Introduction to Sociology/Race and Ethnicity

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Race and Ethnicity 2 The Changing Definitions of Race 3 Social Construct or Biological Lineage? 3.1 Social Construction 3.1.1 Constructing Race in the U.S. 3.1.2 Constructing Race in Brazil 3.2 Biology and Genetics 3.3 Combining Approaches 4 Prejudice, Bias, and Discrimination 5 Racism 5.1 Expressions of Racism 5.1.1 Individual-Level Racism 5.1.2 Structural Racism 5.1.3 Cultural Racism 5.1.4 Historical Racism 5.1.5 Racial Profiling 5.1.6 Color-Blind Racism 5.1.7 Genocide 6 Minorities 7 Racial Stratification 7.1 Race and Pollution 7.2 Interracial Marriage 8 A Research Example 9 Notes 10 References 11 External links

[edit] Race and Ethnicity

A race is a human population that is believed to be distinct in some way from other humans based on real or imagined physical differences.^[1] Racial classifications are rooted in the idea of biological classification of humans according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. An individual is usually externally classified (meaning someone else makes the classification) into a racial group rather than the individual choosing where they belong as part of their identity. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity and how those identities influence someone's position in social hierarchies (see identity politics).

Ethnicity, while related to race, refers not to physical characteristics but social traits that are shared by a human population. Some of the social traits often used for ethnic classification include:

• nationality
• tribe
• religious faith
• shared language
• shared culture
• shared traditions

Unlike race, ethnicity is not usually externally assigned by other individuals. The term ethnicity focuses more upon a group's connection to a perceived shared past and culture.

[edit] The Changing Definitions of Race

The division of humanity into distinct races can be traced as far back as the Ancient Egyptian sacred text the Book of Gates, which identified four races according to the Egyptians. This early treatment merged racial and ethnic differences, combining skin-color with tribal and national identities. Ancient Greek and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible biological differences between peoples known to them. Medieval models of race mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic, (Asian), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (European) peoples. The first scientific attempts to categorize race date from the 17th century; these early attempts developed along with European imperialism and colonisation around the world.^[1]

In the 19th century a number of natural scientists wrote on race: Georges Cuvier, James Cowles Pritchard, Louis Agassiz, Charles Pickering, and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. These scientists made three claims about race:

1. races are objective, naturally occurring divisions of humanity
2. there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as social behavior and culture, and by extension the relative material success of cultures)
3. race is therefore a valid scientific category that can be used to explain and predict individual and group behavior

Races were distinguished by skin color, facial type, cranial profile and size, and texture and color of hair. Races were almost universally considered to reflect group differences in moral character and intelligence.

These early understandings of race were usually both essentialist and taxonomic; essentialism refers to unchanging and inherent characteristics of individuals and taxonomic refers to classificatory (also usually hierarchical) in nature. The advent of Darwinian models of evolution and Mendelian genetics, however, called into question the scientific validity of both characteristics and required a radical reconsideration of race.^[1]

The table below illustrates both how early definitions included essentialist and taxonomic elements and how definitions have changed over time.

Biological definitions of race (adapted from Long & Kittles 2003).

Concept	Reference	Definition
Essentialist	Hooton (1926)	"A great division of mankind, characterized as a group by the sharing of a certain combination of features, which have been derived from their common descent, and constitute a vague physical background, usually more or less obscured by individual variations, and realized best in a composite picture."
Taxonomic	Mayr (1969)	"An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Population	Dobzhansky (1970)	"Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves."
Lineage	Templeton (1998)	"A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation."

Because racial differences continue to be important issues in social and political life, racial classifications continue. The United States government has attempted its own definitions of race and ethnicity (see for example U.S. Census) for such classifications and comparisons.

[edit] Social Construct or Biological Lineage?

[edit] Social Construction

Debates continue in and among academic disciplines as to how race should be understood. Most sociologists and biologists believe race is a social construct, meaning it does not have a basis in the natural world but is simply an artificial distinction created by humans.^[1] As a result of this understanding, some researchers have turned from conceptualizing and analyzing human variation by race to doing so in terms of populations, dismissing racial classifications altogether. In the face of the increasing rejection of race as a valid classification scheme, many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word ethnicity to refer to self-identifying groups based on shared religion, nationality, or culture.

