Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century: History, Theory, Institutions, and Policy Edited by Rashawn Ray

Included in this preview: • Copyright Page • Table of Contents • Excerpt of Chapter 1

For additional information on adopting this book for your class, please contact us at 800.200.3908 x501 or via e-mail at [email protected]

RACE and ETHNIC RELATIONS in the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY History, Theory, Institutions, and Policy

Edited by Rashawn Ray University of Maryland, College Park

Copyright © 2010 by Rashawn Ray. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of University Readers, Inc. First published in the United States of America in 2010 by Cognella, a division of University Readers, Inc. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

14 13 12 11 10

12345

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 978-1-935551-60-7

CONTENTS

Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century

1

By Rashawn Ray

The Embedded Nature of ‘Race’ Requires a Focused Effort to Remove the Obstacles to a Unified America

7

By Dr. James M. Jones

PART 1 THE SOCIOHISTORICAL CONTEXT OF RACE The Science, Social Construction, and Exploitation of Race

21

By Rashawn Ray

——Science of Race—— The Evolution of Racial Classification

29

By Tukufu Zuberi

——Social Construction of Race—— Racist America Racist Ideology as a Social Force

41

By Joe R. Feagin

——Exploitation of Race—— White Racism and the Black Experience By St. Clair Drake

59

PART 2 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES Racial Attitudes Research Debates, Major Advances, and Future Directions

81

By Rashawn Ray

——Individual and Structural Racism—— Racial Formation Understanding Race and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era

91

By Michael Omi and Howard Winant

From Bi-racial to Tri-racial Towards a New System of Racial Stratification in the U.S.A.

109

By Eduardo Bonilla-Silva

——The Social Psychology of Prejudice and Perceived Discrimination—— Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position

129

By Herbert Blumer

Reactions Toward the New Minorities of Western Europe

137

By Thomas F. Pettigrew

——Racial Attitudes and Public Discourses—— Racial Attitudes and Relations at the Close of the Twentieth Century

163

By Lawrence D. Bobo

——Race, Gender, and Sexuality—— Getting Off and Getting Intimate How Normative Institutional Arrangements Structure Black and White Fraternity Men’s Approaches Toward Women

197

By Rashawn Ray and Jason A. Rosow

——Colorism, Lookism, and Tokenism—— “One-Drop” to Rule them All? Colorism and the Spectrum of Racial Stratification in the Twenty-First Century By Victor Ray

221

——Assimilation Perspectives: Group Threat Theory, Contact Theory, and Ethnic Conflict—— The Ties that Bind and Those that Don’t Toward Reconciling Group Threat and Contact Theories of Prejudice

233

By Jeffrey C. Dixon

——Citizenship, Nationalism, and Human Rights—— Citizenship, Nationalism, and Human Rights

261

By Shiri Noy

PART 3 THE CUMULATIVE PIPELINE OF PERSISTENT INSTITUTIONAL RACISM The Cumulative Pipeline of Persistent Institutional Racism

269

By Rashawn Ray

——Individual and Structural Racism—— A Different Menu Racial Residential Segregation and the Persistence of Racial Inequality

279

By Abigail A. Sewell

——Education—— Cracking the Educational Achievement Gap(s)

291

By R. L’Heureux Lewis and Evangeleen Pattison

——The Labor Market, Socioeconomic Status, and Wealth—— Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

301

By Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan

Black Wealth/White Wealth Wealth Inequality Trends By Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro

329

The Mark of a Criminal Record

343

By Devah Pager

——The Criminal Justice System—— Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality

351

By Robert J. Sampson and William Julius Wilson

——The Health Care System—— Root and Structural Causes of Minority Health and Health Disparities

369

By Keon L. Gilbert and Chikarlo R. Leak

PART 4

CONFRONTING THE PIPELINE: SOCIAL POLICY ISSUES

Engaging Social Change by Embracing Diversity

383

By Rashawn Ray

When Is Affirmative Action Fair? On Grievous Harms and Public Remedies

391

By Ira Katznelson

Engaging Future Leaders Peer Education at Work in Colleges and Universities

407

By Alta Mauro and Jason Robertson

What Do We Think About Race? By Lawrence D. Bobo

425

RACE AND ETHNIC RELATIONS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY By Rashawn Ray

