because the markers used in matching bone marrow are inherited, and patients are most likely to match someone of their own race or ethnicity. This becomes even more difficult when a person is multiracial. A white person has an 80 to 90 percent chance of finding a donor; blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans have about a 40 percent chance; and multiracial persons have a much lower chance (Moses 2010). Native Ameri- cans have slightly more than a 1 percent chance of finding a donor because of the 7 million donors on the national registry, only about 80,000 are Native American (Moses 2010, p. A5). As the numbers would indicate, a multiracial person who is partly Native American will have less than a 1 percent chance of finding a donor.

The above discussion of why race matters is a mere sampling of the social and medical reasons why it is important for individuals to know their racial and ethnic background and to understand the possible consequences of their categorization.

Conducting genealogical research into one’s own ancestral background might prove quite beneficial for medical purposes, but it may also reveal surprising or shocking information (see “A Closer Look” Box 8.4 for an example of one per- son’s search for the truth about his past).

THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Individual and institutional racism, prejudice, and discrimination exist because of ignorance, hatred, and intolerance among diverse individuals and groups. We can do many things to fight hatred and intolerance (see “A Closer Look” Box 8.5), but how do we explain its occurrence? This section looks at three theoretical explana- tions for why prejudice and discrimination exist. It also examines the effects of prejudice and discrimination, both on the people who engage in these practices

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 279

and on those who are subjected to them. We conclude with a discussion of the most extreme form of discriminatory behavior: hate crimes.

The Psychological Approach

Psychological theories of why prejudice and discrimination exist focus on how psychological needs are fulfilled. One of the earliest psychological theories explains prejudice as a means by which people express hostility as a result of

A Closer Look

Box 8.4 Genealogical Research and Why Race Matters

In late February 2010, an intriguing news story spread

across the wire services and Internet news outlets.

A long-time neo-Nazi skinhead named Pawel (he

asked that his last name not be revealed because of

threats against his life) took a closer look at himself

in the mirror and was alarmed by what he found: he

was no longer the man he considered himself to be.

Pawel, a thirty-three-year-old Pole living in Warsaw,

had a long history of bigotry. He belonged to a group

of skinheads who imitated Nazi salutes and enjoyed

harassing the few Jewish

residents of Warsaw. “Be-

fore 1939, Poland was home

to more than three million

Jews, more than 90 percent

of whom were killed by the

Nazis. Most who survived

emigrated. Of the fewer

than 50,000 who remained

in Poland, many abandoned

or hid their Judaism during

decades of Communist op-

pression in which political

pogroms against Jews persisted” (Bilefsky 2010).

Consumed with fascist ideology, Pawel and his in-

tolerant buddies, heads shaved and filled with racist

hatred, once took a train ride to the remains of the

Auschwitz concentration camp, where they cracked

jokes about the Holocaust.

Pawel joined the army and married a fellow skinhead

at age eighteen. At age twenty-two, his wife, Paulina,

suspected that she had Jewish roots. The couple went

to a genealogical institute and discovered that they

both had registered Jewish maternal grandparents.

When Pawel confronted his parents, they revealed

that his maternal grandmother was Jewish and had

survived the war hidden in a monastery by a group

of nuns. His paternal grandfather, also a Jew, had

seven brothers and sisters, most of whom perished

in the Holocaust. Pawel

stated that he could not

look in the mirror for weeks

(Bilefsky 2010). Confused

by his newfound ances-

tral roots, he felt guilty for

his past racist behavior.

Imagine, the very people

he discriminated against,

the people he treated like

the dirt beneath his shoes,

were, in fact, his people.

Eventually, he decided to

embrace his newfound ethnic background, and at

age twenty-four Pawel was circumcised. Two years

later, he decided to become an ultra-Orthodox Jew.

He and his wife are raising their two children in a Jew-

ish home. He is now a victim of anti-Semitism, and

many of his tormentors were once his friends.

What Do You Think?