The understanding of race as a social construct is well-illustrated by examining race issues in two countries, the U.S. and Brazil.

[edit] Constructing Race in the U.S.

Since the early days of the United States, Native Americans, Africans/blacks and European-Americans/whites were classified as belonging to different races. But the criteria for membership in these races were radically different. For Africans, the government considered anyone with African appearance to be black/African. Native Americans, on the other hand, were classified based on a certain percentage of Indian blood. Finally, whites had to have pure white ancestry. The differing criteria for assigning membership to particular races had relatively little to do with biology; it had far more to do with white superiority.

Some researchers and historians have proposed that the intent of the differing criteria for racial designations was to concentrate power, wealth, privilege, and land in the hands of whites (Sider 1996; see also Fields 1990). As a result, the offspring of an African slave and a white master or mistress would be considered black. Significant in terms of the economics of slavery, the mixed-race child of a slave mother also would be a slave, adding to the wealth of the slaveowner.

Contrast the black criteria with that of Native Americans; a person of Native American and African parentage automatically was classified as black. But the offspring of only a few generations of Native Americans and whites were not considered Indian at all - at least not in a legal sense. Native Americans had treaty rights to land, but individuals with only one Indian great-grandparent were no longer classified as Native American, disenfranchising them from their claims to Native American lands. Of course, the same individuals who could be denied legal claim to Native American lands because they were too White, were still Native American enough to be considered half-breeds and were stigmatized as a result.

In an economy benefitting from slave labor, it was useful to have as many blacks as possible. Conversely, in a nation bent on westward expansion, it was advantageous to diminish the numbers of those who could claim title to Indian lands by classifying them out of existence. Both schemes benefitted the third group, the racially pure whites. The point being, of course, that the classifications of race in the early U.S. were socially constructed in a fashion that benefitted one race over the others.

[edit] Constructing Race in Brazil

Compared to the 19th century United States, 20th century Brazil was characterized by a relative absence of sharply defined racial groups. This pattern reflects a different history and different social relations. Basically, race in Brazil was biologized, but in a way that recognized the phenotypic differences (variations in appearance). There, racial identity was not governed by a rigid descent rule. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only two categories to chose from. Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in conformity with the combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum and no one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. In short, race referred to appearance, not heredity.

One of the most striking consequences of the Brazilian system of racial identification was that parents and children and even brothers and sisters were frequently accepted as representatives of different racial types. In a fishing village in the state of BahiaBahia an investigator showed 100 people pictures of three sisters and asked them to identify the races of each (source?). In only six responses were the sisters identified by the same racial term. Fourteen responses used a different term for each sister. In another experiment nine portraits were shown to a hundred people; forty different racial types were elicited (source?). It was found, in addition, that a given Brazilian might be called by as many as thirteen different terms by other members of the community (source?). These terms are spread out across practically the entire spectrum of theoretical racial types. A further consequence of the absence of a descent rule was that Brazilians apparently not only disagreed about the racial identity of specific individuals, but they also seemed to be in disagreement about the abstract meaning of the racial terms as defined by words and phrases. For example, 40% of a sample ranked moreno claro as a lighter type than mulato claro, while 60% reversed this order (source?). A further note of confusion is that one person might employ different racial terms to describe the same person over a short time span. The choice of which racial description to use may vary according to both the personal relationships and moods of the individuals involved. The Brazilian census lists one's race according to the preference of the person being interviewed. As a consequence, hundreds of races appeared in the census results, ranging from blue (which is blacker than the usual black) to green (which is whiter than the usual white).

Another interesting feature of the racial categorization system in Brazil is that people can change their racial identity over their lifetimes. To do so is not the same as passing in the USA. It does not require the secrecy and the agonizing withdrawal from friends and family that are necessary in the United States (this is addressed in the movie The Human Stain) and among Indians of highland Latin America. In Brazil, passing from one race to another can occur with changes in education and economic status. Moreover, a light skinned person of low status is considered darker than a dark skinned person of high status.

