Race, Identity and the Social Construction of Racial Categories

Race and Identity
Historian Robin Kelley stated, “Race was never just a matter of
how you look, it’s about how people assign meaning to how you
look” (Herbes-Sommers, 2003). Considering what you learned
from the Social Implications of Race video clip, Chapter 3 in
your textbook, and your own experiences, answer the following
questions:
· What do you think is meant by the term racial smog?
· How do racial categories shape our identities and social
status?
Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support
your claims with examples from the required materials and/or
other scholarly sources. Cite your sources in the body of your
post and provide a complete reference for each source used at
the end of it.
This is Chapter 3 of the text book
Human beings differ from other animals in their heavy reliance
on culture as their means of
adapting to their environment. Humans are, inshort, cultural ani
mals. Because this can be said of no other species, one might as
sume that human biology has distinctive characteristics that
make it possible for us to acquire a culture. In other words, hum
an biology makes culture
possible, and the biological characteristics of ourspecies may b
e seen as the reason why
cultures, despite their diversity, nevertheless also have numero
us universals.

However, to say that human biology makes culture possible doe
s not imply that biology
determines the specific characteristics of a culture. It isgenerall
y acknowledged that "human
nature," in the sense of our innate biological predispositions, do
es not consist of rigidly programmed
responses to stimuli. The human species is the product of evolut
ionary processes that resulted
in a large brain with the capacity to learn anduse both language
and complex ideologies, which are passed down from one gener
ation to the next through socialization rather than through
biology itself. In this chapter, we will question ideas about biol
ogical determinism by exploring
the interplay of culture, race, and ethnicity.
Race and Culture
Humans are not a homogeneous species, but differ in some of th
eir physical characteristics
from one part of the world to another. It hasbecome common th
roughout the world to use
these differences to group people into a variety of races, groups
that supposedly reflect
closeness based on common ancestry. One major problem with t
he idea that humans belong to different races is that people who
use theconcept of "race" typically assume that there are
clear-cut genetic boundaries between these groups. In reality,
so-called racial characteristics
vary in frequency from one part of the world to another, and cha
nges rarely happen so abruptly that one can state with certainty
that a clear
boundary exists between an area where a characteristic is comm
on and another where it is rare. Furthermore, the cluster of biolo
gical traitsthat are commonly thought of as distinguishing one r
ace from another do not vary from one part of the world to anot
her as a cluster. Forinstance, skin tone varies most markedly fro
m dark to light as one moves further north or south from the equ
ator, while other so-called racial

differences vary east to west, from lower elevations to higher on
es, and from climate to climate (the tallest and slenderest human
s beingconcentrated in hot, dry areas).
Overall, despite variation, the major human geographical groups
around the world (which are
commonly thought of as distinct races) differ inonly about 0.5
% of their genetic material (Levy, 2007), and all human populat
ions have the capacity to learn and be socialized into a particula
rculture. Thus, the so-
called human races are not actually separate groups in the way t
hey are commonly thought to be, and the differences thatcan be
seen around the world are superficial differences when it
comes to the capacity for culture. In short, the human "races" ar
e best
understood as cultural constructs rather than truly distinct biolo
gical subdivisions of our species.
In the early 1900s, Franz Boas (1911) emphasized the fact that
whatever biological differences may exist between human races
do not accountfor cultural differences. People of the same
race may have quite different cultures, and people of different r
aces may participate in the sameculture. Normal individuals of e
very race have the same capacity to acquire any culture. The
purpose of this chapter is to further explore thisrelationship bet
ween "race" and culture.
Racialism
Racialism is the belief that clear-
cut, bounded human races actually exist. It is an idea that devel
oped in Europe as explorers and merchantsbegan to travel to far
-
flung places around the world beginning in the 1500s and was f
urthered by the efforts of taxonomists and natural
historians in the 1700s to develop scientific categories that they
hoped would describe recently discovered human biological var
iations.Unfortunately, these early taxonomies gave rise to the m

istaken impression that human differences could accurately be d
escribed in terms of discretely different groups.
Everett Collection/SuperStock
Throughout history there has been an effort to portrayCaucasian
people as superior to others. In the 1800s thistook on a more ev
olutionary approach as shown in ErnestHaeckel's 1868 popular i
llustrated book titled NaturlicheSchopfungsgeschichte (English
title, History of Creation).
The Origin of Racialism
Throughout most of history, people interacted only with close n
eighbors who differed very
little from them biologically. When their cultures differed radic
ally, an individual's status
was likely to be described in nonbiological terms, as a stranger.
Those who held such
statuses might be treated ethnocentrically as social inferiors and
expected to play inferior
roles. But it was not until the peoples of distant parts of the wor
ld began to interact that
the idea of race became a common way of identifying social con
trasts among groups.
The belief that humankind is divided into several major races be
gan during the age of
European colonial expansion. European exploration of remote p
arts of the world brought
people together from places where the most frequently observab
le biological traits suchas skin color or hair texture differed eno
ugh to be readily noted by travelers. These
physical contrasts became the basis for creating racial statuses
when the political need
arose. Colonial expansion was undertaken to obtain economic a
nd political benefits for
the homeland. Expecting members of the colonized societies to
play subordinate roles to

the colonizers supported this goal. The emerging racial ideology
helped to maintain the
distinction between "us" and "them," and to justify European do
mination.
Even today, the criteria by which "races" are defined vary from
culture to culture. Usually,
these criteria include easily observable traits such as skin color,
the shape of facial
features, hair color and texture, or body stature. Less observable
traits such as blood type
would not allow quick and easy decisions about what social role
s should be played
between people. In North America, skin color and hair texture a
re often the maindeterminants of the "race" to which one is thou
ght to belong. In Bolivia, on the other
hand, nonbiological attributes such as clothing and dialect or ac
cent may greatly influenceone's perceptions of another's "race."
That there is no precise number of human races is illustrated by
the fact that the number of so-
called human races differs from one culture to another. For insta
nce, European
scholars often spoke of three major racial groups, but American
scholar’s commonly
treated Native Americans as a fourth, supposedly distinct, race.
In the American
subculture in which I grew up in southern California in the 1950
s, Americans of that area
commonly added "Mexicans," as if they were a distinct fifth rac
e. The variability in social
perceptions of racial categories indicates that "race" isreally a c
ultural construct rather than a
natural biological subdivision of our species.
The Belief in Distinct Races
The human species is quite varied in the biological characteristi
cs found from person to person, and the same physical traits are

