When
one is asked to describe the rainbow, he or she will describe seven relatively
discrete bands of colour, and yet what is actually there is a continuous
distribution of light of different wavelengths (Hogg & Abrams). Our
cognitive processes do not allow us to see the rainbow as a continuous
spectrum, and we end up classifying the spectrum of light into separate and
distinct categories. This is similar to how the United States has dealt with
race, since the concept of race was socially created to describe both social
and physical human differences.
In any form of
civilization, there must be a caste system to create social order. As social
beings, humans use these classification systems to outline social “norms.”
These classifications are necessary to define behaviors and answer essential questions.
These norms are built into who we are as a nation. “From the time the first
Africans stepped onto Virginias shore, the English mainland colonies moved
toward a biracial society, one in which people from Africa and their
descendants- including those of mixed African and European heritage- held a
subordinate legal, social and economic status” (Soderlund). This caste system
placed people with darker skin at the bottom, therefore giving power to Whites.
This division of power made Africans an easy target to the growing demand for
labor. Once this caste system was in
place, English colonists began creating bogus reasons for the enslavement of
Africans. Dark skinned people were described as pagan, uncivilized, and inferior
human beings (Soderlund). This served as a justification to why it was morally
acceptable to enslave Africans. As slave owners realized that the slave trade
was a profitable market, laws were created to protect it.
When
we think about race relations in the United States, we are forced to wonder not
only how it originated but also how to define it. We are forced to wonder if it
is a system to biologically categorize humans, or if it’s a socially
constructed term that is forever changing. Also, if we do believe that the
concept of race is evolving, then can we change the present state of injustice
that the categorizing of race has caused? As a student in a Black Studies
class, I decided to turn to the book Racisms:
An Introduction by Steve Garner. When discussing skin tone differences that
exist between people of different races he states:
Moreover, the
terms we use, like ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘yellow’, ‘red’, etc. are not even
descriptions of what they claim to describe. Nobody living is actually white. Nobody
is really ‘black’ in the sense of the ink on this page, although there are some
people with very dark complexions indeed. Certainly, nobody’s skin is yellow or
red – unless they are sunburnt or suffering from particular diseases. So the
conclusion must be that such terms have social meanings but not biological
ones. (Garner).
Garner’s conclusion is correct, in
the sense that the words we use to describe racial categories don’t have a
factual basis. Our skin isn’t actually black, white, red, yellow, etc.
Depending on our geographic location, we use different words to categorize
race. I am an American student, whose parents are from Jamaica. In Jamaica,
this classification system of red skin and yellow skin is more common. However,
Garner’s choice of words seems to be bread directly out of the ‘racist’ system of
the United States, whether it was intentional or unintentional. When Garner
says that no one is actually black in the sense of their complexion, he feels
the need to add the note “although there are some people with very dark
complexions,” however when he states that “nobody living is actually white”, he
does not add the similar disclaimer that there are people who have really pale complexions.
This leads me to the greater question of what is the stigma against people of
darker skinned tones that has caused the oppression of the Black race. This can
only be lead back to the categories that existed during slavery, which caused
people of darker skin to be treated inferiorly.
When
examining the evolution of racial categories in America, we see that the census
information for the 18th and 19th century included the
following breakdown: free white males, free white females, free other persons
and slaves. These categories were constructed because of the social relations
present at the time. Enslaved Africans were not relevant enough to be
categorized as “Africans” or “Blacks.” Slaves were not considered to be
civilized humans and therefore they were labeled as property. Giving Enslaved
Africans a category on the census, would be acknowledging that slaves were
humans. Different terms have appeared and disappeared throughout the history of
the United States census, based on the social context of the time period. Words
like “Mulatto”, “Octoroon”, and “Quadroon” appeared and disappeared on the
census. From 1920 until 2000, the U.S. Census did not recognize mixed-race
individuals (Walker). Now, people are allowed to check off more than one race. Also,
the term African American wasn’t introduced until the 20th century. The
changing census proves that the concept of race is a developing one, based on
the social relations, and context of the period. Racial categories also vary by
geographic location, where we see classifications within a race or ethnic group
based on skin color.