Although the identification of a person by race is far more fluid and flexible in Brazil than in the USA, there still are racial stereotypes and prejudices. African features are generally considered less desirable, a result of the legacy of European colonization and the slave-based plantation system.

[edit] Biology and Genetics

The social constructionist approach has not completely occluded other perspectives. Some sociologists (and other researchers) still believe that race is a valid and useful measure when understood as fuzzy sets, clusters, or extended families.

Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry (e.g., African, Asian, etc.). Recent research indicates that self-described race is a very good indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They concluded that ancient ancestry/geography, which correlates highly with self-described race and not current place of residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the US population. The implications of such research are significant and can be seen in different health conditions prevalent among racial and ethnic groups (see extended discussion below).

In general, genetic variation within racial groups is greater than genetic variation between them.^[1] However, the existence of genetic differences among races is well accepted. In general, genetic clusters exist that correspond tightly to the census definition of race and to self-identified ancestry. Certain genetic conditions are more common among certain races. For example, approximately 1 in 29 individuals of Northern European descent are carriers of a mutation that causes cystic fibrosis, whereas only about 1 in 65 African Americans is a carrier (source). There is a subset of conditions for which individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent are at increased risk (see here). Based on this knowledge individuals can be offered genetic testing based on their race, which can determine whether they are at increased risk to have a child with one of these conditions. The association between race and genetics breaks down for groups, such as Hispanics, that exhibit a pattern of geographical stratification of ancestry.

There is an active debate among biomedical researchers about the meaning and importance of race in their research. Proponents of using race in biomedical research argue that ignoring race will be detrimental to the health of minority groups. They argue that disease risk factors differ substantially between racial groups, that relying only on genotypical classes - differences in genes - ignores non-genetic racial factors that impact health (e.g., poverty rates) and that minorities would be poorly represented in clinical trials if race were ignored. However, some fear that the use of racial labels in biomedical research runs the risk of unintentionally exacerbating health disparities, so they suggest alternatives to the use of racial taxonomies.

The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics. Indeed, the first medication marketed for a specific racial group, BiDil was recently approved by the U.S. FDA. A large study of African American males showed a 43% reduction in deaths and a 39% decrease in hospitalizations compared to a placebo. Interestingly, this drug would never have been approved if the researchers had not taken note of racial groups and realized that although the medication was not effective in previous clinical trials, it appeared to be effective for the small proportion of Black males who were part of the study (source). Despite the controversy, it is clear that race is associated with differential disease susceptibility. Examples of some of these differences are illustrated in the table below.

Diseases that differ in frequency by race or ethnicity (adapted from Halder & Shriver, 2003).

Disease	High-risk groups	Low-risk groups	Reference(s)
Obesity	African women, Native Americans South Asians, Pacific Islanders, Aboriginal Australians	Europeans	McKeigue, et al. (1991); Hodge & Zimmet (1994)
Non-insulin dependent diabetes	South Asians, West Africans, Peninsular Arabs, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans	Europeans	Songer & Zimmet (1995); Martinez (1993)
Hypertension	African Americans, West Africans	Europeans	Douglas et al. (1996); Gaines & Burke (1995)
Coronary heart disease	South Asians	West African men	McKeigue, et al. (1989); Zoratti (1998)
End-stage renal disease	Native Americans and African populations	Europeans	Ferguson & Morrissey (1993)
Dementia	Europeans	African Americans, Hispanic Americans	Hargrave, et al. (2000)
Systemic lupus erythematosus	West Africans, Native Americans	Europeans	Molokhia & McKeigue (2000)
Skin cancer	Europeans		Boni, et al. (2002)
Lung cancer	Africans, European Americans(Caucasians)	Chinese, Japanese	Schwartz & Swanson (1997); Shimizu, et al. (1985)
Prostate cancer	Africans and African Americans		Hoffman, et al. (2001)
Multiple sclerosis	Europeans	Chinese, Japanese, African Americans, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Native Siberians, New Zealand Maoris	Rosati (2001)
Osteoporosis	European Americans	African Americans	Bohannon (1999)

[edit] Combining Approaches

Perhaps the best way to understand race is to recognize that the socially constructed boundaries and biological/genetic elements overlap. There are clearly biological differences between races, though they are small and, as noted above, there is greater variation within races than between races. But the actual criteria used for racial classifications are artificial and socially constructed, as was shown in the cases of the U.S. and Brazil.

