Skin color is not the ultimate determiner of race, however, since Indians, Hispanics, and Pacific
Islanders can have the same color skin in many instances. Then one would have to look to the
facial features themselves to make a determination, which may or may not be correct, since race
is sometimes subject to perceptions. This is where I feel that the concept of social race comes
into being, that these perceptions assign people who are otherwise racially indistinguishable into
what one sees them as being.
Race is becoming less definable, especially in America, where we are now seeing multiracial
children as socially acceptable. Not too long ago whites and blacks did not marry (or have sex)
publicly, and there was much fear about the appearance of their offspring. Now we are seeing the
children of numerous multiracial relationships born free of mutation, retardation, and grotesque
crossbred features and saying to ourselves “ Hey, these kids are beautiful! I guess it’s OK after
all”. With this cultural phenomenon social race has a point. Before it was very simple to ascribe
someone’s race, now we are taking a second and third look at people to determine what race they
are. Racial ambiguity is becoming more and more commonplace. These lucky bi or tri racial
individuals will most likely be assigned a race (or social race, if you will) based on their
dominant features.
But that doesn’t mean race isn’t biological in its origins! Social race is making the
assumption that there should more categories of race, instead of white you would have
English white, or Brazilian white, or Chinese white. Race as it is now is very general in its terms
and not meant to take into account cross-racial relationships. If it did, then the census would have
thousands of categories. But to say race isn’t biological is to say that there are not different
breeds of dogs or cats. The genotype is the same, however, it’s the phenotype, or breed, that we
use to classify or describe our cat. Based on the breed, one can get a fairly good idea of what the
cat or dog looks like without seeing it. The same is true for humans, albeit not as accurately, but
nonetheless a description of someone as white or Asian gives another a basal biological picture
to go by.
Race is sometimes used to stratify societies. The reason why it is successful is usually simple
numbers, there are more of one race than another. The larger, or dominant, race enacts its will
onto the smaller, or minority, race. In doing so, the dominant race uses agents of socialization
(i.e. media, school, peer groups, family) to solidify it’s role as the superior race, and perpetuate
the myth that the minority is somehow inferior. Most minorities are seen as intellectually inferior
to the dominant race, sometimes to the point of being labeled “primitive” or “sub-human”. The
minorities are at the bottom of the social strata because they are perceived as too stupid to
elevate their social standing. This prejudice carries with it devastating social ramifications,
especially with regard to schooling.
Minorities can be perceived as less intelligent based on the merits of how advanced their
educational system is. White Americans did not hold the American Indians or Blacks in high
regard due to the fact that they still lived in primitive societies, and were by western standards
uneducated. When they did attend school, they were seen as less intelligent academically. Their
test scores were below what a white person would score. The problem is that this kind of
thinking doesn’t take into consideration the whole gamut of factors that may be contributing to
the lower test scores, such as language differences, living situations, economic status, peer/social
interactions, and the varying standards of public schools. The varying standards of public
schools, is in my opinion, the biggest contributor. Although I have no descriptive knowledge to
substantiate this, I can relate a personal anecdote to attest to it. In Arizona, I was asked to write a
paper on the meaning of the “A” in the book The Scarlet Letter. I received a grade of C- for it.
Later that year my family moved to California, and part of my graduation requirements were to
write an essay. I wrote the exact same essay on The Scarlet Letter that I had previously written
in Arizona. Not only did I receive an A+, but also a meritorious writing award and possible
contest entry! My obvious conclusion was that California schools have lower standards than
Arizona schools. Now if I had written the same paper at some impoverished, inner-city, minority
dominated school I probably would have been elected class president and given a scholarship.
That is purely speculation, but it is my suspicion that impoverished minority dominated schools
have lower standards than does a middle class “white” school. This in turn creates test scores
that are below standards when compared to median test scores.
Another factor that I feel may be contributing to the perception of lower intelligence is the
awkwardness of learning another race or cultures educational criterion. Not only that, but a
subconscious rejection of these criterion in an attempt to maintain one’s racial and cultural
identity. For instance, some schools in the Middle East require that the Koran be recited from
memory as an entrance requirement. If I was suddenly transplanted to one of these schools, it
would be a reasonable assurance that I would not be getting into one of these schools. Not
because I’m less intelligent, but because I find the reciting of the Koran anathema to my cultural
identity as a white, non-religious, American. The same may hold true for scores of black
Americans, who, knowing that people don’t speak English as it’s taught in the classroom decided
to adopt their own vernacular (Ebonics) for teaching in the classroom. This is clearly an assertion
of racial identity in a subtle attempt to rebel against the awkwardness of learning white, middle
class English and being perceived as less intelligent. Turn the tables and see how white, middle
class people would do at learning ebonics. It would be quite awkward, and if learned would
probably not be to par with their black American counterparts. These are issues that
anthropology struggles with, since it’s impossible to correlate any data that wouldn’t be flawed
by numerous social variables.