R

ace continues to be at the center of social life to determine opportunities and shape social interactions. Yet, many Whites and racial/ethnic minorities alike perceive race to be less significant now than in the past. Many believe we are moving into a color-blind society where class matters more (Wilson 1978).* Now some may argue that President Obama’s recent election is an indication of racial progress. Although this is true in some respects, President Obama’s symbolic victory for racial change cannot overshadow the fact that the Voting Rights Act of 1965† has to be periodically renewed or that a 2007 Supreme Court decision is viewed by some as reversing the Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegregated

* In The Declining Significance of Race, Wilson (1978) contends that race is declining in significance as a major social structural factor in society and instead being supplemented by class inequality. † The Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to make the Fifteenth Amendment a reality by outlawing discriminatory voting practices that have disenfranchised Blacks since the founding of the United States.

schools.‡ These mandates are important considering that U.S. neighborhoods and schools were more segregated in 2005 than in 1965, further highlighting the relegated and marginalized status placed upon racial/ethnic minority groups (Sewell 2010). We cannot forget what occurred in the 1960s toward the end of the Civil Rights Movement when public opinion polls showed that Whites had significantly become more tolerant of Blacks in work and school contexts (Bobo 2001). By the late 1960s, Whites’ racial attitudes about schools, employment, and neighborhoods had shifted back to mirror those before 1960 (Muhammad 2010). This shift in racial attitudes tells us that it is easy for a society to revert back to previous forms of accepted prejudice. Paraphrasing Harry Belafonte’s statement, the glass is half full, but it is also half The Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. (Also known as the Louisville, Jefferson County, KY case; 2007) Supreme Court decision ruled 5–4 to prohibit allocating spots solely to racially integrate public schools. The Supreme Court also did not recognize racial diversity in schools as a priority. ‡

Rashawn Ray, “Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century,” Copyright © 2010 by Rashawn Ray. Permission to reprint granted by the author.

Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century  1

empty. Moreover, we have come a long way as a society, but we still have a ways to go for true racial equality. Race determines whom individuals decide to hire (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004; Pager 2004), rent an apartment or a house to (Sewell 2010), or treat equally in school (Lewis 2010), work, and neighborhood settings. As a social structural factor, race determines individual-level processes that shape meso-level mechanisms and influence institutional conditions on a macro-level. These mechanisms and conditions structure where individuals live and work, who they interact with and marry, or do not marry, (Ray 2010), and how much money they make and wealth they accumulate (Conley 2000; Oliver and Shapiro 1995). With this in mind, scholars and community activists cannot discuss education, the labor market, health, the criminal justice system, voting, or community involvement without understanding why it is important for individuals to be conscious of how race and ethnic relations continue to structure their lives in the 21st century.

DEFINING RACE AND ETHNICITY Race can be defined as ethnoracial, historically rooted distinctions or social constructions (Bobo and Fox 2003). Ethnicity, on the other hand, can be classified as the sharing of a common ancestry, history, and/or culture of a group. Race is systematically rooted in the culture of social life to create, establish, maintain, and enhance group differences (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Omi and Winant 1994). Because race is an organizing principle, it facilitates the development of two social systems that formulate hierarchical patterns at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels which then dictate status, power, and prestige structures (Bonilla-Silva 1997). “Racism is a set of institutional conditions of group inequality and an ideology of racial

domination, in which the latter is characterized by a set of beliefs holding that the subordinate racial group is biologically or culturally inferior to the dominant racial group” (Bobo and Fox 2003: 319). Moreover, racism is a social system that conveys an ideology of inferiority, which is often affiliated with individual- and group-level prejudice and discrimination. Similar to sexism, racism alters social systems and various institutional arrangements whereby the entire institution becomes racialized. For minority groups, racism leads to a divergence in various outcomes such as lower educational attainment (Lewis 2010), lower occupational prestige (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004), relatively deprived neighborhoods (Sewell 2010), schools (Kozol 1991, 2005), and hospitals, and worse mental and physical health (Cummings and Jackson 2008; Gilbert 2010). Furthermore, in the definition of racism, we can see how ancestry, history, and culture all uniquely contribute to racial and ethnic classification. Biological inferiority corresponds to ancestry, cultural inferiority corresponds to culture, and ideology of racial domination corresponds to history. Therefore, race and ethnicity are inextricably linked to each other to convey that there is indeed an embedded, taken-for-granted hierarchy among groups. Throughout history, this hierarchy has hoodwinked and bamboozled individuals into thinking that these outcomes are from circumstances rooted in psychological, genetic, biological, and motivational differences between racial/ethnic groups (Drake 1987; Zuberi 2001).