By recognizing the overlap between the two, we are presented with a better understanding of race. However, distinctions between racial groups are declining due to intermarriage and have been for years. For instance, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Likewise, many white Americans have mixed European and African ancestry; ~30% of whites have less than 90% European ancestry. If intermarrying of races and ethnicities continues, the biological and genetic distinctions will grow increasingly minute and undetectable. If a completely heterogeneous population ultimately develops, any racial classifications in that population would be nothing more than social constructs.

Controversies surrounding the definition of race will likely continue for some time. But there are important considerations that go beyond the definition of race. Race and race-related issues continue to impact society. Racial discrimination in employment and housing still occurs (source). Because race remains a significant factor in social life, sociologists feel compelled to study its effects at multiple levels.

[edit] Prejudice, Bias, and Discrimination

Prejudice is, as the name implies, the pre-judging of something. Prejudice involves coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies. Alternatively, prejudice can refer to the formation of a judgment without direct or actual experience. Prejudice generally refers to negative views of an individual or group of individuals, often based on social stereotypes. At its most extreme, prejudicial attitudes advocate denying groups benefits and rights without warrant and based solely on the unfounded views of the individual. It should be kept in mind that prejudice is a belief and may not translate into discrimination, which is the actual mistreatment of a group or individual based upon some criteria or characteristic. Although prejudice can lead to discrimination, the two are separate concepts.

Technically, prejudice should be differentiated from viewpoints accumulated through direct life experience. Such viewpoints or beliefs are not pre-judgments but post-judgments. If the assertion is made that no amount of experience ever entitles a person to a viewpoint then this precipitates a logical absurdity since anyone who opposes strongly-held views must, by their own definition, also be prejudiced, invalidating their own proposition on the grounds of... prejudice. Post-judgments or beliefs and viewpoints derived from experience that maintain unfair or stereotypical perspectives on a group of people is more accurately referred to as bias. Prejudice can be taught, socialized, or conveyed through other means, like mass media. Bias can develop through pronounced negative interactions with the stereotyped groups.

Both bias and prejudice are generally viewed as negative. However, some sociologists have argued that prejudices and biases can be seen as necessary human adaptations facilitating survival. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that humans have an innate or basic preference for people who are like them, specifically when it comes to race.^[2] Humans express more empathy when members of their own racial group experience pain compared to when individuals of other racial groups experience pain. This suggests prejudice and biases may have a biological component. Since humans do not always have sufficient time to form personal views on every other group of people, particularly people in opposition to one's own group(s), prejudices and biases may facilitate interactions (although negatively). Prejudice may also be detrimental to the individual personally by pre-judging a potential ally (e.g. refusing to patronize the only doctor in a town because he or she is black). Despite having innate preferences towards individuals who look like we do, there is substantial evidence that suggests most prejudicial attitudes and biases are learned and can be unlearned.

[edit] Racism

Racism can refer to any or all of the following beliefs and behaviors:

• race is the primary determinant of human capacities (prejudice or bias)
• a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others (prejudice or bias)
• individuals should be treated differently according to their racial classification (prejudice or bias)
• the actual treating of individuals differently based on their racial classification (discrimination)

Racism is recognised by many as an affront to basic human dignity and a violation of human rights. Racism is opposed by almost all mainstream voices in the United States. A number of international treaties have sought to end racism. The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1965:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. source

[edit] Expressions of Racism

Racism may be expressed individually and consciously, through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or socially and unconsciously, through institutions that promote inequalities among races.

