Race & Ethnicity / Race et Ethnicité

The question is asked virtually everywhere; “what’s your race?” “Ethnic background and even, “where are you from?” That last question may offend some and others might take it in the literal term, but one thing these questions have in common is identity. For this blog we had to choose a pertinent reading and summarize it here. I chose Charles A. Gallagher’s “Color-blind Privilege: The Social and Political Functions of Erasing the Color-line in Post-Race America.” The article is pretty interesting, it speaks about race and ethnicity and how the media and the market helps further establish colorblindness.

            Colorblindness is defined as the result of a unified society where blacks and whites don’t just see each other as the color of their skin but instead as equals. You may ask yourself, “EQUAL???” with all the inequality that exists in America but the article argues that everyone, Blacks, Spanish, Asians, and other groups have an equal opportunity at success; equal opportunity in housing, education, and career. Furthermore we acknowledge how the use of the media and the market affect this equality. We all buy products that everyone uses—popular brands like Pantene shampoo and Johnson & Johnson. Colorblindness exists within these brands and others because they do not just limit themselves to just Blacks or Asians but advertise their products a specific way that attracts everyone; everyone uses name-brand clothes without questioning the ethnic origin (or racial origin) of the company. The same is said for music, for example Eminem a famous rapper who just so happens to be white and black rapper “50-cent” both from different backgrounds but sing the same music genre—that’s colorblindness. Charles argues that colorblindness is a depiction of U.S. race relations serving to maintain white privilege by negating inequality. Charles interviewed many people to get their ideas and found out that the majority white population believe that blacks are equal, that their chances are making out in the real world is the same as it would be for them. During these interviews an interviewee said that blacks have equal opportunities, if not better, to get ahead and succeed but that they do not have the guidance that he received from his parents but that overall they can get an education, they have easy access to funding—he claimed to not have qualified for financial aid—and the same work opportunities are there. So Mr. Gallagher asks, "how is colorblindness linked to privilege?" The color-blind perspective. This perspective removes from any personal thought along with any public discussions, any taint or suggestion of white suppremacy or "white guilt" while STILL legitimizing the existing social, political and economic arrangements which privilege whites, thus insinuating that class and culture, and not institutional racism, are responsible for social inequality. Then the article ones on to all about opportunity and how it has no color, further backing up my previous statement that public institutions do not base their opinions on the color of your skin but on your knowledge and competitiveness.

         Color is ultimately a choice by mind, an ascribed thing by nature. Chris Rock once pointed out that the greatest golfer, Tiger Woods, is black and the greatest rapper, Eminem, is white. By stating that color is a choice it is to say that you listen to all types of music be cause you "like" it; by listening to Jazz or rap, tango, or Arabic music you're not saying to yourself, "this is black music" because is music. The same with a person and colorblindness through the media and markets display that. I can use the world famous Apple iPhone, it may come in two colors (black and white) but it doesn't insinuates that a black or white, Asian or Arab, Spanish or native Americans should buy the left one and the others the right one. The new generation of humans are viewing the race-line erased by saying that everyone has equal opportunities. Charles stated that at the workplace your application for employment should not be denied because of your race, skin color, or your ethnic background and since laws were put in place making it illegal, employers can't really do that; if they do, they would have a lawsuit against them. So it is political asertations that help promote colorblindness. A student said in an interview, "if there is any time to be black in America it's now." At its core, the color-blind philosophy holds that racial minorities can succeed if they rid themselves of any belief, notion, that their race entitles them to special treatment or race-bases entitlement. Race symbols as symbols of racism is common, among the black population. An example was given with a t-shirt where a black man can wear a plain t-shirt but once the image of Malcom X is displayed, it may be a sense of pride for him or her, he can be their heroes but it still signifies racism in an era where that is in the past, it doesn't happen anymore and those should be historical facts not broadly displayed. It is said that because of past history between blacks and whites that now it looks like more freedom is given to minority groups and the whites are quieted down, thus implying that equality is never a plane field but that it shifts disproportionately. 