Imagine the transformation in Pawel’s

life since he discovered his ancestral

background. How would Pawel respond to

the question, Why does race matter? Is it

possible that if you researched your own

genetic ancestry, you would find connections

you did not expect? What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

280 | CHAPTER EIGHT

frustration (Marger 2006). According to John Dollard et al. (1939), scapegoating is an essential feature of this approach. In brief, people who have difficulty achiev- ing highly desired goals tend to respond with a pattern of aggression. Because certain social forces block attempts to reach these goals, some people direct their attention toward substitutes—scapegoats.

However, many people are frustrated by their life circumstances and yet do not resort to acts of discrimination or prejudicial feelings. As Thomas Adorno et al. (1950) explain, becoming aggressive and blaming others for their own inad- equacies is most common among persons with the authoritarian personality type, which is characterized by, among other traits, intolerance, insecurity, excessive conformity, submissiveness to authority, and rigid stereotyping thought patterns. The concept of an authoritarian personality helps to explain why some people turn to prejudice and discrimination when frustrated while others do not.

Rosen and Crockett (1969) argue that some racial and ethnic groups dif- fer in their orientation toward achievement, especially with regard to their drive for upward mobility. They use the concept of achievement syndrome to explain this drive. The implication of this theory is that some groups (and individuals), because of a drive to succeed, may use prejudice and discrimination to get ahead.

Theories that suggest certain personality types are prone to prejudice and discrim- ination are popular on the one hand because they offer simple explanations about a complicated issue—especially when compared to sociological theories that empha- size the role of power imbalances within society. On the other hand, sociologists tend to discredit psychological theories because they reduce the explanation of prejudice and discrimination to personality traits while mostly ignoring the social conditions that lead to them. Furthermore, a large number of people who are not extremists (authoritarian personalities) are prejudicial and discriminate against others.

Normative Theories

The normative approach centers on the idea that people feel compelled to abide by the norms of their group. That is, we follow the rules that dominate in-group associations. As we learned in Chapter 5, people are socialized to follow group norms. The socialization process is the key to learning and behavior. Thus, one’s reference groups have a strong influence over behavior. In this regard, one’s social environment shapes individual thoughts and actions. Prejudice and discrimina- tion, then, are explained within the framework of social norms and people who feel obligated to follow them. From this viewpoint, tolerant people have been raised in an environment that instills respect for others, whereas bigots emerge out of social experiences where intolerance is the norm.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 281

Power-Conflict Theories

Psychological and normative theories help to explain how discrimination and preju- dice are transmitted and sustained, but they fail to explain how or why they arise in the first place. Sociologists focus on the imbalance of power between individuals and among diverse groups. Sociologists believe that an imbalance of power leads to different outlooks on life and that prejudice and discrimination are used as power resources that can be tapped as new conflict situations demand (Marger 2006). The power-conflict approach argues that those in power use discrimination and preju- dice as weapons to maintain their power positions (e.g., via institutional racism).

Sociological power-conflict theories, however, are less effective in explaining why subordinate groups engage in prejudice and discrimination. Clearly, members from all racial and ethnic groups are capable of holding prejudicial thoughts and of behaving in a discriminatory manner. This leaves us with the realization that prejudice and discrimina- tion are products of group interests that can be used by any group in an attempt to protect and enhance its own interests (Marger 2006).

The Effects of Prejudice and Discrimination

Prejudice and discrimination exist in some form in every society. Consequently, from the functionalist perspective, they must serve a purpose. The effects of prej- udice and discrimination vary based on whether one is a victim or perpetrator. From the perspective of those who discriminate and hold prejudicial beliefs (per- petrators), prejudice

1. provides scapegoats for certain social problems. A scapegoat is a readily available, often weaker (lacking in socioeconomic power), and (generally) innocent person or group blamed by others for specific societal problems. Scapegoats are the targets of prejudice and discrimination.

2. gives the majority, or power, group an opportunity, via institutional rac- ism, to prevent subordinate groups from becoming a threat (to the power group) politically, economically, and socially.

3. serves to enhance the self-esteem of the majority or dominant group. One of the easiest ways for people to feel good about themselves (or superior) is to put others down. Prejudice and discrimination, then, serve as a self- esteem-enhancement mechanism.

From the perspective of the victimized group, the effects of prejudice may involve the following consequences:

What Do You Think?

