Some of the comments posted elsewhere on this blog mention institutional racism, either directly or indirectly. What most scholars mean by institutional racism is both de facto and de jure racism or, more specifically, discrimination. De facto discrimination is that which happens but which is not legislated or even necessarily organized. An example might be helping a white customer in a store while simultaneously ignoring the Puerto Rican customer. De jure discrimination is that which is legislated, like segregated housing or poll taxes in the past. Often de facto discrimination carries over from de jure discrimination. Those de facto patterns are learned and shared and, especially when they are not challenged, they become part of the culture.
What I am hoping you all see is that regardless of your personal (individual) beliefs about and experiences of racism, racialization, ethnicity, etc., there is a historical, political, economic, and cultural context in which racism is created, exists, and changes. Our society's ideas about race and ethnicity have changed a lot in the past few generations. For example, there seems to be a current upswing in biologizing race -- looking for genetic sequences that map onto our (ahem, current) racial categories. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. The Human Genome Project spawned a great faith in the ability of modern genetics to tell us a lot about ourselves, including things that are most likely not at all genetic. But think about it. Why does it make sense to so many people that race does, according to some of these researchers, have a genetic foundation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the Human Genome Project could have great consequences for racial relations. The genome project has already disproved our belief that humans are extremely unique gene wise. We are only a handful of genes different from many species. Biologically, race comes down to one chemical. I think if people could understand this, we would see how silly race really even is. People treat people completely differently based on biological traits that they neither chose nor can change. Culturally, there are arguably a lot of differences between us, but is focusing on skin color really necessary!? Even to the point that each race has its own "preferred shade"?? I have very fair skin, and in the white community it is tan skin in the recent years that is seen as "optimal." I think its almost entertaining how much time and effort people put into something that biologically, is determined on the expression of one chemical (which is probably controlled by several genes). I think the Human Genome Project could prove this beyond a doubt and our society could move on to other things to worry about.
ReplyDeleteI think it is ridiculous to try and find a gene for race...what is race after all but the color of our skin aka the melanin it produces?? Sure genes can determine which traits are aparent on the outside (ie, whether I have brown or blue eyes, or whether I got my dad or mom's feet etc) but these are made up of a bunch of genes and only when you look at the whole picture can you see me. Now I admit that I am not an expert on all of this so if I am way off here, please correct me, this is only my understanding of all of this.
ReplyDeleteI know that people in different geographic locations can look different, but it does not mean that they in themselves are not different as well....not all inuits are the same just as not all japanese are the same. Chris and Johanna might remember from our Native People's class last semester about the "Native American" skull that was found in the Northern US that is unlike any other structure scientists have seen. Is this skeleton really Native American? Is he a one of a kind? They are using the skull to try and decide by looking at things like the teeth and cheek bones etc. But can scientists really look at the genes and say exactly what color skin he/she had? I doubt it.
(p.s. don't judge...I am really not a good speller! :) )
I just think it's a part of our culture to demarcate people according to groups via physical properties and assign them meaning. This of course doesn't make sense and isn't right, but it's what popular culture (sort of warped from this Genome Project) is doing these days. What I want to know is if cultures, at least ours, are constantly changing how race is viewed (think of how many racial categories have come up in the past 150 years), then how can we find a genetic link when these categories change? Hartigan mentioned that by, what, 1960 there were 45 categories up from 5 60 years earlier? I highly doubt that genetics is changing that quickly or that we are going to find that many allele frequencies.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes sense to people that race has a genetic foundation because it's what cultural is silently imbuing on us these days. There is an over reliance on the genetic marker to categorize everything - skin tone to behaviors to where one is located. If we can find a common pattern of DNA that traces where one came from, then we map people from a genetic level to a physical level and place them in a geographic location on a map. For some, this means people are separate and distinct and physically bound. I just think in pop culture it's what people are looking at these days, instead of seeing the continuum of variation Hartigan so emphasizes.