RACE AND THE INDIVIDUAL V. STRUCTURAL DILEMMA Individuals normally exhibit individual- or structural-thinking regarding racial disparities. Individualthinking entails believing that racial/ethnic groups such as Blacks are in their current socioeconomic condition due to genetic inferiority or a lack of

2  Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century

motivation. Structural-thinking, on the other hand, takes into account that racial/ethnic groups face discrimination and racism, which inhibits their upward mobility. This distinction generally falls along racial and policy lines. Blacks and Latinos are more likely than Whites to exhibit structural-thinking and believe race-based policies such as affirmative action are fair and just. Conversely, Whites are more likely to exhibit individual-thinking, believe Blacks are responsible for their current socioeconomic position, and oppose race-based policies (Bobo 1988; Duster 1999; Bobo and Klugel 2003; Hunt 2007). Hunt (2007) investigates whether Blacks, Latinos/Hispanics, and Whites differ in their explanations of the socioeconomic divide between Blacks and Whites.* He asks, why are Blacks in their current state? Using data from the 1977–2004 General Social Surveys, Hunt (2007) finds that Whites’ preference for the innate inferiority explanation (i.e., genetic argument) has decreased over time. Instead, Whites’ racial attitudes are split among three explanations including a purely motivational explanation, a purely educational explanation, and a combination between these two explanations. On the other hand, Blacks’ and Hispanics’ preference for structural explanations including * It should be noted that the terms Black/AfricanAmerican, Latino/Hispanic, and White/Caucasian are capitalized and used interchangeably throughout this anthology. Similar to Anderson and Collins ([1992] 2001), this decision is based upon the fact that these terms have political and scientific connotations that deserve the proper names. Although some may state that the terms “Black” and “White” do not need to be capitalized, I contend that these terms are historically linked on census and public documents that did once render a proper connotation. Additionally, just like Latinos, Asians, and Blacks/AfricanAmericans, Whites are a racial group and should come to be recognized as such, instead of the taken-for-granted absence of racialization.

the explanation that Blacks’ current socioeconomic status stems from discrimination has decreased over time. In turn, Blacks’ and Hispanics’ racial attitudes about the Black/White socioeconomic divide have become more similar to that of Whites’ racial attitudes over time. Nonetheless, Blacks are more likely to endorse a discrimination-based explanation. While only 31 percent of Whites believe Blacks are in their current state due to discrimination (which has also decreased over the years), 61 percent of Blacks still agree with this explanation. The problem with the individual- versus structural-thinking dichotomy is that these perspectives are inherently opposed to each other. What mediates these two opposing views is a perseverance perspective. Perseverance affords individuals the flexibility to believe that Blacks and other minority groups face discrimination but also can still persevere to be upwardly mobile. Hunt’s (2007) findings capture this. Because structural-thinking takes into account that Blacks are discriminated against in social institutions including education and the labor market, it decreases Whites’ probability of perceiving Blacks as competitive threats and as being unmotivated or pathologically deficient. There are, however, potential racial differences regarding the reasoning for the perseverance perspective. Generally, Whites choose either the individual- or structural-thinking perspective. Some Blacks, on the other hand, may choose both perspectives. Although most Blacks incorporate discrimination into their beliefs about the Black/White socioeconomic divide, the discrimination explanation does not preclude them from thinking that Blacks should persevere. And Blacks have a long history of persevering. Despite a continuance of institutional and individual acts of discrimination (Drake 1987; Zuberi 2001), Blacks have overcome (Davis 1981; hooks 1981; Taylor et al. 1990; Billingsley 1992). In fact, in the 1960s, “We shall overcome” became the theme of the

Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century  3

Civil Rights Movement (Morris 1994). This is the essence of the perseverance perspective. In survey research, this interactive relationship between structural and individual/motivational explanations often surfaces to imply that Blacks have shifted from a structural explanation to an individual explanation. Actually, Blacks seem to exhibit a perseverance perspective that is unable to accurately be captured in the wording of many survey questions in large-scale data sets. Consequently, this current phrasing does not allow for the perseverance perspective to be adequately captured. Therefore, the perseverance perspective must be discussed as an alternative to the individual- versus structuralthinking dichotomy. This allows for us to move past simple group affiliations and the traditional Black/ White dichotomy of racial politics. This important perspective is where this anthology is situated.

GOAL OF THE ANTHOLOGY Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century examines the major theoretical and empirical approaches regarding race/ethnicity. Its goal is to continue to place race and ethnic relations in a contemporary, intersectional, and crosscomparative context and progress the discipline to include groups outside the Black/White dichotomy. This text examines the main assumptions that construct individuals’ perceptions of what race is and how it matters. Using various sociological theories, social psychological theories, and subcultural approaches, this book gives students a sociohistorical, theoretical, and institutional frame with which to view race and ethnic relations in the 21st century. It highlights how race/ethnicity continues to act as a boundary that forms meaningful social groupings and divisions. Readers will see how the social construction of race, based on the falsifying of the science of race, is used to justify the exploitation of race for economic gains. By utilizing this anthology,

students will be armed with the theoretical, sociohistorical, and empirical tools to progress in their understandings of how race/ethnicity shapes their social interactions, life chances, and the social institutions in which they are embedded.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ANTHOLOGY Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century is organized in four parts—1) The Sociohistorical Context of Race; 2) Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives; 3) The Cumulative Pipeline of Persistent Institutional Racism; and 4) Confronting the Pipeline: Social Policy Issues. It is composed of a total of 30 articles, chapters, and original essays. This anthology also includes introductory section essays and a list of supplementary readings and resources for teaching race in the classroom and general usage.* The bookends of the anthology include essays by James Jones and Lawrence Bobo from President Bill Clinton’s One America in the 21st Century: The President’s Initiative on Race. Jones’ essay discusses why the United States has not progressed as much as expected since Du Bois’ prolific statement in 1903. Du Bois stated, “The problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color-line” (Du Bois 1903). Jones contends that America must engage in a serious, in-depth conversation on race. Other scholars ditto Jones’ assertions and argue that Du Bois’ statement is just as prolific now as it was then (Feagin 1991; Bonilla-Silva 1997; Zuberi 2001). Despite the significance of Du Bois’ statement, and the American Sociological Association’s acknowledgement of Du Bois’ accomplishments (mostly by naming the * Most of the works cited in the introductory essays are also in this anthology. The ones that are not in the anthology will be listed in the supplemental readings and resource list at the end of each introductory essay. The works from this essay are listed in Part I.

4  Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century

Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award the Du Bois Award), a majority of undergraduate and graduate social theory courses do not include Du Bois’ theories or a lecture on race. Similarly, most introduction to sociology courses scantly address race. Considering that few individuals have candid conversations about race across racial/ethnic lines, Jones’ essay on “the embedded nature of race” is a great way to start a discussion about race in the 21st century. Likewise, Bobo’s essay is a great way to conclude this anthology. Bobo discusses the importance of moving from theoretical principles about race to practical solutions for racial problems. Considering students’ pessimism about the future outlook of race and ethnic relations, it is important to highlight some positive outcomes from the past 50 years and optimism about the future.

whiteness, race-gender-sexuality, colorism and lookism, assimilation, immigration, group threat theory, contact theory, ethnic conflict, citizenship, nationalism, and human rights.

Part I—The Sociohistorical Context of Race—situates race within a sociohistorical context to discuss the origins and central processes of race that shape social outcomes. Since race is real in its consequences (i.e., outcomes), individuals assume that race must be real in its circumstances (i.e., origins) (Zuberi 2001). Therefore, it is important to convey that race is indeed a social construct that has real consequences for individuals (Feagin 2001). Furthermore, it must be made clear that race is an organizing principle that is ingrained in the institutions of society (Bonilla-Silva 1997). Using readings by Tukufu Zuberi, Joe Feagin, and St. Clair Drake, this section highlights how the social construction of race, based on the falsifying of the science of race, is used to justify the exploitation of race for economic gains.