not equally
found throughout the world. Instead, any given trait may vary in
frequency from region to
region. Because in particular environments a certainphysical tra
it may confer some survival
advantage on those who have it, advantageous traits eventually
become more common in the
environments in which they are of benefit. Thus, for instance, th
e largest lung capacity is most
common among peoples who live at the highest
altitudes, and the body shape that best conserves tends to be mo
st common in the coldest
climates. Nevertheless, enough interbreedinghappens between n
eighboring groups that traits
that have an advantage in a particular environment are also pass
ed from group to group, out ofone environment and into others.
However, simple variation in the frequency of traits from one re
gion to another does not mean that a species is made up of disti
nctly separateraces or that races have clear boundaries that
separate them one from another. In fact, the number of human ra
ces that people believe existdepends on what they have been soc
ialized to believe, and ideas about that vary from one
culture to another. Human groups are simply notisolated enough
from one another to have
developed distinctive races characterized by clusters of genetic
traits that disappear as one
crosses adistinct boundary between them. The bottom line is tha
t there is much more variation between the characteristics of ind
ividuals within any ofthe so-
called "races" than there is between those "races." This can be il
lustrated with measurements
of genetic differences between humangroups. A significant num
ber of human genes and the
variants of their alleles are unchanging. Hence, they are not sub
ject to evolutionary
pressures and are more or less common from one part of the wor

ld to another.
Biological anthropologist Richard Lewontin (1972; Lewontin et
al. 1982, p. 123) compared
genetic traits in individuals from seven different
geographical areas of the world and determined that these genes
are so widely distributed that if all human beings except those
of any one ofthese "racial" groups, say sub-
Saharan Africa, were somehow wiped out by a great catastrophe
, only 6.7% of these variable
human genes wouldbe lost from the human species. More recen
t studies with improved
methods for measuring genetic diversity have confirmed Lewont
in's conclusion that most human genes are shared by all so-
called "races." These studies show that only 6–
10% of human variation can be explainedby the "races," and tha
t about 94% of physical
variation occurs within "racial" groups (AAA, 1998). Further,
Yu et al. (2002) found that there are
equivalent average genetic difference between two individuals o
f the same race and two
individuals of different races. Similarly, Jin and
Chakraborty (1994) examined DNA markers among about 12,00
0 people from 59 different
groups and found that up to 98.5% of geneticvariation occurred
within groups. As noted above, as much as 99.5% of human gen
es are found in each of the parts of the world that are
commonly thought of as representing the major three or four hu
man races. Thus, the way
human traits are distributed around the world doesnot conform
to the common idea that
there is an objective number of clearly recognizable, distinct rac
es.
Although some scientists who are interested in the biological di
versity within our species also
use the word "race," their studies actually reveal
something quite different from the common idea: The frequenci

es of human biological traits
vary gradually from region to region without clear-
cut boundaries between them. Neighboring human groups are co
nstantly migrating and
exchanging genes from group to group through mating,
and no human groups are really isolated from their neighbors, e
ven when rigid taboos exist. For instance, sociologist Robert St
uckert (1958,
1966) estimated that approximately 23% of persons classified as
White in the United States in
1960 had at least one ancestor of African origin.This mixing occ
urred despite the very strong social taboos against interracial m
ating in the United States. The rates at which genes are passed
from one human group to another throughout most of human exi
stence are likely to be much
greater than that which Stuckert calculated forBlacks and White
s in the United States prior to
about 1960. In fact, population geneticist Mark Shriver and his
colleagues at Penn State have found that about 30% of self-
identified "White Americans" have some African ancestry, and
between 17 and 18% of the ancestors of self-
identified "Black Americans" were of European origin, and abou
t 10% of these "Black Americans" are more than half European i
n their ancestry (Shriver, et al., 2003). Thus, the so-
called "races" referred to in popular culture are not nearly as dif
ferent from each other as
people imagine.
Rather than think about "races" as discrete groups, it is more us
eful to think about biological
variation along a continuum of gradual (ratherthan abrupt) chan
ge. We see this, for example,
with skin color, which varies along a gradient from one group o
r geographic region to another.
Infact, much human variation is better explained by geographic
distance than by biology:
Groups living close to one another tend to be morephysically al

ike compared to those living
farther away (Templeton, 1998). It is for these reasons that anth
ropologists (especially cultural
anthropologists) think about "race" as a social construct. This is
not to say "race" does not exist: It remains a commonly used cl
assificatorysystem; it is integral to social interaction; and race
and racism form part of people's social experiences. However, "
race" is based more on social
and historical factors than on biological facts.
Racism
Since racial classifications are social conventions, they differ fr
om culture to culture. The
defined racial categories may include as few as two
socially relevant categories or a multitude of them. Brazil, for e
xample, reportedly has more
than 500 racial terms. Despite the arbitrariness of
racial classifications, they may seem quite real to those who hav
e been socialized into using
them. The power of social beliefs in racial
differences can be so great that people may be dealt with on the
basis of the qualities that are
culturally attributed to their race rather than the
qualities they actually demonstrate as individuals. Stereotypes a
bout differences between racial groups can lead to the assignme
nt of somewhat
different social roles to members of the different racial groups.
These differences commonly
involve the subordination of those of one racialstatus to those of
another racial status. Such
subordination has been supported at various times in different p
arts of the world by the force of law, as in the case of the post–
Civil War United States when Black Americans were sometimes
required by law to live under
both geographicallyand economically segregated conditions. Ev
en without the force of law,
racial prejudices continued to play a role in such things as discr

iminatory hiring practices.
Especially when the roles that are commonly available to memb
ers of different racial groups
involve a consistent ranking of one racial groupover others, the
differences in roles may be
perpetuated by racial prejudices. Racial prejudice is an attitude
made up of feelings of dislike and
contempt for people who are thought of as belonging to a racial
group different from one's
own. It may be learned from and supported by theideology of a
culture, and may be manifest in institutions such as laws, public
policy, and corporate practices. Racial prejudice—
as an antipathythat is felt by individuals—
is translated into behavior when we treat members of other racia
l groups differently than we
would treat members ofour own. Such behavior is called racial
discrimination. Although
discrimination may be evidenced by the way an individual mani
fests his or her racial prejudice
(such as joking about minority races), it is also evidenced by ins
titutional
practices, such as a company policy of not hiringmembers of mi
nority races, or a law forbidding marriage between members of
different races. This kind of institutionally based discrimination
is
one of the components of racism, which is best understood as cu
lturally mandated,
institutionally supported discrimination against members of
minority races.
Racism is normally supported by racist beliefs, which involve th
e mistake of thinking that
expected social roles are actually inborn racial
characteristics. The belief that socially imposed racial differenc
es are innate legitimizes the
subordination of one racial group to another. Though
inaccurate and demeaning, racist beliefs have evolved because t