When
questioning the necessity of race, one has to evaluate its’ purpose. Although
racial classification has not always been used in positive manner, both science
and history have proven that classification is both necessary and essential to human
existence. There would be no social order without a social classification
system. However, how we as individuals choose the use this classification
system, is another story. I have seen numerous arguments explaining why race is
in fact biological and more than a social construction. Steve Garner’s Racisms: An Introduction identifies one
study that finds African Americans to be a higher risk for the disease sickle
cell anemia. Another study he identifies found that the scores on an IQ test
varied, based on race. He also mentions that people who dispute these findings
often argue that there are a host of social class and culture-related issues
around what is counted as intelligence and what is actually measured in these
types of tests (Garner). I tend to agree with that argument. Social class and
the resources available to a particular ethnicity will affect the results of
any experiment that tests knowledge. It particularly angers me when people
don’t understand this concept.
Last
week, I decided to watch a “True Life” episode on MTV called “I hate the US
government.” At first glance, I figured the episode would be focused on the
injustices of the United States government. However, the episode was focused on
how people hate where the government is presently headed, with Obama as
president. The episode didn’t go into the topic of race, but the undertone of
racism was present. A story that bothered me in particular was one about a high
school student who began his own Tea Party Club at his school. The episode
illustrated his discontent with Obama’s new healthcare bill, and what he
described as Obama’s “socialist policies.” He didn’t agree that everyone should
have to suffer and pay higher taxes for healthcare. As a Black student, his
argument angered me because it did not offer a solution for those who have been
denied resources for centuries – therefore making it harder for them to access
sufficient healthcare. It upset me that a student, not too far from my own age
was not interested in the people the bill was helping. Instead he seemed more
concerned with government politics, and higher taxes. My disappointment laid
primarily in the fact that this episode did not represent the injustice of the
United States government onto minority groups.
During
the past few semesters, I began to take a few Black studies classes, in both
history and literature. Before this, I knew racial categories existed but never
gave it much thought. I knew that Africans were brought from Africa to America
and enslaved. I also knew that this horrific historical event had tragic
effects on the racial system in America. After taking classes and expanding my
knowledge of slavery I have a broader understanding of the concept of race in
America. Before, I might have said that race, like other controversial socially
constructed categories such as gender and sexuality shouldn’t exist. However,
this argument doesn’t seem practical when it’s practically innate for humans to
classify the things around us to keep social order and to grasp understanding.
Similar to the rainbow analogy I described earlier, humans fear the unknown and
therefore categories make everything definitive. I believe it’s impossible for
humans not to classify one another based on origin and physical
characteristics. However, I don’t believe that these classifications should be
used to form racist ideologies.
What
separates people’s understanding of who is who in one place, at one time, is
not necessarily the same logic that applies elsewhere at other times (Garner).
The concept of race is an evolving one that varies according to social context.
I believe it’s unrealistic to say that these categories should be thrown away
because there is no such thing as race. Instead we can accept the fact that
these terms are socially constructed, and socially foster positive attitudes
towards each category to reverse the effects of racism.
Image Credit: Smithsonian National Museum of National History
References:
Garner, S. (2009). Racisms : An Introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge
Soderlund, Jean R. (2000). "Creating a Biracial Society 1619-1720."Upon These Shores: Themes in the African American Experience 1600 to the Present. Ed. William R. Scott. New York: Routledge, 63-82. Print.
Walker, A. R. (2011). CHOOSING TO BE MULTIRACIAL IN AMERICA: THE SOCIOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE "CHECK ALL THAT APPLY" APPROACH TO RACE ADOPTED IN THE 2000 U.S. CENSUS. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 2161-91.