Which theoretical approach best explains

why prejudice and discrimination exist?

How would you explain their occurrence in

society? What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

282 | CHAPTER EIGHT

1. Members of a victimized group often unite. 2. Because of this unification, victimized groups are better able to preserve

their heritage. 3. Furthermore, this unification can lead to efforts for social change (i.e.,

finding or demanding courses of action designed to end prejudice and dis- crimination).

Throughout history, the dominant group of any particular society has typically victimized subordinate groups. Beyond the above-mentioned possibility of group members uniting with others in their “we” group, people can react in a number of ways to the effects of prejudice and discrimination. I refer to these reactions to subordination as the “seven A’s”:

1. Acceptance: simply accepting things as they are. The Marxist/conflict per- spective would refer to this as an example of false consciousness.

2. Avoidance: removing oneself from that neighborhood or society. 3. Assimilation: merging and blending in with the greater general society.

(Note: Assimilation is discussed later in this chapter.) 4. Aggression: acting out with violence and hostility toward the power group. 5. Action: taking social action to correct the wrongs of society. 6. Appeal to a higher loyalty: turn-

ing to God or some other entity for guidance or relief.

7. Anxiety: failing to act at all. This is different from acceptance in that victims of prejudice or discrimination may not accept their plight but fear the conse- quences of acting out against it.

Hate Crimes

One of the severest effects of prejudice involves hate crimes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines a hate crime, also known as a bias crime, as “a crim- inal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin” (FBI 2004). In response to the growing number of reported bias crimes in the late 1970s—from lynchings to cross burn- ings to vandalism of synagogues—the term “hate crime” entered the nation vocab- ulary in the early 1980s (FBI 2004; Gerstenfeld 2004). Racist skinheads and the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) were among the leading hate groups

What Do You Think?

The Seven A’s represent a few examples of

reactions to subordination. Can you think of

others? They do not have to start with the

letter A, but as a form of mental exercise, see

if you can make them. What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 283

that helped to trigger the need for special legislation to fight bias crimes via hate- crime legislation. Fans of popular culture may recall that the NSPA was satirized in the 1980 movie The Blues Brothers. In this film, the character brothers Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) and Jake (John Belushi) Blues run down a group of Illinois NSPA members attempting to cross a bridge on their way to a hate rally. Elwood, the driver of the car, calmly states, “Illinois Nazis.” Jake responds, “I hate the Illinois Nazis.”

In response to the growing national concern over crimes motivated by bias, Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. Among other things, this law directed the attorney general to collect data “about crimes that mani- fest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnic- ity” (FBI 2004). In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include both physical and mental disabilities. According to the FBI (2008a), in 2007, 2,025 law enforcement agencies reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents involving 9,006 offenses. There were 7,621 single-bias incidents that involved 8,999 offenses, 9,527 victims, and 6,962 offenders. Table 8.2 presents a breakdown of the 7,621 single-bias incidents reported in 2007 based on category.

Among the leading nongovernmental orga- nizations attempting to track the number of hate crimes is the Southern Poverty Law Cen- ter (SPLC). The SPLC was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights firm located in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the civil rights move- ment. Its motto is “Fighting Hate, Teaching Tol- erance, Seeking Justice.” To learn more about the Southern Poverty Law Center, see “A Closer Look” Box 8.3.

PATTERNS OF INTERRACIAL AND INTERETHNIC CONTACT

History has shown that when very diverse groups of people come in contact, the consequences are generally negative. Negative patterns include the following:

1. Expulsion or population transfer: the forced uprooting and ejection of a minority group from the society of the dominant majority. For example, the Roma (Gypsies) have been forced out of most European countries. There are believed to be approximately 12 million Roma scattered

TABLE 8.2 Single-Bias Hate-Crime Incidents, 2007 CATEGORY PERCENTAGE

Race 50.8

Religion 18.4

Sexual orientation 16.6

Ethnicity or national origin 13.2

Disability 0.9

Source: FBI 2008a.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

284 | CHAPTER EIGHT

throughout the world. Many Roma mask their ethnic origin out of fear of discrimination.