Beyond race, we look to ethnicity to further identify each other. Ethnic groups are more
specific in their scope than race. For instance, you have a group of people that is white. But the
ethnicity can be divided by things like nationality, religion, geographic background, etc. The
problem arises when these different ethnicities are forced to somehow live together. This can
be a result of colonialism, migration, or sheer coincidence of nation-state borders. Whatever the
case, anthropologists have identified three strategies that different ethnic groups use to adapt to
each other in a society.
The first strategy is assimilation, in which the minority group simply adopts the culture of the
the dominant group. This is usually the case of migrating ethnic groups, who readily absorb the
host culture. On the other hand, assimilation can be met with resentment, especially as a result
of forced colonization. Native Hawaiians are a testament to this, and their cultural identity is the
subject of much debate. Should Americans let the Hawaiians be non-productive beach denizens
or force them to go to school and get jobs and make a living like all the other Americans?
Assimilation can be viewed in a very negative way by the minority group.
The next strategy is called the plural society. This is where ethnic groups each retain their
ethnic identity and co-exist. Iraq could be considered a plural society, with the Kurds habitating
northern Iraq. The former British territory of Hong Kong was a plural society, in which British
businessmen intermingled with Chinese natives. Australia is a plural society, and the aborigines,
although culturally different and inhabiting their own land, still walk the streets of some
Australian cities. America can also be considered a plural society in the respect that the
American Indians were set aside land to preserve their laws and culture.
Multiculturalism is when the dominant ethnic group creates a national culture for others to
follow, but also lets the minorities interject with their own cultures. America, despite being seen
as a plural society in the preceding paragraph, is more aptly a multicultural society. America
takes the best of each culture and makes it it’s own. For Example, Americans may eat a burrito
for dinner (Mexican) and then go and do some Yoga (Indian) or Martial Arts (Japanese) at night,
but all under the guise of being American. Sometimes multiculturalism results in some rather
bizarre cross-cultural creations. For instance, go to Taco Bell (a Mexican fast food restaurant)
and get an “enchirito” (any real Mexican would laugh at this). Or, tell a body waxer to make it a
“Brazilian” wax (the Brazilians are still confused about this one).
These cultural models can co-exist peacefully but can also be quite abrasive to each other,
resulting in ethnic conflict. Ethnic conflict doesn’t necessarily mean war or violence, it can
manifest itself in more insidious forms such as prejudice and discrimination. I stated earlier
that race can be used to stratify people, and now ethnicity can also be used to separate each other
as better than others. Prejudice and discrimination are tools employed as a means to do this. Hate
groups such as the Klu Klux Klan advocate the removal of blacks and Jews from America, and
spread prejudicial propaganda material to all who will receive it. If given the power, they would
recreate the Jewish Holocaust under Nazi Germany for American blacks and Jews. Prejudice and
discrimination can also be unorganized and informal, for example, when I went to school kids
would tell racially degrading jokes about others. Racial and cultural epithets (i.e. name calling-
Kike, Spic, Wop, Kraut, Nigger, Chink) are also a common form of prejudicial behavior readily
available to the casual bigot.
Discrimination is a more serious matter, for this is when thoughts and attitudes give way to
the actions that are intended to subjugate, denigrate, and possibly eradicate others.
Discrimination can be perpetrated by individuals acting out their own twisted sense of power
allocation or enforced by a whole society through rigorous laws aimed depriving others of
certain liberties. In the textbook, this is respectively referred to as de facto and de jure
discrimination. America has seen both forms of discrimination in its treatment of minorities,
a sad but true by-product of multiculturalism. But a society doesn’t have to be multicultural to
discriminate. Japan has its Barakumin, India its Brahman, and there’s a whole slew of
discriminations against smaller, less significant groups around the world (i.e. the Falun Gong of
China).
Discrimination can be a ghastly enterprise, and dominant ethnic groups can decide to
use extreme measures to enact its policies. Hatred, in its most concentrated form, can result
in ethnocide, or eliminating an ethnic group. Jews in Nazi Germany were victim to ethnocide,
Cambodians to Pol Pot, and more recently Muslims in former Yugoslavia. These are crimes
against humanity, their perpetrators considered tyrants in league with the devil. Lesser forms of
extreme discrimination also exist, such as forced assimilation , ethnic expulsion, and cultural
colonialism. Forced assimilation is simply making an ethnic group follow the dominant cultures
views and traditions. Ethnic expulsion is removing those who don’t want to conform, by kicking
them out of the country and making refugees out of them. And lastly, cultural colonialism is
simply cultural domination by one group over another or many others.
Anthropologists certainly have some loaded topics to deal with when its comes to ethnicity
and race. Although there can be much negativity associated with the issues of race and ethnicity,
there can also be much to gain on an anthropologists part. An anthropologist is one who tries to
look beyond the issues of race and the ethnicity, and instead see the “person”. All too often we
see people according to labels, and all too often people associate these labels with faulty
heuristics of how people are supposed to behave. A good anthropologist will see people with no
pre-conceptions, almost as if they were born yesterday and didn’t know a thing about
anyone. Only this way can the biases of society be removed. Race and ethnicity must be
approached by an anthropologist in an abstract, neutral fashion if people are to be studied
properly. Without this, subjectivity is in question, and the legitimacy of anthropological studies
becomes jeopardized.