hey serve a variety of societal
needs, such as supporting the political andeconomic goals of the
dominant segments of society.
Economic and Political Roots of Racism
The social applications of racism have consistently represented
nonscientific and arbitrary
judgments that serve the changing, often
ethnocentric, values of society. This is evidenced by two scienti
fically untenable characteristics of racist standards. First, stand
ards of racial
classification have been highly arbitrary in biological terms, as
they are socially directed to
supporting the supposed "purity" of the dominantgroup. For inst
ance, in the United States, anyone who admits to having even on
e Black ancestor is commonly classified by others and treatedso
cially as a Black—
regardless of physical appearance. It would be just as logical to
classify someone who has a
small amount of "White blood"as a White. But the function of ra
cial classification historically in the United States has been to d
eny equal access to economic and politicalpower to people who
are not of northern European ancestry.
The second major piece of evidence that racism grows out of the
predominant social values of
the day is that racist ideas about the behavioral
tendencies of the "races" change with the shifting winds of publ
ic and political sentiment. Thus, in the United States in 1935, th
e Japanese"race" was commonly viewed as progressive,
intelligent, and industrious. Only 7 years later, in 1942 and wit
hin the context of World War II, the
Japanese were widely viewed as an inherently cunning and treac
herous "race." In that year, an executive order by President Roo
sevelt was usedto exclude Japanese Americans from the
Pacific Coast, including all of California and much of Oregon. J
apanese citizens were taken from their
homes in those areas and confined to internment camps in Arkan

sas and in various West Coast and Great Basin states. After 195
0, as politicalallies of the United States, the Japanese once
again came to be viewed as hardworking and progressive. Simil
arly, when there was a labor
shortage in California during the construction of the transcontin
ental railway line, the Chinese who provided cheap labor were d
escribed as afrugal, sober, law-
abiding "race." Then, when competition for jobs became severe
and it became economically desirable to exclude further
immigration of Chinese laborers, the Chinese "race" suddenly b
ecame described as dirty,
unable to assimilate, and even dangerous.
The racist approach has consistently failed to have any scientifi
c validity. On the contrary, it
supports social prejudices by claiming that socially
created group differences are biologically determined and theref
ore unchangeable. Such an
argument provides a political rationale for people tooppose atte
mpts to change the current race-
based limitations in access to social prestige and political and e
conomic power. For that reason, the
racist argument has persisted for several centuries, even though
it has never proven itself to be of any scientific value in explain
ing human socialdifference.
The arbitrariness of racial categorizations that function to legiti
mize differences in how people
are customarily treated is well illustrated by the
experience of a young American boy named Greg Williams. Bor
n in 1944, he was reared in
Virginia where he attended schools that only
accepted White students and where he swam in segregated swim
ming pools for Whites. Greg
inherited his father's light skin tone, and he had
straight black hair. This did not interfere with his being classifi
ed socially as "White." However,
at the age of 10, Greg's father moved with him

and his siblings to Muncie, Indiana, where his relatives were co
nsidered to be Black. His light-
skinned father told him and his brothers that "[i]nVirginia you
were White boys. In Indiana,
you're going to be colored." But things weren't quite that simple
. As a teenager in Muncie, Greg wastaunted by Black teens as "
White," and White people were upset when they saw him with
White girls. On the other hand, as a university
student, Greg Williams was classified as Black when the univers
ity reported the percentages of
its students in different racial categories (Williams, 1996).
Slavery and Racist Beliefs
Racism is essentially a modern phenomenon. The modern racist
way of reacting to "outsiders" by claiming that they are biologic
ally inferior andunable to learn the "superior" customs of the
racist's own group, came into existence as a way of protecting t
he 18th- and 19th-century
institution of slavery when voices began to speak out against it.
Defenders of slavery even
claimed the institution was divinely willed. Forexample, in 177
2 the Reverend Thomas
Thompson published a work entitled The Trade in Negro Slaves
on the African Coast in Accordance withHumane Principles, and
with the Laws of Revealed Religion, and in 1852 the Reverend
Josiah Priest published A Bible Defense of Slavery.

Figure 3.1: Evolution toward greater civilization?
Source: Adapted from The March of Progress by Rudy Zallinger
.
If cultural evolution was linear, why did man develop the best t
ools and a highly industrialized economy, yet
struggle in countering social inequality, poverty, and war?
When the use of Africans as slaves began in the United States, t
here was little need to justify it with racist arguments. Ethnocen
tric values
sufficed as rationales for the institution of slavery. Slave owner
s could claim that their slaves
were better off with them than as free personswithin their own
allegedly inferior cultures. It
was supposed that they had been given the chance to learn a sup
erior way of life, higher moralvalues, the true religion, and a m
ore enlightened way of thinking, in addition to enjoying a
higher standard of living, better medical knowledge,
and a longer life expectancy than if they had been permitted to r
emain in their former state. In ethnocentric terms, it was said th
at one could
not simply discharge a slave after a few years of service becaus
e releasing a slave to his or her
own devices in a complex society would be"inhumane." Accord
ing to this argument, the
complexity of the "superior way of life" would be more than a p
erson taken into slavery as an
adult could learn to cope with. Thus, it was the slaveholders' bu
rden to take care of these
"innocents" for the rest of their lives. And, of course,
it was only fair—so the argument ran—
for them to work for their "benefactors" in return for these acts
of "kindness." See Figure 3.1.
Universal Images Group/SuperStock