2. Annihilation or genocide: the mass murder of a minority group by the dominant group in an attempt to eliminate the minority group. Bradley Campbell (2009) argues that genocide is a form of social control wherein the “perpetrators express moral grievances against the targeted” (p. 155). The examples are too numerous to document here, but they include the Nazis versus the Jews (and other groups), the Turks versus the Arme- nians, and the European settlers in the Americas versus the American Indians.

3. Segregation: the separation of races; the formal restriction of contact between racial or ethnic groups with denial of access to superior facilities

A Closer Look

Box 8.5 Fighting Hatred and Intolerance

The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in

1971 by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, two Montgomery,

Alabama, lawyers who shared a commitment to racial

equality (SPLC 2010). The SPLC investigates hate

activity throughout the United States and provides this

information to the public via a number of publications

and its website. The organization also conducts train-

ing sessions for police, schools, and civil rights and

community groups, and its associates often serve as

experts at hearings and conferences (SPLC 2010).

The chief publication of the SPLC with regard to

hate-group activity is its quarterly SPLC Report, which

in spring 2009 documented 926 hate-group chapters

in the United States. This figure represents a 54 per-

cent increase since 2000 and a 4 percent gain over

2007. “The number of hate groups active in the United

States continued to grow in 2008 as racist extrem-

ists were fueled by immigration tensions, a faltering

economy and the election of the first black president,

an SPLC investigation has found. . . . Obama may

have smashed the ultimate political barrier to African

Americans, but his presidency and the recession are

creating a perfect storm for white supremacists intent

on swelling their ranks” (SPLC 2009, p. 1).

Hate groups, of course, are not solely the domain

of whites, as a large number of minority hate groups,

especially black hate groups, also exist in the United

States. The leading black hate group, the black

separatists, is tied to the Nation of Islam. Furthermore,

there is a black Ku Klux Klan organization, although

the number of chapters is small compared to other

major hate groups (Hale 2008).

As mentioned above, the number of hate groups

in the United States has grown throughout the first

decade of the 2000s. According to the SPLC (2011),

there were 1,002 documented hate groups in the

United States in 2010. California, the nation’s most

populous state, has the largest number at sixty-eight;

even South Dakota, the last state to serve as home to

a hate group, now has two. See Table 8.3 for a listing

of the largest categories of hate groups operating in

the United States in 2010. Not listed in Table 8.3 are

122 “general hate” categories that include antigay

(seventeen), radical traditional Catholic (seventeen),

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 285

and opportunities to subordinate groups. Examples include the former South African policy of apartheid and the U.S. doctrine of “separate-but- equal” public facilities for blacks.

4. Enslavement: the literal ownership of a population of people, whereby owners have complete control over slaves. Slavery was legal in parts of the United States until 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished the practice of “involuntary servitude.” The Inter- national Labour Organization (2010) estimates that 12.3 million people are enslaved around the world today.

Although all peoples have failed to exercise tolerance at some time in history, and despite the numerous examples of ethnic conflict and genocide across the

racist music (fifteen), Holocaust denial (eight), anti-

Muslim (five), and other (forty-seven).

In Ten Ways to Fight Hate, the SPLC (2000b) states

that the ten best ways to fight hate are to

1. act (do something);

2. unite;

3. support the victims;

4. do your homework (learn about the group);

5. create an alternative (do not attend a hate rally);

6. speak up;

7. lobby leaders;

8. look long range (e.g., create a bias-response

team);

9. teach tolerance (bias is taught at home, but so

is tolerance);

10. dig deeper (look into the social issues that

cause hate crimes).

The SPLC also provides the publication “101 Tools

for Tolerance” (2000a), which, as the title implies,

provides 101 ideas for tolerance, along with ideas

about how to promote equity and diversity. (Note:

Because of the document’s length, these tools are

not listed here, but they can be found online at the

website provided at the end of this chapter.)

What Do You Think?

There were more than one thousand

documented hate groups operating in the

United States in 2010. The Southern Poverty

Law Center provides us with ten ideas on

how to fight hate groups. Is it possible to

eliminate, or at the very least reduce, the

number of hate groups in the United States?