Part IV—Confronting the Pipeline: Social Policy Issues—addresses ways to ameliorate race-based inequalities. This section highlights the formation of affirmative action and welfare. This section also focuses on micro-level forms of social change including mentorship and social activism.

Part II—Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives— draws attention to the major theories and concepts on race and ethnic relations. This section showcases readings on racial formation, individual and structural racism, prejudice and discrimination,

Part III—The Cumulative Pipeline of Persistent Institutional Racism—draws attention to how race structures institutional forms of racism. Unlike some edited books on race that focus on a specific racial/ethnic group in different chapters, this section illuminates how structural racism functions similarly through mechanisms and processes in institutions including neighborhoods and communities, education, the labor market, the criminal justice system, and health care to determine outcomes (e.g., constraints and privileges) of all racial/ ethnic groups.

In sum, it is my hope that this book will be useful for scholars and students generally interested in a race anthology that provides a much needed social structural perspective to issues of race. It highlights structural mechanisms and institutional conditions that create and maintain inequalities across groups. These mechanisms and conditions not only apply to groups in the U.S. but also extend to the treatment and experiences of racial/ethnic groups in other parts of the world including Somalis in Great Britain (Pettigrew 1998), Asians in New Zealand, Turks in Germany (Koopmans and Statham 1999), and North Africans in Israel (Schwartz et al., 1991). It should be noted that I do not purport to provide an exhaustive review of the literature. Rather, I have selected studies that draw our attention to

Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century  5

a sociohistorical, theoretical, institutional, and policy-focused agenda that conceptualizes race as a social structural factor that functions on a micro-, meso-, and macro-level.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank the University Readers staff including Bassim Hamadeh, Becky Smith, Al Grisanti, Jessica Knott, Jennifer Bowen, Monica Hui, and Wes Ye. I would also like to thank the contributors who supplied original essays for this anthology including Keon Gilbert, Chikarlo R. Leak, R. L’Heureux Lewis, Alta Mauro, Shiri Noy, Evangeleen Pattison, Victor Ray, Jason Robertson, and Abigail A. Sewell. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules. Additionally, I want to recognize Mike Wenger and Johanna Marcelino. It

would have been nice to continue our collaboration. Next, I want to acknowledge my mentors and scholars who have supplied me with a broad base of racial knowledge and advice over the years. These scholars include Wanda Rushing, Quincy Stewart, Donna Eder, Pam Jackson, Brian Powell, Khalil Muhammad, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Tukufu Zuberi, Aldon Morris, Prudence Carter, and Patricia Hill Collins. I am fortunate to be in your lineage of academic growth and development. Finally, I want to give thanks to my family for their continued support and faith in my efforts toward social change. My wife Cynthia has always displayed unwavering encouragement for my efforts including reading over sections of my work and understanding late night writing binges. As always, I will forever appreciate and love Joslyn, Gladys, and Rosalind. Thank you all.

DEDICATION This book is dedicated to the students and individuals I encounter who believe that I have something worth sharing with the world.

6  Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century

PART 1 THE SOCIOHISTORICAL CONTEXT OF RACE

THE SCIENCE, SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION, AND EXPLOITATION OF RACE By Rashawn Ray

T

he Sociohistorical Context of Race— highlights how the social construction of race, based on the falsifying of the science of race, is used to justify the exploitation of race for economic gains. In this section, race is situated within a sociohistorical context to discuss the origins and central outcomes of race. Since race is real in its consequences (i.e., outcomes), individuals assume that race must be real in its circumstances (i.e., origins) (Zuberi 2001). Therefore, it is important to convey that race is indeed a social construct that has real structural consequences for individuals (Feagin 2001). Furthermore, it must be made clear that race is an organizing principle that is ingrained in the institutions of society that marginalizes and exploits minority group members (Drake 1987; Bonilla-Silva 1997).

