Race-as a Social Policy

The system of "racial" classification used in the United States today is in its self a social policy. A social policy that has far reaching effects on other policies and on the ways Americans live their lives. A policy, that I will argue, needs to be changed for the benefit of all of our citizens.

The U.S. government through various ways has recognized specific groups of people as composing a "racial" group. In 1870 the U.S. Bureau of the Census divided the American population into five "races": White, Colored (Blacks), Colored (Mulattos), Chinese, and Indian. In 1950, the societies views had changed so the census categories were: White, Black, and Other. In 1980, the census categories reflected the ethnic renewal of the previous two decades: White, Black, Hispanic, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, American Indian, Asian Indian, Hawaiian, Gueamanian, Samoan, Eskimo, Aleut, and Other. The fact that some of these are also nationality labels should not obscure the fact that in the U.S. many treat them as "racial" groups (Spickard, 1992).

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that people of Arabian ancestry and Jewish ancestry are to be protected from "racial" discrimination. For reporting purposes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission delineates many "race" categories including White, not of Hispanic origin; Hispanic (people of Latin and South American and Spanish culture origin, regardless of race); African; American Indian or Alaskan native; Asian; and Pacific Islander (Barker, 1991).

At every turn in our daily lives we are affronted with the concept of race. We must fill out forms to enroll in school, apply for jobs or loans, governmental programs, and numerous others that ask us for our "race". "Racial" differences are the subject of television specials, news programs, college classes and countless books and journal articles. All of this attention to something that does not even exist in the truest since of the word, yet it effects us in all of our activities. The "facts" about "race" have been used for decades to support every kind of injustice humans could conceive. Most of us do not even know the truth regarding "race". What is this "race" thing we are always using anyway?

THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT OF "RACE"

In her book entitled Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, Montago (1975) wrote:

"The idea of 'race' represents one the most dangerous myths of our times. Myths are the most effective and dangerous when they remain unrecognized for what they are...Today many of us believe in 'race.'...In our time we have lived to see the myth of 'race' openly adopted as an expedient fiction. Myths perform the double function of serving both as models of and models for cultural attitudes and behavior. Thus myths reflect the beliefs and give sanction to the actions of society, while at the same time providing the forms upon which belief and conduct are modeled."

So how did this myth get so deeply set into our societies believe systems that it is involved in our social policies and has spread to policies around the world? Where did this idea of "race" come from? The idea that humankind can be divided into four or five discrete "races" began as a extension of the admittedly artificial system of classification of living things first constructed by the Swedish botanist and taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus in the eighteenth century (Spickard, 1992). According to this system human beings all belong to the kingdom Animalia, the phylum Chordata, the class Mammalia, the order Prites, the family Homididae, the genus Homo, and the species Homo Sapiens. Each level of this pyramid contains subdivisions of the level above it. Since that time numerous other scientist have tried to extend the system down one more level to include human "races" based on geography and observed physical differences. These "racial" divisions differ depending on who is doing the dividing. However, most of them have included at least red, yellow, black, and white: Native Americans, Asians, Africans, and Europeans. Once divided into their respective "races" Europeans arranged the peoples of the world hierarchically, with Caucasians at the top, Asians next, then Native Americans and Africans at the bottom-in terms of both physical abilities and moral qualities (Spickard, 1992).

Most people in our society take it for granted that these scientists have established the facts about "race" and that they have long ago recognized and classified the "races" of mankind. Many scientist do little to discourage this view and many of them are just as deluded as the average layman in this matter. As Hoghen has remarked: "Geneticist believe that anthropologist have decided what a race is. Ethnologists assume that their classifications embody principles which genetic science has proved to be correct. Politicians believe that their prejudices have the sanction of genetic laws and the findings of physical anthropology to sustain them."

When looking at physical traits or genetic makeup these scientist found that one "race" shared a certain number of items in greater frequency than did other populations. However, in reality, there is tremendous overlap between "racial" categories with regard to biological features. As King (1981) writes, "Genetic variability within populations is greater than the variability between them". Using skin color, for an example, let us look at how "racial" categories blend together rather than have distinct boundaries. Suppose people can all be arranged according to the color of their skin along a continuum:
darkest---2---3---4---5---6---7---lightest
The people we classify as Black would nearly all fall on the darker end of the continuum, while the people we call White would nearly all fall on the lighter end:
Blacks/------ / --------------- / ------/Whites
On the average, the White and Black populations are distinct from each other in skin color. But a very large number of individuals who are classified as White have darker skin color than some people who are classified as Black, and vice versa (Spickard, 1992).

Considering this overlapping of features how do we then decide who is Black and who is White? During the United States period of slavery the "one-drop rule" was developed: one African ancestor, or one-drop of Black blood, made you Black. In fact, of course, this had nothing to do with blood-or biology-at all. People who had no discernible African traits were regarded as Black based on the fact that they had grandfathers or other remote relatives who were socially considered to be Black.

This leads us to the conclusion that race is primarily about culture and social structure, not biology. As geneticist King (1981) stated:

Both what constitutes a race and how one recognizes a racial difference are culturally determined. Whether two individuals regard themselves as of the same or different races depends not on the degree of similarity of their genetic material but on whether history, tradition, and personal training and experiences have brought them to regard themselves as belonging to the same group or to different groups...there are no objective boundaries to set off one subspecies from another.