[edit] Individual-Level Racism

Individual-level racism is prejudice, bias, or discrimination displayed in an interaction between two or more people. Examples of individual-level racism could include:

• a person believing people of other races/ethnicities are intellectually inferior and that the inferiority is a characteristic of the race
• a person holding the belief that all young black males are dangerous
• an employer firing someone because of his/her race

[edit] Structural Racism

Structural racism refers to inequalities built into an organization or system. An example of structural racism can be seen in recent research on workplace discrimination.^[3] There is widespread discrimination against job applicants whose names were merely perceived as "sounding black." These applicants were 50% less likely than candidates perceived as having "white-sounding names" to receive callbacks for interviews, no matter their level of previous experience. The researchers view these results as strong evidence of unconscious biases rooted in the country's long history of discrimination. This is an example of structural racism as it shows a widespread established belief system that treats people differently based upon their race. Additional examples of structural racism include apartheid in South Africa, the system of Jim Crow laws in the U.S., and the inequitable lending practices of banks (i.e., redlining).

[edit] Cultural Racism

Cultural racial discrimination, a variation of structural racism, occurs when the assumption of inferiority of one or more races is built into the culture of a society. In this perspective, racism is an expression of culture and is also passed on through the transmission of culture (i.e., socialization).

[edit] Historical Racism

Historical economic or social disparity is a form of inequality caused by past racism, affecting the present generation through deficits in the formal education and other kinds of preparation in the parents' generation, and, through primarily unconscious racist attitudes and actions on members of the general population. This perspective argues that blacks, in particular, in the U.S. have had their opportunities in life adversely affected due to the mistreatment of their ancestors (see slavery). Disparities in wealth and education lend credence to this idea.^[4][5]

One response to racial disparity in the U.S. has been Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is the practice of favoring or benefiting members of a particular race in areas such as college admissions and workplace advancement, in an attempt to create atmospheres of racial diversity and racial equality. Though lauded by many as a boon to society, giving the less privileged a chance at success and working to overcome historical social disparity, the practice is condemned as racially discriminatory by others.

[edit] Racial Profiling

Another type of racism is racial profiling. Racial profiling involves the singling out of individuals based upon their race for differential treatment, usually harsher treatment. Two examples of racial profiling in the United States are often discussed. The disparate treatment of minorities by law enforcement officials is a common example of racial profiling. Another example is the disparate treatment of young, male Arabs in airports who are more likely to be subjected to extensive screeing. Many critics of racial profiling claim that it is an unconstitutional practice because it amounts to questioning individuals on the basis of what crimes they might commit or could possibly commit, instead of what crimes they have actually committed.

[edit] Color-Blind Racism

In the US, the avoidance of racial language by Whites has been used to suggest that racism is no longer an issue. However, the continued prevalence of institutional racism has led some scholars like Bonilla-Silva to argue a "new racism" exists, that has arisen during the post-Civil Rights era. Bonilla-Silva suggests that a "color-blind racism" ideology supports racism while avoiding any reference to race.

[edit] Genocide

While not exclusively the result of racial or ethnic tension, genocide, the attempt to completely destroy a group of people based on a characteristic they share by another group of people who do not share that characteristic, is often the result of racism.^[6] One technique that is often used by individuals engaged in genocide and even in war is racial epithets that dehumanize the enemy, making it easier to kill them.^[6]

[edit] Minorities

Racism is usually directed against a minority population, but may also be directed against a majority population. The definition of a minority group can vary, depending on specific context, but generally refers to either a sub-group that does not form either a majority or a plurality of the total population, or a group that, while not necessarily a numerical minority, is disadvantaged or otherwise has less power (whether political or economic) than a dominant group. A majority is that segment of the population that outnumbers all others combined or one that is dominant.

The issue of establishing minority groups, and determining the extent of privileges they might derive from their status, is controversial. There are some who argue that minorities are owed special recognition and rights, while others feel that minorities are unjustified in demanding special rights, as this amounts to preferential discrimination and could hamper the ability of the minority to integrate itself into mainstream society (i.e. they may have difficulty finding work if they do not speak the predominant language for their geographic area).