THE SCIENCE OF RACE Race can be conceptualized as ethnoracial, historically rooted distinctions or social constructions. Ethnicity, on the other hand, can be classified as a subgroup that shares a common ancestry, history,

and/or culture (Bobo and Fox 2003). While numerous studies show that no biological or genetic differences exist among races that have significant psychological, mental, or physical origins, most individuals profess that there are innate racial differences between groups (Zuberi 2001). These include stereotypes such as Asians being short yet intelligent, Blacks being physically superior yet intellectually inferior, and Whites being the standard and epitome of humanity. Humans are one species regardless of skin color, dialect, eye shape, and/or hair texture. In fact, individuals show more genetic variation within races than among them. In other words, a Black person and a White person can be genetically more similar to each other than two White people or two Black people. While differences seem to develop through health disparities (Gilbert 2010), IQ tests (Lewis 2010), and physical prowess, most of these differences are rooted in socialization, environmental factors, cultural variation, and perceptions of opportunities. Altogether, the science of race is only skin deep and instead differences between groups are based upon structural consequences.

Rashawn Ray, “The Science, Social Construction, and Exploitation of Race,” pp. 1–9. Copyright by Rashawn Ray. Permission to reprint granted by the author.

The Science, Social Construction, and Exploitation of Race  21

THE INVENTION OF RACE So if race is indeed a social construction, how was race invented, and by whom? As Zuberi (2001) discusses, race was formally posited in the mid 1700s by Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus, a Swedish taxonomist, who asserted that people looked different. Linnaeus argued that because people looked different, there had to be psychological traits associated with these physical differences related to skin color. Accordingly, Linnaeus split humans into four subspecies—americanus, europaeus, asiaticus, and afer—each associated with a major continent. The German naturalist Blumenback introduced five racial categories—American, Caucasoid, Malay, Mongoloid, and Ethiopian—with each race associated with a color (i.e., white, yellow, red, brown, black). It should be noted that Negroid, which means black, later replaced the term Ethiopian. In turn, many of the Biblical associations with Ethiopians were lost. It should also be noted that Whites were the group doing the racial classifying. Some scholars argue this explains why Whites were placed on top of the racial hierarchy and used whiteness as the pure marker of perfection. Subsequently, other groups fall in line based on skin color from lightest to darkest. This was of course about 150 years after American slavery, thus a system of racial groupings already existed before Linnaeus’ formal classification. In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1859) developed the theory of evolution, which asserts that through survival of the fittest, the most superior species will evolve and adapt to its environment. This is where the term race is such an intriguing choice of words. By classifying groups as races, it insinuates that groups are indeed competing and racing to be the fittest. Similarly, eugenics, which was developed in 1865 by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, asserts that through a unique combination of nature versus nurture whereby various interventions are constructed, the

perfect human can be created to enhance intelligence levels, save society’s resources, and decrease human suffering. Some of these interventions include selective breeding, genetic engineering, in vitro fertilization, and forced sterilization. Eugenics movements have been criticized for justifying statesponsored discrimination and human rights violations. Recently, some researchers have called for a resurgence into the study of eugenics through new forms of technology. Critics of eugenics insinuate that the “perfect human” will leave out the actual racial pluralism that exists in the world. As a result of these theories and their implications for race, external physical characteristics (e.g., skin color, hair color and texture, eye color) came to be accepted as reflecting psychological and mental abilities that imply racial superiority or inferiority (Ray 2010). These assumptions, however, are refuted by researchers who note that individuals of every racial group have the same characteristics. More importantly, researchers have never found a gene for race. British fraternal twins are a good example. In 2005, a mixed race couple (that most would classify as Black on skin color alone) gave birth to one brown-skinned, brown eyed, and black haired girl and one fair-skinned, blue eyed, and blond haired girl. In other words, a Black couple had a Black and White baby at the same time. While these types of births are rare, they are not uncommon. These twins are validation for those who claim that the science of racial separatism is only skin deep. Still, stereotypes regarding physical characteristics persisted through the falsifying of cranium weight and facial angles as determinants for intelligence. Scientists constructed White brains to be larger than Black brains and used this form of pseudoscience to shape public opinion and public policy. Through the formulation of theories and concepts to describe and categorize humans, race moved from being a rumor to being a social reality