What do you think?

TABLE 8.3 Hate Groups Operating in the United States, 2010 TYPE OF GROUP NUM BER IN OPERATION

Ku Klux Klan 221 Neo-Nazi 170 Black separatist 149 White nationalist 136 Racist skinhead 136 Neo-Confederate 42 Christian identity 26

Source: SPLC 2011.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

286 | CHAPTER EIGHT

globe, sociologists remain among those who refuse simply to accept racial intol- erance as an inevitable reality. There are some possible solutions to the negative effects of intergroup contact. These include assimilation, pluralism or multicultur- alism, and amalgamation. Let us examine each of these.

Assimilation (Melting Pot Theory)

The word “assimilate” derives from the Latin assimulare, which means “to make similar” (Feagin and Feagin 2004). The basic idea behind assimilation is that people who move from one nation to another should learn, as quickly as possible, to accept the culture of the new homeland. Assimilation, then, involves the cultural blending of two or more previously distinct groups. It involves conformity to and acceptance of the dominant culture. As sociolo- gist Robert E. Park explains, European out-migration (during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) was a major catalyst for social reorganization around the globe, especially in the United States (Feagin and Feagin 2004). Park (1950) argued that out-migration leads to recurring cycles in intergroup his- tory (between in-groups and out-groups): contact, competition, accommoda- tion, and assimilation. In theory, the faster immigrant groups assimilate to the greater society, the faster they will receive acceptance by the dominant group. The adage “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” comes into play here. Thus, while many European immigrant groups (starting with the Irish and continuing with the Italians, Poles, and so on) faced a great deal of prejudice and discrimination when they first arrived in the United States, they came to enjoy relative equal- ity due to cultural assimilation. Over time, these immigrant groups abandoned the cultural ways of their ancestors, and their heritages became compromised; in the process, however, the dominant society slowly accepted them. “Ideally, then, at the point of complete assimilation, there are no longer distinct ethnic groups. Rather, there is a homogenous society in which ethnicity is not a basis of social differentiation and plays no role in the distribution of wealth, power, and prestige” (Marger 2006, p. 101).

For generations, social policy makers promoted assimilation as the primary means of resolving ethnic differences in the United States. Functionalists argue that assimilation policies help to eliminate conflict among diverse groups because everyone belongs to the same group. In this regard, there are no “they” racial or ethnic groups, just one big “we” group of Americans.

Conflict theorists believe that assimilation does not work with racially differ- ent categories because the dominant group generally refuses to give up power to those deemed significantly different, or socioeconomically inferior. According to

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 287

this view, assimilation worked quite well with European ethnic groups primar- ily because they were all white. They were also willing participants in the idea of assimilating to the greater society. Many nonwhites do not wish to assimilate and value their own cultural heritages. As a result, a new prevailing sentiment exists in the United States—one that promotes multiculturalism, or pluralism.

Multiculturalism or Pluralism (Salad Bowl Theory)

For the past generation or so, U.S. policy makers have endorsed the idea of mul- ticulturalism, or pluralism, instead of assimilation. Pluralism is the idea that all groups have something positive to add to the greater society and that each racial and ethnic group (“we” group) should maintain its cultural heritage. However, while maintaining old customs, these groups would also have the right to partici- pate fully in the greater society’s political and economic institutions.

This approach works on the assumptions that the greater society can be taught to value the differences among people via diversity education and that the greater society will be willing to give up its dominant socioeconomic power. Public school education, for example, has fully embraced the multiculturalism ideal and teaches students to value all people as equals and to accept the cultural differences that may exist between them. Many businesses value workers with a background in diversity training and awareness because of the diverse nature of most workplaces. Thus, pluralism teaches that all groups should be treated equally and should share equally in society’s scarce resources.