Once people accept that a particular group is unequal, itjustifies
their unequal treatment as well.
Such ethnocentric rationales were not so useful when applied to
the second generation of
slaves. If a slave's children are exposed from infancy on to the
way of life of the slave
owner, they cannot be described as any less aware of how to liv
e "properly" than any other
member of the society unless one adds a new rationale to the ol
d ethnocentric one.To continue to rationalize slavery into the se
cond and third generations, the slave-owning
group had to develop the view that the group they held in bonda
ge was somewhat
inferior in that its members were genetically unable to learn the
new way of life
adequately to participate on an equal footing in a "civilized" soc
iety.
With this change from a simple ethnocentric argument to a conc
ept of an inherent incapacity of some non-
White "races," the old claim of inferiority took on an even
stronger aura of inevitability. Although the old institution of sla
very no longer may be
used as the vehicle for the domination of one group by another,
the concept of
differences in the capacities of different "races" lives on as a rat
ionale for the dominance
of one culture over another or of one segment of a society over i
ts other members.
Rationalizing Social Inequality
Looking at human differences in a racist way holds that the trait
s that lie within a person
are responsible for his or her behavior. Such inner traits include
willpower, determination,
ego, inborn potentials, intellectual capacities, and the like. This
tradition has made it
difficult to convince many people of the value in viewing behav

ior as being affected by
cultural factors that are outside the person. Racist thinking serv
ed as a way of rationalizing
the inequalities from which the dominant members of society w
ere benefitting. Unequal
treatment of social minorities could be perceived as the result ra
ther than the cause of
the differences between the various segments of the society. Be
cause it is an effective
way of supporting the status quo, the racist approach to explaini
ng human behavior became a
common way of reacting to human behavioral
differences and remains unquestioned by large segments of soci
ety today, two centuries after it originated.
Legalized Racial Distinctions
Often the racism of the politically dominant segment of a societ
y receives official sanction through legislation. Since the politic
ally dominantsegment of the United States has generally been c
omposed of Whites, laws about supposed racial differences have
often been prejudiced bye
thnocentrism that favored Whites. The "White way of life"—
that is, northern-European–
based, industrialized, capitalistic culture—
was assumedto be the superior way of living and therefore the m
ost deserving of protection by law. Because the ability to partici
pate in a way of life wasthought to be "in our blood," it followe
d that the most effective way of preserving the "White civilizati
on" would be to maintain as much
separation of the races as possible. Thus, at one time over three
quarters of the states in the
United States had laws prohibiting interracialmarriages. That is,
people of non-
White racial statuses were forbidden to marry Whites, although
marriages between members of different non-
White races were not consistently forbidden. Nineteen states stil
l had such laws as recently as

1967 when they were struck down by the U.S.Supreme Court as
unconstitutional.
It was not just racial intermarriage that was illegal in the United
States. A host of so-
called "Jim Crow laws" continued to perpetuate racialsegregatio
n in the United States well into the second half of the 20th cent
ury. For instance, as late as 1971, Black students were still bein
gbused from the school districts in which their families lived int
o predominantly Black school
districts that were farther from their homes. In thatyear, the pra
ctice was finally declared
unconstitutional, but even overturning laws that perpetuated rac
ial segregation did not mean that
segregation disappeared, as even without the force of law privat
e prejudices have made it
difficult for minorities to find employment andhousing outside t
he areas in which they were born.
Everett Collection/SuperStock
The effects of racism can be seen in the law, as was the case in t
hesegregation of schools. In September 1958, Governor Orval F
aubus ofArkansas went on television to urge citizens to vote aga
inst schooldesegregation.
A recent example of a society built on the principle of racial seg
regation isSouth Africa, in which legal barriers prevented a non
-
White majority fromachieving social equality with the dominant
White minority until the systemof apartheid (legal racial segreg
ation) was dismantled between 1989 and1994. South African
law recognized the existence of four "races": Whites,
Africans, Coloureds, and Asians. Whites were those of Europea
n ancestry,
mostly descendants of Dutch Boers and English settlers. African
s were nativeAfrican Blacks. Asians were people of Indian desc
ent whose ancestor’s cameto South Africa in the 19th century.
"Coloureds" were peoples of mixed

descent. The rigid separation of the "races" was maintained by l
aws for
bidding interracial marriages, the legal requirement of segregate
d
residence, separate systems of education, and unequal voting rig
hts. Africansmade up over 71% of the population but lacked vot
ing rights that would give
them a corresponding influence over the government. The gover
nment
defined Africans as citizens of various "homelands," reserves th
at had been
set aside for their occupation. South African cities, on the other
hand, were set apart by law for White residents only.
Non
white laborers who worked in the cities resided in townships loc
ated
outside the cities. Although Whites represented only 16% of the
population, they received by
far the greatest social benefits. For instance, whilethe African u
nemployment rate could be as
high as 30%, White unemployment was below 10%. This was p
artly because the White-dominated
government was the single largest employer of Whites; 40% wor
ked for the bureaucracy. Thus, through control of the governme
nt, SouthAfrican Whites maintained a system of political and
economic privilege based on race. The first all-
race election was finally held in 1994, when
Nelson Mandela, an African, was elected president.
Economic and Health Costs of Racism
Different ways of treating socially designated races are not with
out their cost. Consider this
example: Based on U.S Census information, theWhite life expe
ctancy was 79.0 years in 2010,
3.9 years more than that of African Americans. The difference
can be attributed to a higher
infantmortality rate among African Americans; inadequate acces

s to medical treatment and
hospital facilities; and the debilitating effects of their
higher concentrations in poorer neighborhoods, lower-
class jobs, and high unemployment rates. This difference was an
improvement over
conditions in the year 2000, when the difference between White
and African-
American life expectancy was 7.6 years. Still, under current
conditions in every generation that lives 79 years, 3.9 years of l
ife are denied to approximately 40 million African Americans, a
n equivalent of136 and a half million years of human life waste
d needlessly. See Figure 3.2 for more on the economics of inequ
ality.
Figure 3.2: Racial divide and economic inequality
Source: Based on U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Wealth and asset
ownership of households: 2010 [Datafile]. Retrieved from http:
//www.census.gov/people/wealth/
After the Great Recession of 2007–
2008, the average net worth of Whites was 22times higher than t
he net worth of Blacks.
These kinds of effects—
such as lowered life expectancies and living standards among th
ose who hold minority racial statuses—illustrate how
racism makes itself felt in its most harmful way. To those who f
eel its effects, even more
abhorrent than ethnocentrism or racial prejudice is thefact that