         I liked this article because it helps you see the "today" in a way that you would have not thought it to be. All the talks about inequality is based on the way a person is brought up. The majority group are brought up in fine places with all these opportunities, they see that the opportunity can be grasped by not just them, but everyone else just that everyone else doesn't do so; while the minority groups tend to struggle a bit because they are disadvantaged one way or another, whether it be that they don't speak the national language, they aren't able to read or write. It still doesn't justify the facts that even though services provided in our country indeed is equal it isn't distributed the same and inequality still exists—much like survival of the fittest, only few survive.
      As part of this blog we were also required to watch a video called, "Race: The Power of Illusion-Episode one" and what the video was about was telling us about race. A group of students were participating in this science lab where they each took samples of their DNA and compared them with each other's samples. This was a diverse group learning about race. Each student were told to tell us who they think their DNA's will match completely and many said the names of the other student who was either from the same background as well as their skin tone. "I'll probably be a 100% match with her because she's of African-American decent and I am too, you know 'black.'" What these students failed to realize is that we're all alike by 99% of our DNA structure. The video also went on to describe how race came to be, how it was an invention. The human body was specifically and scientifically studied to find differences between race and many scientists tried to find genetic differences to attach race to. The size of the skull between a black human and a white human, that along with all of the organs imaginable, including the brain. ("Color of a black man's brain is slightly darker.") This video helps bring to light that race was something that was created 3 centuries ago, that because of this invention we have inequalities among our cities and countries. Once the lab results came in for the group of students who submitted their DNA's came in they then compared their lab results with the other student they had initially said they'd be a 100% match to and discovered that they weren't exactly similar to the person with the same qualities but that they were genetically similar to someone else. They then compared the samples from someone in Africa and Asia and discovered that the whole group had similarities to someone in Africa, thus bringing to conclusion that there is one of everyone in Africa should the whole population around the globe cease to exists. We all originated from Africa, we're all the same with NO race. The only thing that we can agree on that we have difference in is our culture, certain things we do because it's been done for centuries where our ancestors grew up in but these classifications of "race" are non-existent because just as the article above stated, we do not classify any object and place them under a race because there is no such thing as race for objects or animals, it's made up benefitting one specific group of people.  

       This reading and video can be compared to Chapter 10 in our text books on Race & Ethnicity because the book covers race as a widely perceived category as sharing (social) significant physical characteristic, such as eye shape or skin color. The chapter tells us about the differences between race and ethnicity and how they aren't alike, you can have the same ethnic background but be from two different races which is very common in Central and Spanish ("Latin") America where there is a mix of Europeans, Native Indians, African, and Asian decent but all share the same ethnic background such as the cuisine, clothing preference, and language. Race and ethnicity is everywhere and asked all the time, when filling out an application and even when meeting a friend or potential significan other, it's always asked and the chapter summarizes in a way that race is something that was invented—sometimes you may not belong under all of the categories listed. It talks about inequality and how in an equal seeming nation, the distribution and allocation of resources is still unequal, displaying a chart in housing, income, and population with a 4-year college degree. Overall it can be said that anytime you're asked for your race/ ethnicity even if its for good causes inequality still tends to find its way around. There will always be a majority group stepping down on the minority group even if there is a turnaround where the minority is now the majority and the majority is the minority inequality will still disadvantage those. In a post-civil rights society prejudice, discrimination, and other types of oppressive behavior can be hidden or, in turn, produced by support of color-blind policies.