The assimilation of minority groups into majority groups can be seen as a form of racism. In this process, the minority group sheds its distinctive traits and is absorbed into the dominant group. This presumes a loss of all characteristics which make the newcomers different. Assimilation can be voluntary or forced. Voluntary assimilation is usually the case with immigrants, who often adopt the dominant culture established earlier. Reasons that have been postulated for voluntary assimilation include:

1. it is seen as an avenue to upward social mobility
2. it is a way to escape prejudice and discrimination

Socially pressured to adapt, the immigrant is generally the one who takes the steps to integrate into the new environment. Learning the language of the country or region, making new friends, new contacts, finding a job or going to school. The adaptation is made more difficult when the immigrant does not speak the language of his or her new home.

Assimilation can have negative implications for national minorities or aboriginal cultures, in that after assimilation the distinctive features of the original culture will be minimized and may disappear altogether. This is especially true in situations where the institutions of the dominant culture initiate programs to assimilate or integrate minority cultures. Many indigenous peoples, such as First Nations of Canada, Native Americans of the US, Taiwanese aborigines, and Australian Aborigines have mostly lost their traditional culture (most evidently language) and replaced it with the dominant new culture.

An example of a minority population discriminating against a majority population is seen in the racial apartheid that existed until just recently in South Africa. Whites (the minority) discriminated against blacks (the majority). Additional examples of minorities discriminating against majorities include two instances of colonial rule:

• the treatment of the Vietnamese people by the French)
• the treatment of Indians by the the British

Racial discrimination is and has been official government policy in many countries. In the 1970s, Uganda expelled tens of thousands of ethnic Indians. Until 2003, Malaysia enforced discriminatory policies limiting access to university education for ethnic Chinese and Indian students who are citizens by birth of Malaysia. Today, many other policies explicitly favoring bumiputras (Malays) remain in force. Russia launched anti-Semitic pogroms against Jews in 1905 and after. During the 1930s and 1940s, attempts were made to prevent Jews from immigrating to the Middle East. Following the creation of Israel, land-ownership in many Israeli towns was limited to Jews, and many Muslim countries expelled Jewish residents, and continue to refuse entry to Jews.

[edit] Racial Stratification

While race itself is a social construction, race continues to play a prominent role in societies around the world. Race is often the basis for different types of stratification. Following are some of the ways society is stratified by race.

[edit] Race and Pollution

Pollution and polluting facilities are not evenly distributed in the U.S. Communities made up predominantly of racial minorities are significantly more likely to be polluted and to house factories and business that pollute extensively.^[7] While it might seem that this is inadvertent and not intentionally racist, the evidence suggest otherwise: these communities are systematically targeted as locations for situating polluting businesses.^[7]

[edit] Interracial Marriage

Not until 1967 were laws outlawing interracial marriage abolished in the United States. Prior to that time, an individual from one race who married an individual from another could be jailed and fined. These laws were referred to as miscegenation laws (miscegenation means "mixing races"). This was the experience of Mildred and Richard Loving, who married in 1958 in Washington D.C., a district in the US that no longer had a law against interracial marriage.^[8] Mildred was black; Richard was white. When they moved to Virginia shortly after their wedding, law enforcement decided to prosecute them, breaking into their home in the middle of the night and carrying them off to jail.^[8] Both Mildred and Richard were from Virginia, where their extended family still lived. The judge who heard their case, Leon M. Bazile, told the Lovings during their trial for miscegenation that, 'if God had meant for whites and blacks to mix, he would have not placed them on different continents.'^[8] He also seemed to take pride in telling the Lovings, "as long as you live you will be known as a felon."^[8] The Lovings eventually contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, who took their case to the Supreme Court in 1967, resulting in Loving v. Virginia, which abolished miscegenation laws in the U.S. Even so, as the diagram to the right indicates, attitudes toward interracial marriage did not immediately improve. Still as late as 2002, close to 10% of people in the U.S. favored a law prohibiting interracial marriage.

[edit] A Research Example

Devah Pager and Lincoln Quillian ^[9] compared employers' responses on questions involving race-related hiring practices to their actual hiring practices by sending matched pairs of young men to apply for jobs, either both white or both black, but one of the men had a criminal record. Pager and Quillian found that employers claimed they would be much more willing to hire an ex-offender than they were. Additionally, while the survey results showed no difference in hiring preferences between blacks and whites, employers were more than three times as likely to call white job applicants back as they were to call black job applicants back. In short, Pager and Quillian found that employers, in their survey responses, were more open to hiring both blacks and ex-offenders than they were in practice.