these attitudes may become
the basis of social policies, supported by the weight of law or c
ustom, which then perpetuate arbitraryand harmful inequalities
between peoples.
The First Black American President
In 2008 Americans elected their first Black president, certainly
an indication that racial prejudice has declined significantly inA
merican society. Nevertheless, there have been interesting signs
that it has not completely vanished from American politics. On
eof these is the so-
called Birther Movement, a widespread effort to question wheth
er Barack Obama was even qualified to have
been elected. The Birthers assert that President Obama is not a
natural-born citizen of the United States and, therefore, fails to
meet the Constitutional requirement of being a citizen by birth t
o be elected to the office of President. Despite the fact that
Hawaiian officials have certified that his birth records show him
to have been born in that state, the movement remains vocal.
Interestingly, even though Obama was baptized in the United Ch
urch of Christ and has long worshiped in Southern Baptist
services, other detractors insist that he is secretly a Muslim rath
er than a Christian, and that his middle name is Mohammed (itis
, in fact, Hussein). In so doing, they portray him as religiously
nonmainstream and even un-American. Related false rumors
continue to circulate that when he took the oath of office, he pla
ced his hand on a Quran (the key religious text of Islam) rather
than a Bible, and that he was educated in an Islamic Madrassa (
a religious school). Politically,
even President Obama's oath of
office has been brought into question by those who make the cla
im that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court misspoke
when administering the oath. No other American president has b
een inundated with such widespread questioning of the
legitimacy of his holding the highest executive office in the cou
ntry. This strongly suggests that
it is race and racism that is at the

bottom of these efforts to cast in doubt the legitimacy of the U.
S.'s first Black president.3.2 Race, Cultural Ability, and Intellig
ence
Discriminatory treatment of socially defined "racial" groups is g
enerally rationalized by the idea that different races are biologic
ally endowedwith different abilities. Yet there is no scientific
evidence that any racial group is superior or inferior to any oth
er in its innate cultural abilities.
Neither is there any evidence of racial differences in individuals
' abilities to learn and
adequately participate in any cultural system when they
are given an equal opportunity to learn the necessary skills.
Anthropological researchers who have studied human ways of li
fe around the world have
reported again and again that biological differences
seem to be no barrier to sharing a way of life. They report that c
ommon ways of living, customs, and values are sometimes sprea
d over several
regions occupied by peoples of different biological backgrounds
. How people go about their
lives is determined by their experiences in life andtheir opportu
nities to implement what they
learn through that experience. A child of British parentage whis
ked away at birth and raised by
adoptive Chinese foster parents will learn and value the customs
of his or her Asian peers and
speak an Asiatic language with the same accentas his or her Asi
an playmates. Nothing in the
biological makeup of such a child would impel him or her to val
ue the British political system or to speak with a British accent.
As early as 1911, anthropologist Franz Boas (1911) critiqued th
e biases inherent in
intelligence tests and debunked the myth that "primitive" people
were culturally or
intellectually inferior to White people. Instead, he emphasized p
anhuman shared traits

and cultural relativity. Yet the argument continues to arise that
some races are
inherently less capable of full participation in a particular societ
y. In the United States,
the form of logical thought that is measured by intelligence test
s is a highly valued
social skill, and much has been made of the fact that some so-
called "races" seem toscore higher on these tests than others. W
hen IQ (intelligence quotient), the scores on
intelligence tests, are grouped by race, there is a difference of a
pproximately 15 points
between the averages of Blacks and Whites on most tests of inte
llectual skills
commonly used in the United States. In this section, we will loo
k closely atnonbiological factors that may influence this discrep
ancy in test scores, including
differences in education, language, socioeconomic background,
motivation, and cultural biases in the tests themselves.
The Instability of Test Scores
Contrary to popular belief, an individual's IQ score is far from a
stable measure of an
unchanging trait. In fact, anthropologists, psychologists, and ot
hers fail to agree on what even
counts as intelligence. Intelligence can include various cognitiv
e abilities: verbal,
linguistic, mathematical, spatial, even social; and each ability m
ay reflect a particular
kind of intelligence, some of which are required in some cultura
l contexts more than others.
Nevertheless, beginning in the early 20th century in the United
States, there was aquest to
measure intelligence differences, particularly between Blacks an
d Whites. Such
efforts built upon the misguided efforts of the previous century,
when scientists likes
Samuel Morton tried to show that the skulls of White people we

re larger, and thus that
their brains were larger than other "racial" groups. Such work w
as based on flawed science,
poor sampling, and the erroneous belief that skull
size correlates with intelligence (it does not).
More recently, studies have shown how social context and envir
onment affect intelligence. For instance, during World War I, w
hen the U.S.Army carried out a massive intelligence-
testing program of personnel from many civilian backgrounds, it
found that Blacks in some
northernstates scored higher on IQ tests than did Whites in som
e southern states. Several
studies have demonstrated that environmental factors are able
to affect IQ scores by much more than 15 points in individual ca
ses. In one study of 12-year-old Black New York City school
children, most of
whom had come from southern states, it was found that those w
ho had lived in the city for
more than 7 years scored 20 points higher on IQ
tests than those who had lived there for 2 years or less (Downs
& Bleibtreu, 1972). It has also
been demonstrated that our IQ continues to rise
while we attend school and begins to decline again when we lea
ve the academic setting. The
school environment keeps students actively
engaged in the use of precisely those skills that are called on wh
en they take an intelligence test. A group's average IQ score is t
herefore influenced by the quality and length of its education.
The fallacy that IQ test scores reflect an inborn level of mental
ability is best illustrated by the
rapid changes that have occurred in average IQtest scores throu
ghout the world in the past half century. Data has shown that IQ
s worldwide have increased by about 0.3 points per year since
IQ tests began to be administered. Does this mean that we are al
l getting smarter? Actually,
according to James R. Flynn (2009), the gains inintelligence pri

marily reflect people's ability to perform better on a specific gro
up of questions: questions about similarity (e.g., "how are dogs
and rabbits alike?"). Such questions test our ability to think in t
erms of abstract categories,
which is arguably more a product of modernization
than a product of increased intelligence.
Exactostock/SuperStock
Stereotypes assert that all members of a group share thesame att
ributes. Often, even positive attributes can beracist.
Flynn also addresses racial disparities in intelligence. He finds t
hat the cognitive testing of
Black and White infants shows no differences in intelligence. B
ut, by age 4, the average
Black IQ is 95.4, which is 4.5 points lower than the average Wh
ite IQ. Between ages 2 and
24, Blacks lose 6/10 of a point each year, such that by age 24, t
heir IQ scores have
dropped to 83.4. This change does not reflect a decrease in "inn
ate" intelligence; rather, it
is better understood as the product of particular school and dom
estic environments,
economic circumstances, and social conditions (including racis
m). In effect, IQ tests can be
said to simply measure performance on those tests, and not true
intelligence.
Language Effects on IQ Scores
Dialect or language differences may be another important variab
le affecting the average
intelligence test scores of different groups. Even when tests are
not specifically about
one's knowledge of spelling and grammar, taking intelligence te
sts requires the use of
language skills simply to read any written instructions or unders
tand the test questions. Itis only to be expected that immigrants
whose native languages differ from the one in