As the conflict perspective predicts, people in a power position are almost always reluctant to relinquish their power voluntarily. As a result, the pluralis- tic approach has, at best, mixed results (Dobbin, Kalev, and Kelly 2007). The younger American generation, raised in the ethos of multiculturalism, does indeed appear to be far more tolerant of others, especially compared to past generations. Nonetheless, as indicated by the growing number of hate groups in the United States (described earlier), racism, prejudice, and discrimination persist. Americans are not alone in questioning the validity of the “salad bowl” theory. In a February 2011 speech to the Munich Security Conference, British prime minister David Cameron blasted multiculturalism as a complete failure. He spoke of the importance for all immigrants of learning the language of their new home and becoming educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum. To that end, Cameron said, “Frankly, we need a lot less of the pas- sive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism” (BBC News 2011). Cameron claims that multiculturalism has failed in other societies as well.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

288 | CHAPTER EIGHT

Amalgamation

Interestingly, we may be witnessing people accomplishing, via voluntary amalga- mation, what social-policy makers have failed to achieve. Amalgamation involves the “genetic blending” of two or more previously distinct racial or ethnic groups. It occurs when two people from different races have children either through inter- marriage or interdating. Marriages between people of different races are often referred to as “mixed marriages,” although the term “interracial marriage” is more acceptable. In the past, interracial marriages were outlawed in various parts of the United States because of public sentiment (and government policy). “In 1958, only 4 percent of whites approved of white-black marriages, according to a national Gallup Poll survey. Blacks were not included in the 1958 survey. By 1997, the approval rate among whites had increased to 61 percent. Later Gallup polls found that black approval rates rose from 56 percent in 1968 to 77 percent in 1997” (Pugh 2001, p. A5). So-called antimiscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional by a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1967.

Although interracial marriages accounted for just 5 percent of all U.S. mar- riages in 2001, the total number of interracial marriages represents a tenfold increase over 1960 (Pugh 2001). In 2001, there were 1.5 million black-white marriages. Adding Hispanics and Asians who marry outside their racial or ethnic groups increases the total number of mixed marriages to 3 million (Pugh 2001). “Four states with large minority populations—California, Texas, New York, and Florida—are home to nearly half of U.S. mixed marriages. Nearly one of every four such couples lives in California” (Pugh 2001, p. A5). The steady growth in inter- racial marriages reveals an increasing acceptance of such diversity in marriage, especially in geographic areas that have a high rate of racial and ethnic diversity.

As the number of relationships between members of racially (and ethnically) diverse groups continues to increase, the total number of children of “mixed” race increases more dramatically. The number of people not of one specific race has increased so much over the past decade that the U.S. census, as well as other government and official forms, now allows people to indicate “Other” when asked to identify their race. As La Ferla (2004) indicates, “Nearly 7 million Americans identified themselves as members of more than one race in the 2000 Census, the first time respondents were able to check” such a category (p. D1).

Have you ever met someone whose race you could not determine by looking at and talking with him or her? The term “racial passing” is applicable here. Racial passing once referred to people who tried to “pass” for members of another race (such as light-skinned African Americans who attempted to pass as white in order to avoid discrimination); today, the term is more applicable to people who are

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 289

not obviously biracial. In other words, such people can pass for any number of racial or ethnic categories. A number of actors (e.g., Jessica Alba), athletes (e.g., Tiger Woods), and entertainers (e.g., Christina Aguilera) have this ethnically ambiguous quality as they are neither black nor white nor even obviously biracial (La Ferla 2004) (see “Connecting Sociology and Popular Culture” Box 8.6 for a discussion of famous multiracial persons).

As the amalgamation trend continues, it will become increasingly difficult to tell the difference between racial and ethnic groups in the United States. In addition, as diverse groups around the world con- tinue to move from nation to nation, the amalgamation trend occurring in the United States will likely become dominant elsewhere as well. Perhaps as people become less dissimilar, they will learn to concentrate on the similarities among them rather than the differences. Ideally, this will lead to a more racially and ethnically tolerant world—one where ethnic stratification is replaced by ethnic ambiguity.