22  Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century

and became a means to separate groups. Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection became the scientific basis for justifying that differences exist among racial groups. Galton’s eugenics theory became the scientific basis to carry out preserving so-called racial purity. “Color prejudice thus became fused with beliefs in biological determinants to produce White racism” (Drake 1987). Collectively, these theories spurred Social Darwinism where scientific studies sought to justify the classification of racial groups.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RACE Phenotypic features such as skin color, hair color, hair texture, and eye color that have been purported as classifying racial groups actually change over the life course based on how these genetic features interact with the environment. Ask yourself a few simple questions: • Has your hair color or eye color changed from birth? • Does your skin color change with exposure to light? • Does your hair color or eye color change from season to season depending on the temperature of your environment?

If you answered yes to some or all of these questions, you are not alone. Most individuals’ phenotypic features change over the life course. And yet, these features that change within each of us were/ are used as justification for racial classification and exploitation. We can even think about the simple definitions of White and Black. White is classified as purity, cleanliness, and innocence. It is the color that brides, doctors, and nurses traditionally wear. Altogether, white is the absence of color and the

essence of what is considered good and positive. On the contrary, black is classified as evil, bad, and satanic. Black is the color people wear at funerals and symbolizes death.* Images of Barbie and Aunt Jemima display this White/Black duality. Barbie is traditionally portrayed as pretty, queen-like, and angelic, while Aunt Jemima is frequently portrayed as darkskinned, overweight, and ugly. In the 1950s and 1960s, Barbie and Aunt Jemima were some of the few caricatures of White and Black women seen by youth across racial lines. Messages that individuals receive about race from social institutions such as the media shape how individuals are socially constructed to view race, currently and historically. We receive unconscious messages on a daily basis in all facets of our lives that reinforce the ideology of race. Thus, the ideology of race shapes attitudes and perceptions and all aspects of social life that have real consequences for individuals’ opportunities and social interactions. Even children are continuously subjected to messages and images that racially classify groups. For example, Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clarks’† doll experiments found that Black children often preferred to play with White dolls compared to * If you take a historical perspective on the color Black, it actually symbolized authority, power, and royalty. † Dr. Kenneth Clark was the first Black to obtain a PhD from Columbia University in 1940 with his wife right behind him as the first Black woman to obtain a PhD from Columbia University in 1943. Dr. Kenneth Clark became a full professor in 1942 at City College in New York City and later became the President of the American Psychological Association. Collectively, Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark founded the Northside Development Center for Child Development in Harlem. The Clarks were expert witnesses in the Brigg v. Elliot case, which was one of the influential cases that set the tone for the infamous Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case.

The Science, Social Construction, and Exploitation of Race  23

Black dolls and often classified their own skin color as a lighter shade than it actually was. Additionally, children often viewed White as good and pretty and Black as bad and ugly. The Clarks concluded that racial identity and self-awareness develop as early as 3 years old. Although it would seem as though this form of racial identity among Blacks is a thing of the past, unfortunately it is not. In a 2005 documentary, entitled A Girl Like Me, Kiri Davis replicated the Clarks’ doll study and found similar results. A Girl Like Me is a short, intriguing documentary that captures how stereotypes affect the racial identities of minority group members. Another documentary that should be of interest to those studying the social construction of race is A Class Divided, which is a compelling film about the establishment of ingroups/outgroups and the socialization of internalized prejudices, stereotypes, and discrimination. Third grade teacher Jane Elliott’s “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” exercise, which was originally conducted following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, places a hierarchical distinction between blue-eyed and brown-eyed students. The documentary shows how quickly prejudice attitudes and discriminatory behavior can commence. Years later the students return as adults to discuss their experiences with the exercise and how it has shaped their beliefs about race and privilege. In part three of the documentary, Elliot conducts the study with adults.

THE EXPLOITATION OF RACE The social construction of race based on the falsifying of the science of race lead to the exploitation of race. Three examples are fitting here. First, Nazi Germany’s “racial hygiene” programs during the 1930s and 1940s sought to preserve the human race by exterminating all Jews. The Aryan nation, commonly associated with Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, categorized themselves as the pure breeds.