which the tests are written would perform poorly on such tests,
regardless of race.
Chandler and Platkos (1969) clearly demonstrated the language
bias in intelligence testing
in one California school district by reevaluating the intelligence
test scores of its Spanish speaking children with a Spanish-
language intelligence test. Most of the children
who had previously been classified as "educable mentally retard
ed" on the basis of the earlier English-
language tests achieved a normal score, and some of them achie
ved above-
average scores. In the United States, the centuries of social segr
egation of Blacks
from Whites has led to the development of a distinctive Black E
nglish vernacular that
differs greatly from the Standard American English that is rewar
ded with high grades in
schools and invariably used in tests of intelligence. Since the St
andard American English
has much more in common with the dialects spoken by most Wh
ites than it does with the
Black English vernacular, there is a strong linguistic bias agains
t Black students built into intelligence tests used today.
Social Background and IQ Scores
Those who hold different racial statuses in the United States his
torically have had unequal
opportunities to achieve highly valued social positions
and high-
income occupations. As a result, the races are socially and econ
omically stratified in the United States. According to the U.S. C
ensus
Bureau, Whites possess a disproportionate share of the higher s
ocioeconomic statuses, and non-
Whites are disproportionately relegated to low
socioeconomic positions. Because intelligence tests are generall
y designed by well-educated, well-

paid professionals, such as psychologists who
have doctoral degrees, those who do best on such tests are gener
ally those who have the most in common with the authors of the
tests. By
contrast, social groups who have been strongly segregated and o
therwise denied participation
in the mainstream of U.S. culture tend to receive
lower scores on such tests.
If socioeconomic class differences are held constant when evalu
ating IQ scores—
that is, if persons of similar social, educational, and economic
backgrounds are compared—
all socially designated races generally achieve equivalent IQ sc
ores. For instance, Zena Blau
(1981) carried out astudy of 579 Black and White mothers and t
heir fifth- and sixth-
grade children in Chicago area communities. When she compare
d Black children
with White children of similar social and economic rank, the dif
ference in the average scores of the two groups was reduced by
40% to adifference of only 4 points. Among high-
socioeconomic–
status Protestants and nondenominational and nonreligious child
ren, there were no IQ
score differences between Black and White children. Religious
background is a major factor in
IQ differences. In particular, the anti-
intellectualism and opposition to science and to secular educatio
n of the more conservative
religions have a negative impact on IQ test
performance. Although the Black–
White IQ gap has grown smaller over time, Black Americans re
main more likely to be affiliated with the
historically more conservative and evangelical denominations th
an are White Americans. This religious influence on Black–
White IQ differences remains an important one.

Cultural Bias in IQ Tests
IQ tests themselves are not flawless. For most of their history, i
ntelligence tests have been
popularly perceived as scientific measures of an
individual's innate intellectual potential. Yet from the beginning
, they have contained questions that assumed knowledge of soci
etal experiences,
practices, values, and ways of thinking that were characteristic
of the higher socioeconomic
classes. For instance, an intelligence test once used
to measure the mental abilities of grammar school children inclu
ded question: "Pick the word
that doesn't belong: (a) cello, (b) harp, (c) drum,(d) violin, (e) g
uitar." Some 85% of the high
socioeconomic class children recognized that "drum," the only n
onstringed instrument, was the item
that "did not belong." However, 45% of the low socioeconomic
class children, who were less
likely to have ever seen a cello or a harp, failed to
answer this question in the way the testers perceived as correct.
The test authors had not
recognized this potential class bias in the question.
Similarly, during the economic Depression of the 1930s, elemen
tary school
children of poor families in the United States were said to be les
s
intelligent than children of families with higher incomes, when i
n response to an intelligence
test question "The color of milk is: (a) white, (b)black, (c) red, (
d) blue," they selected the
answer "blue." According to the psychologists who prepared the
test, that was an incorrect
response.Yet these children were simply describing reality as th
ey had experienced it: From
economic necessity, poor families during the Depression were
apt to be consumers of skim milk that does, in fact, have a sligh

tly bluish cast. In the dialect of
the day, skim milk was called "blue John." Thus,
their answer was not incorrect, based on their own experience.
A few years ago, a colleague
working in the African state of Malawi found the
following item on a test that was being used to assess the intelli
gence of Malawi students: "If
ten crows are sitting on a fence and you shootone, how many w
ill be left?" The response "nine," based on the arithmetic operati
on of subtracting one from ten, was scored as the correct
response and was considered evidence of a student's intellectual
skill. It was finally noticed,
however, that many of the children who were
tested failed to answer this seemingly simple arithmetic proble
m correctly and that they
tended to respond with the same "incorrect" responseof "zero."
The reason for their "error"
was their rural background, which gave them a more realistic ap
praisal of the behavior of birds—which flyaway when shot at—
than was held by the author of the test, who had selected the ans
wer based purely on an
academic frame of reference.One could not ask for a better exa
mple of the effects of different
life experiences on the ways of interpreting a test question.
Intelligence Labeling as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Scores achieved on tests of intellectual skills are often used as c
riteria for making judgments concerning school
children that may influence theirfuture academic careers. They
may, for instance, lead to
assigning students either to accelerated classes or those for "slo
w learners." Once
assigned, the original categorization of students as "superior" or
"slow" may continue for years. Such labeling may later influen
ce teachers'expectations about students.
It is not difficult to imagine how labels such as "slow learner" o
r "superior student" may hinder or aid their bearers through thei