SUMMARY

The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are socially constructed means of categorizing people based on specific criteria. “Race” refers to a group of people who are socially recognized based on some sort of physical characteristic, generally skin color. “Eth- nicity” refers to a group of people who are recognized as a distinct group based on social or cultural factors. Historically, people belonging to minority groups (those lacking in socioeconomic and political power) have faced such inequalities as rac- ism, prejudice, and discrimination. Generally, like-minded groups, including racial and ethnic groups, identify with one another and come to use the expression “we” in a natural forum. Out-groups come to be viewed as “they” groups. Concentrating on the differences between groups of people leads to ethnic stratification. Ethnic stratification is a system of ranking ethnic groups in society with the dominant group on top and the less powerful groups taking positions lower in the hierarchy. Utiliz- ing this system of ethnic stratification, sociologists are able to distinguish majority- minority and dominant-subordinate social systems.

Many Americans, such as Jessica Alba shown

here, have a combination of multiple races and/

or ethnicities.What Do You Think?

Are racism, prejudice, discrimination, and

intolerance permanent fixtures of society?

What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

290 | CHAPTER EIGHT

Connecting Sociology and Popular Culture

Box 8.6 Famous Multiracial Persons

Numerous famous multiracial persons have become

pop-culture icons while starring in their specific fields.

Among today’s most admired actresses is Jessica

Alba, the Dark Angel herself. Known for her exotic

looks, Alba received her first break in the television

series Dark Angel. Since, she has gone on to star in

numerous feature films and can be seen in a variety of

advertisements. Born in Pomona, California, on April

28, 1981, Alba has an ethnic background consisting

of Danish, French, and Mexican heritages.

One of the most popular singer-songwriters of her

generation, Christina Aguilera was born on December

18, 1980, in Staten Island, New York. Aguilera is a bi-

lingual singer of Irish (mother’s side) and Ecuadorian

(father’s side) ancestry. Her self-titled debut album

went platinum ten times over. She has received many

honors, including Grammy nominations, MTV awards,

a Teen Choice Award, and so on. She also has many

commercial endorsements. Aguilera was a child actor

on the New Mickey Mouse Club from 1993 to 1994.

She continued to draw attention for her singing abil-

ity throughout her childhood, and she remains a top

performer in her twenties.

Considered one of the world’s most popular

athletes (at least until his infidelity scandal in 2009),

Tiger Woods dominates his sport (golf) like no other.

Woods has been in the limelight since he first putted

a golf ball as a two-year-old for Bob Hope on The

Mike Douglas Show. Born in Cypress, California, on

December 30, 1975, Woods has pursued Jack Nick-

laus’s record for majors victories (eighteen) ever since

he turned professional. He

is perhaps one of the most

famous multiracial people

of all. His father, Earl, was

of mixed African American

(50 percent), Chinese (25

percent), and Native Ameri-

can (25 percent) ancestry;

Woods’s mother, Kultida,

originally from Thailand, is of mixed Thai (50 per-

cent), Chinese (25 percent), and Dutch (25 percent)

ancestry. This makes Tiger one-quarter Chinese,

one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African American,

one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch.

He refers to his ethnic makeup as “Cablinasian”—a

term he coined to combine syllables from Caucasian,

black (American), Indian, and Asian. (Woods used

this term to describe himself during an appearance

on The Oprah Winfrey Show.)

Barack Obama, perhaps the most powerful man

in the world, is a descendent of biological parents of

different races. Obama was born on August 4, 1961,

in Honolulu, Hawaii. His father, Barack Obama Sr.,

was of Luo ancestry and came from the Nyanza Prov-

ince of Kenya. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was

raised in Wichita, Kansas, and was of primarily Eng-

lish ancestry. Obama’s parents met at the University

of Hawaii’s Manoa campus. A number of Dunham’s

ancestors had been antislavery activists in the mid-

and late-1800s. Seemingly appearing out of nowhere

in his relatively modest position as the freshman U.S.

senator from Illinois, in 2008 Obama was elected the

forty-fourth president of the United States; his victory

was attributed in large part to his popularity among

younger and minority voters. Because he is the son of

parents of two different races, Obama is sometimes

referred to as the nation’s first multiracial president.

Others, however, refer to him as the first black U.S.

president. Perhaps ending this debate, when he

filled out his 2010 census form, Obama responded

to Question 9 by checking

“Black, African American,

or Negro” as his race. As

described earlier in this

chapter, he could have

chosen “white” (because of

his mother) or checked the

last category on the form,

“Some other race.”