While the Nazis could not find consistent recognizable physical characteristics to distinguish Germans from Jews, they resulted to forcing Jews to wear yellow armbands and have only traditional Jewish names. Germans were told to only marry and breed with blue-eyed and blond-haired humans. As part of the sterilization process, over 40,000 individuals including Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah witnesses, Blacks, and homosexuals were sterilized from 1934–1937. The Holocaust formally lasted from 1933–1945 and more than 5.7 million Jews were killed in Germany. Interestingly, Adolf Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany, had brown hair and dark eyes. Second, the U.S. Public Health Service conducted an experiment on 399 Black male farmers in Alabama from 1932–1972. Known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, these men were never told that they had syphilis and instead told that they had “bad blood” so that doctors and researchers could document the effect syphilis has on the human body. In turn, these farmers were denied proper care for the disease. This tragic event did not come to light until after the experiment was over with one doctor stating, “As I see it, we have no further interest in these patients until they die” (Jones 1993). Third, The Transatlantic Slave Trade lasted formally in the U.S. from 1619–1865 and led to the deaths of over 20 million Africans. While slavery and bondage existed in human history, until the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the racialization of slavery did not exist (Zuberi 2001). Approximately 8 million Africans died during the Middle Passage, which was the transport voyage from Africa to the Americas. On the slave ships, Africans were handcuffed and shackled next to other Africans who did not speak their language so that they would not be able to communicate. Africans would go for days without seeing sunlight. In turn, they were forced to urinate and defecate on themselves and one another. When Africans were brought to the deck of the ship, they had cold, salt ocean water thrown

24  Race and Ethnic Relations in the Twenty-First Century

on them and their wounds from whippings and beatings. Once brought to the Americas, they were publicly sold at an auction like a piece of equipment such as a vehicle or appliance. Africans were then broken down like one would break a horse or a wild animal. Whites would take the African male who they considered to be the strongest mentally and physically and mutilate and murder him in front of the other slaves. White slave owners and caretakers would beat the African male to a pulp instilling fear in the other slaves. After that, they would tie each of his arms and legs to a horse. They would beat the horses in opposite directions until they ripped the African’s body in separate pieces. Subsequently, Whites would select the second strongest African slave and beat him to a pulp until he yelled out his newly selected name by the slave owner. This established a precedent that African males had lost their power and would be beaten brutally for exerting any form of agency. Additionally, African women were savagely raped by White slave owners and caretakers. Altogether, if any individuals should be classified as embodying “the survival of the fittest,” survivors of atrocities such as the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust should be in that category. In sum, race started out as a rumor, as a myth. This myth of racial difference was transmitted across media outlets, pulpits, classrooms, and stages. In turn, race has become one of the main social structural factors to determine life chances and opportunities. Subsequently, the social construction of race, based on the falsifying of the science of race, is continuously used to justify the exploitation of race for economic gains.

SUPPLEMENTAL READINGS AND RESOURCES A Class Divided (Blue Eye/ Brown Eye Experiment). Frontline PBS Documentary. Anderson, Margaret L. and Patricia Hill Collins. 2001. Race, Class, and Gender; An Anthology, 4th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bobo. Lawrence and Cybelle Fox. 2003. “Race, Racism, and Discrimination: Bridging Problems, Methods, and Theory in Social Psychological Research.” Social Psychology Quarterly, Special Issue: Race, Racism, and Discrimination 64: 319–332. Davis, Kiri. 2005. A Girl Like Me. Independent Documentary. Du Bois, W. E. B. [1899] 1995. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Du Bois, W. E. B. 1903. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Dover. Du Bois, W. E. B. 1939. Black Folk, Then and Now: An Essay in the History and Sociology of the Negro Race. New York: Henry Holt. Havard’s Implicit Association Tests. https://implicit. harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ Muhammad, Khalil Gibran. 2010. The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Williams, Juan. 1987. Eyes on the Prize. America’s Civil Rights Years (1954–1965). PBS. Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Science, Social Construction, and Exploitation of Race  25