The process of racial labeling starts with geography, culture, and family ties and runs through economics and politics to biology, and not the other way around. Biology is not the bases for "racial" classifications as most people in our society seem to believe. Rather "racial" divisions in our society are manmade obstacles to our peacefully living together in one united community.

"RACES" IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY

The GoodWill Seals
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
FREE For Your Site

So why do we need this myth of "race" in our society? What purpose does this system of classification serve? Why are we so "race" conscious? Spickard sums it up quickly saying, "The sorting of people into this race or that in the modern era has generally been done by the powerful groups for the purposes of maintaining and extending their own power." Putting neat "racial" labels on people allows one to makeup negative myths about their moral qualities and other attributes, thus allowing the dominators to ignore the individual humanity of their victims. When "race" is seen as a way to control others the most important thing about these categories are the boundaries between them.

The controlling group in a racial society must keep people from the lower categories from being able to move up. This was the main reason the "one-drop rule" was began. Modern American society also tries to maintain the boundaries established. When ask about your "race" it is not a option to list that you are identified with more than one. This is becoming more and more difficult as the numbers of "multiracial" citizens increase in the United States. As the parent of a "multiracial" (I personally reject this term and always refer to my daughter as being multicultural.) child I know that the "one-drop rule" is still in effect today in some areas. Others list "multiracial" children as being of the "race" of their mother, still others allow the person to choose their "race" (but you can only choose one). Many "multiracial" people are rejecting this requirement and protesting being forced to deny half of their heritage. The upsurge of citizens with multiple "racial" identities is putting a strain on the classification system this country has established over the years.

"RACIAL IDENTITIES"

There are also positive ways in which "race" is used. The label can bring together people that are oppressed and give them a source of mutual help and support. Many see their "racial" identity as a giving them a since of belonging and that they are not alone in their suffering of oppression. Being the part of a "racial" group is seen as part of who you are. Appiah stated it as: The connection between individual identity, on the one hand, and race and other collective identities, on the other, seems to be something like this: each person's individual identity is seen as having two major dimensions. There is a collective dimension, the intersection of her collective identities; and there is what I will call a personal dimension, consisting of other socially or morally important features of the person-intelligence, charm, wit, cupidity-that are not themselves the basis of forms of collective identity.

These positive aspects of "race" are frequently eclipsed from view by the use of these categories and stereotypes in the oppression and abuse of our fellow citizens. In a society that is as advanced as we like to see our selves you would think we could find better ways of relating to one another and of providing the same rights and responsibilities to all of our peoples.

IS THERE A BETTER WAY?

When I first began this paper I was unsure of how we could go about fixing this system that is obviously not working for the benefit of all of our citizens. I knew that the government could not take a policy of eliminating all "racial" or color policies since so many of our citizens have not. The government must find a way of insuring that all are treated equally while not perpetuating the myth of "race". The perfect "color blind" policy will not work in a society that is still very much racist in many of it's views and actions. Then I discovered the idea of color consciousness as a policy for social programs. Because our current society is so filled with "racial" discrimination and other "race" based injustices we must keep some way of monitoring our progress toward a more perfect and just society. The difference between "racial" and color consciousness is stated by Gutmann as:

Race consciousness is the kind of consciousness that presumes the existence of separate human races and identifies race with essential natural differences between human beings that are morally relevant. Either phenotypical differences such as facial features and skin color are accorded moral significance in themselves or, more often, they are considered indicative of some deeper, morally significant differences between blacks and whites....[C]olor consciousness... rejects race as an essential, natural division among human beings. Color consciousness entails an awareness of the way in which individuals have historically come to be identified by superficial phenotypical differences--such as skin color and facial features--that serve as the bases for invidious discriminations and other injustices associated with race.

This new concept then allows us to monitor society for acts of discrimination without perpetuating the myth of "race." In theory if black (and other "racial" groups) were accorded the same rights and privileges as whites they would be able to "prove" themselves as equals, morally and otherwise, and would be able to counteract the negative stereotypes so many hold now. Under this theory we could eventually become a truly "color blind" society.

CONCLUSION

I believe that since there really is one "race", the human race, that our government and social policies should reflect this fact, as opposed to encouraging citizens to think in terms of "race". Our social policies should be designed to move us toward a more just and fair society and should encourage us all, regardless of the color of our skin, to be the best we can be. One way of doing this is to stop thinking of everything in terms of "race" and begin thinking in terms of people. Our citizens have been thinking in terms of "race" for so long that it will take time and a lot of work to change things. We must however try and we need to start now. As we move into the next century and into the global marketplace we must learn to respect others as they are or we will lose out on the benefits of being in close contact with the rest of the world. If we can not respect the appearance and differences of our own citizens how can we effectively deal with citizens of other nations. We need to change for ourselves and for our children.

REFERENCE TO PURCHASE

Click on the icons to the right to purchase the specific
book it references or use the search below.

Books Music	This search engine will return results based upon the KEYWORDS specified in the field below or clear the line and specify your own KEYWORDS
Has endorsed Spyder's Empire in their Associates Program

Appiah, K. Anthony. (1996). Race, Culture, Identity: Misunderstood Connections. In Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(for new edition)Barker, Robert L. (1991). The Social Work Dictionary (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press.
Gutmann, Amy. (1996). Responding to Racial Injustice. In Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King, J. C. (1981). The Biology of Race. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Montago, Ashley. (1975). Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spickard, Paul R. (1992). The Illogic of American Racial Categories. In Maria P. P. Root (Ed.) , Racially Mixed People in America. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

One World - One People. make the world a better place one person at a time.