[edit] Notes

• The word race was introduced to English from the French in the late 16th century.
• It is worth noting that many historical scientists, philosophers, and statesmen appear racist by late-20th century standards. Contextualizing these people, their views and opinions in the cultural milieu of their day should allow the astute reader to avoid the pitfall of judging historic figures from present moral standards (i.e., whiggish historicism).

[edit] References

• Bohannon. 1999. (missing reference)
• Boni, et al. 2002. (missing reference)
• Dobzhansky, T. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Douglas et al. 1996. (missing reference)
• Ferguson and Morrissey. 1993. (missing reference)
• Fields, Barbara Jean. 1990. Slavery, Race, and Ideology in the United States of America. New Left Review 181:95-118.
• Gaines and Burke. 1995. (missing reference)
• Halder and Shriver. 2003. (missing reference)
• Hargrave et al. 2000. (missing reference)
• Hoffman et al. 2001. (missing reference)
• Hooton, E.A. 1926. Methods of racial analysis. Science 63:75-81.
• Hodge and Zimmet. 1994. (missing reference)
• Long, J.C. and Kittles, R.A. 2003. Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races. Human Biology. 75:449-71.
• Martinez. 1993. (missing reference)
• Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• McKeigue, et al. 1989. (missing reference)
• McKeigue, et al. 1991. (missing reference)
• Molokhia and McKeigue. 2000. (missing reference)
• Mullainathan. (missing reference)
• Rosati. 2001. (missing reference)
• Schwartz and Swanson. 1997. (missing reference)
• Shimizu, et al. 1985. (missing reference)
• Shriver, M.D. et al. 2003. Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry, and admixture mapping. Human Genetics. 112:387-399.
• Sider, Gerald. 1993. Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in the Southern United States.
• Songer and Zimmet. 1995. (missing reference)
• Tang, H.; Quertermous, T.; Rodriguez, B.; Kardia, S.L.; Zhu, X.; Brown, A.; Pankow, J.S.; Province, M.A.; Hunt, S.C.; Boerwinkle, E.; Schork, N.J.; Risch, N.J. 2005. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. American Journal of Human Genetics. 76:268-75.
• Templeton, A.R. 1998. Human races: A genetic and evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist, 100:632-650.
• Zoratti. 1999. (missing reference)

[edit] External links

• Times Online, "Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin", 27 October 2004.
• Catchpenny mysteries of ancient Egypt, "What race were the ancient Egyptians?", Larry Orcutt.
• Judy Skatssoon, "New twist on out-of-Africa theory", ABC Science Online, Wednesday, 14 July 2004.
• Michael J. Bamshad, Steve E. Olson "Does Race Exist?", Scientific American, December 2003
• OMB Statistical Directive 15, "Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity", Federal Register, 30 October 1997.
• Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Joanna Mountain, and Barbara A. Koenig, "The Reification of Race in Health Research"
• Michael Root, "The Use of Race in Medicine as a Proxy for Genetic Differences"
• Richard Dawkins: Race and creation (extract from The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life) - On race, its usage and a theory of how it evolved. (Prospect Magazine October 2004) (see also longer extract here)
• From Nova Online: George W. Gill argues here for the biological concept of "race" and, in a matching article, C. Loring Brace argues against the existence of "race" as a biological entity.
• From California Newsreel: Race: The Power of an Illusion, an in-depth website (companion to a California Newsreel film), presenting the argument that while race is a biological fiction, racism permeates the structure of society. And from American Renaissance, a "pro-white" publication, Race Denial: The Power of a Delusion, a detailed critique seeking to refute the film.

See the following Wikipedia articles for more information:

• Clan
• Ethnicity
• Human race
• Master race
• Miscegenation
• Race baiting
• Race card
• Racial purity
• Racial discrimination
• Racial superiority
• Racism

← Deviance · Gender →

← Deviance · Introduction to Sociology · Gender →