It's Time to Move Beyound Race Essay

One of the most prevalent themes throughout the world’s history is the dispute over race and racial differences. But, there is a problem: the majority of the population doesn’t have a clear understanding of what race is. Race is a socially constructed grouping of people that was created in order for people to differentiate themselves from one another and has many sources of influence. While most people believe race is determined by biological characteristics (hair type, skin color, eye shape, etc.), this is not true. To make things more complicated, there is no cut and dry definition to race. Authors of Race and Ethnicity in Society, Elizabeth Higginbotham and Margret Anderson, claim that there are seven different distinct ways to define race. They begin with the popular belief of biological characteristics, and, as mentioned before, through social construction. They go on to note that race can be formed from an ethnic group, from social class rank, from racial formation by institutions, and also can form from one’s self-definition (Higginbotham & Anderson, 2012, p. 13). All of these ways to define race have been seen throughout our history, and many of them have caused problems for minorities, especially in the United States.

The first article “Myth of Race” focuses on the key points of stating why we are categorized by certain actions based on our race. Harrington explains how wrong he feels about human race today see the division of people into races as part of human personality and lifestyle (518). Harrington defines the division as a myth of assumption that people define specific traits that defer each race from the other with overlap through family member’s personality. Defines these racial groups as clusters that overlap into different ways and inbreeding wont necessary turn out negative. This barrier of thinking have been broken

How race determined who was in and who was out. As Dickerson states “if race is real and not just a method for the haves to decide who will be have-nots, then all Europeans immigrants, from Ireland a to Greece, would have been “white” the moment they arrived here. Instead, as documented in David Roediger’s excellent Working Towards Whiteness, they were long considered inferior, nearly subhuman, and certainly not white” (69). This shows how race wasn’t about common culture or history but a concept to decide what race is good enough to be consider “white” or better than others. Even though the Europeans where the same race or color of the other people who considered themselves Americans or “white” they were still discriminated for being different and immigrants like everybody else. But soon they realized that identifying them self as being white gave them some sort of hierarchy. It gave them more class compared to the other races. As Debra Dickerson said, “If you were neither black nor Asian nor Hispanic, eventually you could become white, invested with enforceable civil rights and the right to exploit-and hate-nonwhites” (69). Being identify as white gave the power to have privileges that non-whites will never have since they are not the same color. Non- whites are treated unfairly compared to the white people in many ways. Discrimination not only took place between people of different races but

In the world of sociology, the theory of racialization is a widely known and occasionally frustrating topic. However, two sociologists have successfully been able to define and break down the essential information behind this theory. Within their own writing, Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1986) define racial formation as,” the process by which social, economic, and political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories” (Omi and Winant 16). In essence, this theory frames the very meaning of “race” itself. The stereotypes of race are rooted deep within the contexts of history, allowing these concepts to be subject to gradual change over time. In addition to the original standards of racial formations, there have been other writings that parallel very closely to the ideas set forth by Omi and Winant. Richard Wright, Pem D. Buck, and Karen Brodkin are three notable authors that have excellently highlighted the concepts set forth by Omi and Winant.

To begin with, the aim of this paper is to respond to the article written by Ian F. Haney Lopez. The main idea of this article was to discuss the question of belonging of a person to this or that racial group. According to Lopez the construction of race is mostly based on the choice of the society, but not on the genetic or other information. My response to this article will be rather neutral because it is fifty percent agreed with her point of view and half a hundred percent disagreed.

Within the definitions and perceptions of race exists a dichotomy that Duster illuminates as inconsistent, transforming, and historically erratic depictions of what represents the racial categorization of “white”. Vacillating between racial portrayals of “whiteness”, embodying a divergence between the fluidity of historic and social transformation and a disingenuous reflection of bigotry, disrespect, and intolerance, Duster distinguishes race as a compilation of divergent biochemical, neurological, and social identities (Duster n.d.). Cognizant of concessions shown to the “white” race, Duster denotes an inevitability to refute the moral reality of “white’ exclusivity,

Racial Formation in the United States by Michael Omi and Howard Winant made me readjust my understanding of race by definition and consider it as a new phenomenon. Through, Omi and Winant fulfilled their purpose of providing an account of how concepts of race are created and transformed, how they become the focus of political conflict, and how they shape and permeate both identities and institutions. I always considered race to be physical characteristic by the complexion of ones’ skin tone and the physical attributes, such as bone structure, hair texture, and facial form. I knew race to be a segregating factor, however I never considered the meaning of race as concept or signification of identity that refers to different types of human bodies, to the perceived corporal and phenotypic makers of difference and the meanings and social practices that are ascribed to these differences, in which in turn create the oppressing dominations of racialization, racial profiling, and racism. (p.111). Again connecting themes from the previous readings, my westernized influences are in a direct correlation to how to the idea of how I see race and the template it has set for the rather automatic patterns of inequalities, marginalization, and difference. I never realized how ubiquitous and evolving race is within the United States.