Gender and Sexuality / Genre et la Sexualité

Gender and sexuality is such a broad topic that is everywhere we look. It's on our billboards on our advertisements and in our books. It's on applications for employment, school, and lisensing. The reading I chose was "Understanding Sexual Orientation," by Alfred C. Kinsey Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin. This reading caught my attention because its title had gave off and indication that sexuality is not yet understood. The reading was about sexuality and how there is heterosexual and homosexual, along with bisexuals. Most of the population is either homosexual or heterosexual. It specifies the distinct characteristics that unfortunately labels a man heterosexual and homosexual and this relates to Chapter 11, Gender and Sexuality in a way that the whole country, if not, the whole world is male dominated. The reading was interesting because it only spoke about the things that defined a man homosexual and barely spoke about the woman side of it and that's shows a bit of unjust between how the man is treated if he is defined homosexual, more than a woman. I believe it has to do with the fact that the world indeed is male dominated and such feminish behaviors are not to be displayed by men, maybe because the majority of men view women and their behavior as inferior.
       The chapter opens up with a story about a woman in a race in 1967, a time when the famous Boston Marathon was to be run by men, this woman named Katherine was able to "legally" participate and while running a man told her to "get out of my race!" Shoved and pushed her luckily her boyfriend was near her and allowed her to complete the race. It shows that women were inferior and although this gender issues are changing it's still visible today. The reading labeled heterosexual men as those we saw in the man-box video completely opposite to the behaviors homosexuals had and its as to say that men have two distinct populations when really there isn't. It backs up the ideology that not all things are black and white, big and small, and that nature does not deal or have a say in it. The human mind invents such categorization, gender, sexual preference, race, ethnicity—it isn't determined by Mother Nature but by us, we categorize ourselves and, thus, bear the unequalness.

Class / Classe

Inequality has been amongst us since the start of the class systems. The article I chose is "Cause of Death: Inequality" by Alejandro Ruess. The article discusses how depending on your economic standing, your health can be analyzed. Different classes of high-income are unequal with those classes of low-income. Inequality kills which ultimately lets use become aware that based on your economic status, one's health can be determined. You can agree that if you're from a middle class family you've gone regularly to the doctors, dentist, and ophthalmologist as opposed to someone from the working-class or lower-class that did go to the doctor but did not get a chance to go to the dentist or the eye doctor. It's inequality that happened then and still does today. Ruess tells us about further inequality based on race, how black men in Harlem have the same life expectancies as those men living in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Angola and black women have the same life expectancy as women in India.
       Health issues are also discussed. An interesting thing that can be viewed was how inequality is shown by the food you eat. Lower-income families do not have the disposable income to buy the more expensive healthier foods and so ate food with high fat, high sodium, and preservatives leading to health problems such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity. The interesting thing was that even though this is more common among poorer families, middle-high-class might appeal to those types of food, although it is very highly unlikely. On the section, "Greater Income Inequality Goes Hand in Hand with Poorer Health" states that "the more unequal the income distribution in a country; state, or city, the lower the life expectancies for people at all income level" which suggests that people of low income living in a city or town with less income inequality have a lower mortality rate. One thing we can agree on is that although we can have a say about where our money goes, we choose not to. Even though a family may belong to the middle-class they're too busy thinking about what others think about themselves than worry about the inequality further strengthening the class system and the inequality. It's more like survival of the fittest.
        The video, "People Like Us" can be compared to the article where one man interviewed agreed that life ultimately is like high school, you constantly care about what others think. The video also discussed the views of people from all classes and how they know where they belong. High-income families have choose to drive certain cars, eat certain food, dress a certain way, and own certain things because they know that others within their class will judge them and those from lower classes do not clash with them and if so, those from the higher class act like they are better than them, they're powerful, and can do anything. The video was interesting because it showed the class system in America even though many refuse to think there is such thing when indeed it does exists. You may think that there is no class system when for example you might consider yourself part of the "99%" of Americans trying to bring to justice that "1%" of rich Americans to justice by taxing and spreading the wealth to the rest. This shows that if accurate, only 1 percent of Americans belong to the high class 89% belong within the low-middle and middle-class and about 10% belong to the low-class. The video proved that the more money affluent you are the more biased you become and like everything else, its an ascribed status instilled from birth. There is the capability for social mobility, but that capability is very difficult.  There is unequal distribution of resources within classes which relates to the text in chapter 9 "Class and global inequality" where inequality within the United States is inexplicably noticeable. Your education determines whether you get that blue collar job or proceed to a white collar one; your income levels and the way people look at you.
      Overall, inequality itself is something that we cannot get rid of, it's been around forever and even though it is dissipating, it will not fully do so. It has been said that in the early 19th century inequality was viewed as a fair thing, that those born into their unequal class would gain equality in the afterlife. Unless we all, as a whole agree on what is equal and what isn't, this division and inequality will continue. A way to change it? Investing in opportunities.