r school
careers. Students who are labeled "above average" are apt to rec
eive endless encouragements to "live up to their potential" and e
nroll inintellectually valued subjects that lead to a college
career and highly valued occupations. Students labeled "below a
verage," on the other hand,
are more likely to be encouraged to enroll in subjects that are le
ss intellectually stimulating;
when they fall behind in their work, they are less
likely to be pushed because it is believed they will grow "frustr
ated" if more is demanded of
them than they are capable of doing. These
students are likely to end their scholastic careers earlier and wit
h less training. Thus,
intelligence tests, which lead to labeling and expectations,
may serve as vehicles for inhibiting social and economic mobilit
y.
The Impossibility of Culture-Free Testing
Recently, psychologists and educators have attempted to salvage
the use of intelligence tests
by redesigning them to minimize their mostobvious cultural bias
es. They have hoped to create so-called "culture-
free" intelligence tests. However, even if the specific items in a
test do
reflect knowledge available to one segment of society, their life
experiences may lead to
differences in the ways they respond to the tasks.Cultural learni
ng affects the way we perform any task. If one style of response
is regarded as more appropriate than others, even a "culture-
free" test will result in higher scores for members of the society
who respond in that style,
similar to the biases of older so-
called "intelligence"tests. It is impossible to create a measure of
pure, environmentally
uninfluenced, biological intelligence, as all human beings are ra
ised in asocial environment that will influence their behavior. C

ulture, in other words, is not just in the tests; it is in the test
takers as well.
What happens if we remove the influences of U.S. culture on th
e performance of Black and
White children? Klaus Eyferth (1959) carried out aninteresting s
tudy of children born in
Germany after World War II to German mothers and fathers fro
m the occupation troops. Because the
children were reared in Germany, the differences between Black
and White U.S. subcultures
were not present. When Eyferth compared the IQscores of biraci
al children whose fathers were Black with those whose fathers
were White, he found that the two groups were virtually
identicalin their IQ test performance. This study strongly indica
tes that U.S. Black–
White IQ differences are not racial in origin, but are rather the r
esults of being reared in different U.S. subcultures.3.3 Ethnicity
When one society includes peoples of diverse cultural heritages,
it is possible for these
differences to be the basis of important social statuses
and groups. A group whose social identity is based on shared cu
stoms and a shared cultural
heritage is called an ethnic group. Ethnic groupsmay include co
nquered peoples who have
been incorporated into the conquering society or immigrant peo
ples who have maintained a
culturalunity within their new homeland. The separate identities
of ethnic groups are
commonly supported by distinctive customs, religion, food,
clothing, and sometimes by the perpetuation of a distinctive lan
guage or by the belief that they are racially different from other
groups.
An interesting aspect of ethnicity is that membership in an ethni
c group is not fixed and
unchanging. Rather, the ethnic identity of an individualcan chan
ge. For instance, an individual may gain membership into an eth

nic group through marriage and by adopting its customs. Also, t
he
ethnic identity that a person communicates to others is partly a
matter of context and situation. For instance, someone who iden
tifies as anIrish American in the United States might be thought
of simply as an American when visiting Ireland. In this way, on
e's ethnic identity can bemultiple and contextual, not singular or
fixed.
Ethnic identity can motivate members of the group to work toge
ther in support of common goals. This can have a survival advan
tage when
membership in an ethnic group is a minority status within a larg
er society, but it can also be a
source of conflict between competing ethnic groups.
Once it is understood that a person's "race" is actually a cultural
ly defined social
category rather than a natural biological subdivision of the hum
an species, it can be
seen that labeled racial groups are similar to ethnic groups. Whi
le races are thought of
(by those who use the concept) as groups that exist because of s
hared biological
characteristics, ethnic groups are seen as social categories defin
ed by common cultural
heritage and traditions. Ethnic groups are often composed of im
migrant people who
wish to maintain an awareness of their ancestral cultural roots.
To do so, they may
dress in similar ways and may join together in celebrating their
heritage at social events
such as festivals, parades, and other events. Self-
identification with a particular racial orethnic group can functio
n to enhance the solidarity of the group. While such self-
identification can be a means of maintaining a connection with t
he past, the resulting
group solidarity can also serve to counter discrimination experie

nced by racial or ethnic
minorities. This may be done by fostering economic cooperation
within the group,
enhancing cooperative political influences within the broader so
ciety, and replacing
prejudicial stereotypes with more positive images. For instance,
Polish Americans were
once stigmatized in ways that created barriers to economic bette
r and social
acceptance. Today, in parts of the country where Polish Americ
ans are numerous, other
Americans are more aware of their ethnic contributions to Amer
ican society due to the
public imagery of such events as the New York Polish Film Fest
ival and the yearly PolishFestivals in Syracuse, New York, and i
n Portland, Oregon.
Because socially defined racial groups and ethnic groups are bot
h connected by a
common geographical heritage, the two categories frequently ov
erlap, and members of
an ethnic group may partly define themselves in racial terms rat
her than in strictly
cultural ones. So, in practice, the two categories may sometimes
have fuzzy boundaries
and blend into one another. For instance, being an "African Am
erican" may imply some
mix of physical characteristics such as skin color and facial cha
racteristics and/or a sense
of shared cultural characteristics, such as innovative names for
children, and traditions, such as the celebration of Kwanzaa. Si
milarly, the ethnicidentity of "Native American" often includes
some biological elements among those who self-
identify with this social category, a fact that
continues to be fraught with political implications when it come
s to obtaining formal member
ship in a legally recognized Native American tribe.The point he

re is that although the social
concepts of "race" and "ethnic group" can be usefully distinguis
hed (as in the purpose of pointing out
the scientific errors that often accompany the concept of "race")
, both categories are cultural
constructs rather than fixed realities, and
distinguishing one from the other may be impossible in terms of
how they play out in society.
Finally, it should be pointed out that neither racial nor ethnic gr
oup classification is
homogeneous. As in the case of Greg Williams (describedearlier
in the chapter), whether a person is viewed by others as a mem
ber of a specific "racial" group may differ from one setting to
another.This is also true of ethnic group membership, as when t
here are discussions among
members of a recognized ethnic group about whether
someone may be considered a member of that group based solel
y on marriage to a member
and respect for their spouses' cultural heritage,rather than on ha
ving a shared cultural background.
The Census: Shifting Ideas About Race and Ethnicity
Social perceptions of race and ethnicity are revealed by the way
governments count and categorize their populations in national
censuses. For example, in the United States, the census taker us
ed to determine a citizen's race based on appearance. Thatchang
ed in 1970, when citizens began to fill out the census on their o
wn and thereby self-
identified as a member of a particularracial or ethnic group. Yet
the groups recognized by the U.S. government have changed ov
er time. In 1850, the "color" categoriesincluded: White, Black, a
nd Mulatto. In 1950, the "race" categories expanded to include:
White, Negro, American Indian,Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and
Other race, attesting to an increased recognition of the nation's
diversity. In the 2000 Census,more categories were added, and a
distinction was made between "race" and "ethnicity" (which lar
gely referred to persons ofSpanish/Hispanic/Latino descent, wh