The meaning, significance, and definition of race have been debated for centuries. Historical race concepts have varied across time and cultures, creating scientific, social, and political controversy. Of course, today’s definition varies from the scientific racism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that justified slavery and later, Jim Crow laws in the early twentieth. It is also different from the genetic inferiority argument that was present at the wake of the civil rights movement. However, despite the constantly shifting concepts, there seems to be one constant that has provided a foundation for ideas towards race: race is a matter of visually observable attributes such as skin color, facial features, and other self-evident

The book has as its principal thesis the consideration of race as “a folk classification, a product of popular beliefs about human differences that evolved from 16th to 19th centuries” (Smedley, 2007, pag.24). The book also specifies three characteristics that distinguish the racial ideology in America: the absence of a category for biracial people, the homogenization of the black or African American Americans, and the impossibility to change a person’s race. (Smedley, 2007, pag.7)

Humans define race by how they conceive and categorize different social realities. Thus, race is often referred to as a social construct. The differences in skin color and facial characteristics have led most of society to classify humans into groups instead of individuals. These constructs affect us all, and they often result in situations where majority racial groups cause undue suffering to those that are part of the minority. The understanding of race as a social construct is best illustrated by the examination of racial issues within our own culture, specifically those that have plagued the history of the United States.

On this essay I will discuss how racial subornation exists because of biological determinations, innate characteristics and less opportunity. According to Omi and Winant, they define racial formation as “the social historical process, by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed,” and explain that this process is accomplished by “historically situated projects in which human bodies and social structures are represented and organized.” “Projects,” here, refers to a representation of race that situates it in social structure. For example, during the first wave of immigration at the Macro level social process, Italian immigrants arrived with varying skills and characteristics, most of them were artisans, and

Omi and Winant’s discussion from “Racial Formations” are generally about race being a social construct and is also demonstrated in the viewing of Race - The power of an illusion. Omi and Winant have both agreed that race is socially constructed in society. Ultimately this means that race is seen differently in different societies and different cultures. Media, politics, school, economy and family helps alter society’s structure of race. In the viewing , also media as well as history seemed to create race by showing how social norms have evolved in different racial groups.

Critical theories of race and racism have been used by sociologists to not only describe modern societies, but also address issues of social injustice and achieve an end to racial oppression. Critical race theory is one of the most widely used for this purpose. Its utility rests upon the assumption that race is a social construct and not an inherent biological feature. In place of the concept of inherent race, critical race theory proffers the concept of racialization. The tenet that the concept of race is created and attached to particular groups of people through social processes. In tandem with this, critical race theory contends that identity is neither fixed nor unidimensional. It also places importance on the perspectives and experiences of racial minorities (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2013:66).

To many people across a variety of different nationalities and cultures, race has been proven to be a key factor for how society views you in the eyes of those who are prominently in charge. The term race has been brought up in recent years, to be considered a form of identification, as the word race is used to describe physical characteristics such as a person’s color of skin, hair, and eyes. When in reality, the correct term they should be using is Ethnicity. As a result, the term race is used to separate people into sub-categories based on the color of their skin. This type of classification, is a man-made creation used by society to classify certain groups of people into lower classes, while keeping the predominate group in charge at the top.

The main reason people categorize and make assumptions is because of race. For example, in 2012, Trayvon Martin was killed by a Caucasian man that thought he was suspicious because he had a hoodie on, his hands were in his pocket, and he was an African American. So he followed that African American young man even though the cops told him not to, and then he ended up shooting that young man. That Caucasoid was wrong about his assumption because Trayvon Martin was only on his way back home from the store in the rain and was scared that he was being followed. Another time when I saw this was when my friend categorized a young African American girl.