What Do You Think?

What other famous multiracial people can

you think of? Do multiracial people hold a

certain appeal that single-race people do

not? What do you think?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 291

Most societies are stratified based on race or ethnicity. In the United States, whites make up the majority group. However, the number of minority groups is growing rapidly, especially the number of Hispanics or Latinos, who now represent the largest minority group, followed by African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. The term “minority,” from a sociological stand- point, has less to do with statistical realities and more to do with identifying people who are disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic and political power. In many cases, the dominant group attempts to hold onto its power via institutional racism— widespread, large-scale, structured discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Although tolerance and acceptance of ethnic diversity have been growing, prejudice and discrimination still exist throughout society. There are a number of possible explanations as to why intolerance toward others exists in society; this chapter has discussed psychological, normative, and power-conflict theo- retical explanations. One extreme form of prejudice comes in the form of hate crimes. A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

Patterns of interracial and interethnic contact have also resulted in many nega- tive consequences, including expulsion or population transfers, annihilation or genocide, segregation, and slavery. Possible solutions to the negative effects of intergroup contact include assimilation, pluralism or multiculturalism, and amalgamation.

Glossary

Amalgamation—The physical blending of two or more previously distinct racial or ethnic categories of people.

Assimilation—The cultural blending of two or more previously distinct catego- ries of people.

Discrimination—Behavior that treats people unequally on the basis of an ascribed status, such as race or gender.

Enslavement—The literal ownership of a population of people, whereby owners have complete control over slaves.

Ethnic stratification—A system of ranking ethnic groups in society with the dominant group on top and the less powerful groups taking positions lower in the hierarchy.

Ethnicity—A category of people who are recognized as distinct based on social or cultural factors (e.g., nationality, religion, language, geographic residence, and values).

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

292 | CHAPTER EIGHT

Ethnocentrism—The tendency of people from one cultural group to judge other cultures by the standards of their own.

Expulsion or population transfer—The forced uprooting and ejection of a minority group from the society of the dominant majority.

Genocide—The intentional attempt by a dominant population to exterminate a race of people.

Hate crime—A criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, reli- gion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin; also known as a bias crime.

Individual racism—Unequal treatment and behavior directed by a member or group of one race against a person or group of another race.

Institutional racism—Widespread, large-scale, structured discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Minority group—A disadvantaged group of citizens; specifically, the underprivi- leged at the lower end of the stratification hierarchy.

Pluralism—The idea that all groups have something positive to add to the greater society and that each racial and ethnic group (“we” group) should maintain its cultural heritage.

Prejudice—Negative beliefs and overgeneralizations concerning a group of people.

Race—A category of people who share socially recognized physical characteris- tics (such as skin color or hereditary traits) that distinguish them from other categories of people.

Racism—Any attitude, belief, behavior, or social arrangement that has the intent, or the ultimate effect, of favoring one category of people (or individual) over another category of people (or individual).

Segregation—The separation of races; the formal restriction of contact between racial or ethnic groups, with denial of equal access to superior facilities and opportunities to subordinate groups.

Discussion Questions

1. How do you and your friends view race in the United States? Are there growing signs of tolerance, or do prejudice and discrimination prevail?

2. What can you do to stop prejudice and discrimination in your community? What have you already done?

3. Do you think it is necessary to have hate-crime legislation? Are stiffer penal- ties justified when a bias is involved? Why or why not?

4. Do you have membership in “we” groups? If so, what parameters distin- guish “we” from “them”?

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

RACE AND ETHNICITY | 293

5. Is society becoming ethnically ambiguous? Or do people still see black and white (and other distinctive categories of people)?

Web Links

To learn more about the Southern Poverty Law Center, visit www.splcenter.org. To learn more about promoting tolerance, visit www.tolerance.org. To learn more about hate crimes, visit the U.S. Congress’ website www.fbi.gov/ hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm. To learn more about the “Beer Summit” and to see a video clip, visit www .politico.com/news/stories/0709/25637.html. For an up-to-date look at U.S. and World Population figures, visit www.census .gov/main/www/popclock.html.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/26/2021 8:38 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use