Deviance

                      It is a "normal" thing to live in a world where deviance exists. In fact, society as we know it might be as boring as staring into a blank piece of paper for an hour. By definition, deviance is a (p. 191) "behavior that does not conform to basic cultural norms and expectations." When I was a child I remember doing things that at the moment I didn't think were wrong but in fact, the action indeed was. In elementary school, fifth grade to be exact, calculators had just been distributed for my math class and fell completely in love with it so I decided to take it and so I placed it in my backpack. Looking back at the situation now makes me wonder what was I, a fifth grader, going to do with a calculator!My mother wound up finding the calculator and lecturing me and eventually I returned it. Luckily none of my friends were around to witness the return of the calculator, that would have been humiliating. This act taught me that it is not OK to "take" without someone's approval. That the norm is, your private property is yours and should not be taken away from you therefore you should not steal from others. This shows that culture and religion shaped what we know to be right and wrong.

       Acts of deviance is all around us, always. While walking to school we see deviance--that man sitting on a cardboard box on the sidewalk asking (or begging) for money, help, anything. This we view as a behavior that does not conform to the basic cultural norm and expectation. Furthermore, this man or woman solidifies the collective conscience. This is defined to be the "shared norms, beliefs, and values in a community." (Durkheim 1893/1997) Every one, you, your family members, and even I know that begging for money is not the norm. Being homeless is not the norm. Living on the streets is not the norm and that represents the collective conscience that we all share. The text tells us that "some acts of deviance generate widespread, perhaps even universal, condemnation." (191) When Pablo went to Best Buy and stole that P!nk album that he's wanted since its release date is caught, we tend to lable this deviant act as a thief, a criminal. This most often allows Pablo, along with his now low self esteem, to take these words, theif and criminal and incorporate that into his self-identity. This is known as the labeling theory. "Deviance is the result of how others interpret a behavior and that individuals who are labled deviant often internalize this judgement as part of their self-identity." (192) Irlanda shows up late to class everyday. On a Wednesday she showed up to class fourty-five minutes late and the teacher told her that she's going to be a failure in the "real world." That lable is stigma and Irlanda will now be affected by the labeling theory and this stigma. Stigma is defined to be "the shame attached to a behavior or status that is considered socially unacceptable or discrediting." These are effects of Deviant Labels.

                   The deviant acts that surround us, in fact, are not malignant. Since it is behaviors that does not conform to basic cultural norms, we view them in a negative way. The text reveals that deviant acts, although not the expectations in a culture, helps:

1. define group boundaries
2. create social solidarity
3. and is a source of innovation

   The article by Herbert J. Gans, "Positive Functions of the Undeserving Poor: Uses of the Underclass in America" tells us about how the poor is generally viewed. The reason why the criminality amongst these people is due to their economic status rather than by free will. "Judgement of the poor as undeserving are not based on evidence, but derive from a stereotype, even if, like most others, it is a stereotype with a "kernel of truth". (1) It also describes Functions of the Undeserving poor, the factors that lead to where they are. The Three Economic Factors describes how the people who've been labled "undeserving" can be banished from the formal labor market. The example they give are high school drop outs and their chance in the labor market without their high school diploma.
it finally gives a solution. That the poor stereotyped as underserving should be helped by scholars, writers and journalists. Ultimately the poor fall under the labeling theory, it becomes their self-identity and the "undeserving" feel that their place is out in the streets begging for money without stressing importance of getting out, social mobility.