o may be of different "races"). The "racial" categories included:
White; Black, AfricanAmerican, or Negro; American Indian or
Alaska Native; Asian Indian; Chinese; Filipino; Japanese; Korea
n; Vietnamese; NativeHawaiian; Guamanian or Chamorro; Samo
an; Other Pacific Island; Other Asian; Some other race. Along w
ith this proliferation ofcategories, people were (for the first tim
e) allowed to select more than one race. In the 2000 Census, 72
% of the populationidentified as White only, and 2% identified
as White and one or more races. While about 97% reported bein
g of one race, theactual number of mixed race people is likely hi
gher (Hixson, 2011).
In many ways, the option of selecting more than one race better
reflects people's social experiences, given the considerable racia
lintermixing that has occurred. Further, it is data on the social e
xperience of race—
rather than data on the biological category ofrace—
that the Census actually collects. This is acknowledged by the U
.S. Census Bureau, which states, "The race categoriesincluded i
n the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition o
f race recognized in this country and are not an attemptto define
race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically" (Hixson, 2
011, p. 2). Certainly, the Census data is still flawed, due toongo
ing disagreement about what "race" and "ethnicity" are, and to a
mbiguity surrounding multiracial identities. Moreover, the"racia
l" categories—including White—
group people of very different cultural and geographic backgrou
nds. Yet Census datamatters, in both a political and material sen
se. The results are used to determine congressional seats, electo
ral votes, andgovernment funding. It is for this reason that some
racially based groups, like the National Association for the Adv
ancement ofColored People, oppose the introduction of a "multi
racial" category, which they worry will decrease the number of
Black peopleand hence their political power.
While governments around the world collect census data for var
ious political purposes, the categories they use differ. In Brazil,
amultiethnic country, the "race" question focuses on color: Whi

te, Black, Yellow, Brown, Native, and Undeclared. In Mexico, t
hequestion focuses on the indigenous population and simply ask
s one yes or no question: "Are you Náhuatl, Mayan, Zapoteco,M
ixteco, or of another indigenous group?" In Bulgaria, the questi
on is framed in terms of "ethnicity" (not race) and the choicesin
clude Bulgarian, Turkish, Gypsies, and Other (AAA, 2013). The
se differences in racial/ethnic categories are the product of each
nation's unique history and politics, which contribute to distinct
ive and dynamic ideas about "race" and "ethnicity."
Ethnicity and Politics
As with race, ethnicity can be an important factor in political co
nflict. Indeed, in the world today, the concepts of race and ethni
city often
overlap and are not always clearly distinguishable by politicians
or the media.
Visions of America/SuperStock
In the United States, President Obama is considered black.Howe
ver, in Ghana he would not be considered blackbecause he is of
mixed ancestry. This demonstrates the wayracial categories are
culturally derived and not biologicallydetermined.
In the second half of the previous century, at least half of civil
wars were based on ethnic
conflicts (Fearon & Laitin, 2000), and smaller-
scale conflicts are common around the world
today. For instance, in northeastern India, conflicts between Mu
slims and indigenous
Bodos (who are mostly Hindus) have recently displaced nearly a
million people. In Africain the
1990s, ethnic conflict between the Tutsi who had long held polit
ical power, and the
larger, subordinated Hutu, who viewed themselves as enslaved b
y the Tutsi, resulted in at
least 800,000 deaths. And in Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia
led to ethnic warfare
between Serbs and Croats that resulted in over 100,000 deaths a

nd the displacement of2.2
million people. Such conflicts are not new. Nazi Germany's "Fin
al
Solution
" involved
the systematic killing of over 6 million European Jews, along wi
th other minorities.
On a smaller scale than civil war, ethnicity is often still an impo
rtant fact of politics even
when it is not overtly discussed, since ethnic groups have an int
erest in achieving equality
in political influence or even political dominance within the lar
ger society of which they
are a part. For instance, in U.S. history, various immigrant grou
ps were viewed as a cheap
source of labor by corporate groups that generated income based
on hired workers. New
immigrants were often willing to work for lower wages than wer
e established citizens of
U.S. society, a fact that very naturally led to political conflicts
between the newer and
more established groups. Adopting an ethnic identity as a sourc
e of individual and group

pride instead of simply letting it be forced upon one, along with
stereotypes that justified
a group's exploitation, was often a major political step on the ro
ad to achieving social
equality. For instance, initially male Irish immigrants were stere
otyped as violent,unintelligent, and prone to alcoholism—
characteristics that made it difficult for them toobtain work in p
ositions other than hard
physical labor. Irish women were also viewed innegative terms
as unkempt, lazy, and
unintelligent, which made it difficult for them to findany emplo
yment except in the most basic low-
paid positions such as seamstresses.
Despite the overt contradiction, Irish girls were stereotyped as i
ndustrious and strictly moral,
which justified their being hired as domestic workers into the h
omes of
economically better off households, where they were often targe
ts of sexual exploitation by
their employers. These kinds of stereotypes—
which emphasize perceived differences between an immigrant gr
oup and mainstream society
and construe immigrant groups as best suited to low social stand
ing and low-paid occupations—
have been a repeated element in imposedethnic statuses.

As exploited ethnic groups have attempted to overcome the nega
tive effects of the initial
stereotypes that were imposed upon them, they have
often transformed their ethnic identities into sources of social p
ride and motivation for positive social change. Social discrimin
ation andeconomic exploitation caused the Irish to be at the fore
front of efforts at economic change. The "Molly Maguires" of th
e 19th century protested
exploitation in coal mines, and the Irish formed the Knights of
Labor, the first American labor union to combat their poor labor
and in come
conditions. Similar histories played themselves out among immi
grants from Italy, Greece, and, more recently, Hispanic countrie
s. Most recently,
ethnic differences, as sources of positive imagery, have expande
d with an emphasis on their
contributions to the positive diversity of the larger
society as displayed, for example, in yearly ethnic pride activiti
es and multicultural events in
which the larger public is invited to participate.

Race, Identity and the Social Construction of Racial Categories

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Race, Identity and the Social Construction of Racial Categories

Similar to Race, Identity and the Social Construction of Racial Categories (10)

More from makdul

More from makdul (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Race, Identity and the Social Construction of Racial Categories