##hnocentrism : Authoritarian Identity, Culture, AndEthnocentrism?

A majority of people here in the United States have felt a touch of the issues, that come with classification of race. Due to this, many men and women of the minority racial groups are put in to sub-groups as a way to “help” give them an identity that can relate to. This idea to separate people by giving them identities is called the Racial Formation Theory. First introduced by Michael Omi and Howard Winant, the theory is a tool that helps build the idea that race is a social contracted tool where your racial status is weighed upon by many factors such as by those social, economic and political origin. By using race a way to build lines and boundaries, this has resulted in causing a rift to grow between the majority and minority

Race and ethnicity is another important aspect in the nationalism of a nation. In the United States, racial differences are usually based on one’s skin color and physical characteristics as well as one’s origin, and they do not change due to varying classes or cultures (Marger 212). Before the twenty first century, the racial minority were highly discriminated, both socially and economically. But currently, there exist several races in America like the Asians, African Americans, Native Americans and the European Americans. On the other hand, Hispanics are racially assorted and are therefore an ethnic group rather than a race (Marger 133). Language is argued as the sole binder of the Hispanics other than skin color or other physical characteristics. They are in fact of mixed racial ancestry (Arreola 19).

Racial Formation in the United States by Michael Omi and Howard Winant made me readjust my understanding of race by definition and consider it as a new phenomenon. Through, Omi and Winant fulfilled their purpose of providing an account of how concepts of race are created and transformed, how they become the focus of political conflict, and how they shape and permeate both identities and institutions. I always considered race to be physical characteristic by the complexion of ones’ skin tone and the physical attributes, such as bone structure, hair texture, and facial form. I knew race to be a segregating factor, however I never considered the meaning of race as concept or signification of identity that refers to different types of human bodies, to the perceived corporal and phenotypic makers of difference and the meanings and social practices that are ascribed to these differences, in which in turn create the oppressing dominations of racialization, racial profiling, and racism. (p.111). Again connecting themes from the previous readings, my westernized influences are in a direct correlation to how to the idea of how I see race and the template it has set for the rather automatic patterns of inequalities, marginalization, and difference. I never realized how ubiquitous and evolving race is within the United States.

Published by the New York Times under the Opinion section, the audience for this article is any interested reader. At the time it was released, November 18th, 2016, this article arrived during last year’s elections, in which a large, but surprising number of Americans voted for candidate Donald Trump, shocking many forecasters who had predicted otherwise. Therefore, after the election, many people may have been researching the demographics of the election, and this article, which briefly shared Brooks’ opinion on the nature of the election and how viewing others through the lens of a dominant identity influenced how the votes fell where they did, may have caught a keen reader’s eye. Also, this article came at a time where racism and prejudice caused many problems, leading some to view others as one-dimensional, represented only by a skin color or religion. Since prejudice and hate is still a large issue today, tackling this problem helps make this article relevant, nearly a year after its release.

In David Brooks’ “People Like Us” passage on the issue of diversity, Brooks takes a personally emotional perspective of the way in which Americans don’t appreciate how diverse our nation is while “relatively homogeneous” (Brooks 136). His argument is weakened, however, through a bias and hypocrisy that his diction conveys. He claims that grouping ourselves with those who we are most alike is in our nature to, and in doing so, we separate ourselves from those who are different. Using certain statistics as evidence, Brooks points out that the social segmentation created by society will always exist.

In American society, there are multiple cultures and races exist. Since immigrants bring the various cultures to America, Americans face a highly controversial problem. Some of the Americans believe all of the ethnic groups assimilate into a common culture can help Americans distinctly identify themselves. Others argue that ethnic groups should not abandon their cultural heritages background. As a result, merging different cultures into one new culture will cause America lose its cultural diversity which is one significant charm of this country. On the contrary, if every ethnic group only focuses on building their own community and resists communicate with others, it will aggravate the separation of a nation. Although people often argue about these two ways which one is more appropriate to Americans, I think Richard Rodriguez's idea is more realistic in nowadays American society. Rodriguez resists the idea of the melting pot, and believes that assimilation is inevitable and reciprocal. In the essay Does America Still Exist?, Rodriguez explains his thought to us through his experiences.

Racial formations exist to create a divide among society. In “The New Jim Crows” the author foments, “racial caste systems do not require racial hostility or overt bigotry to thrive. They need only racial indifference, as Martin Luther King Jr. warned more than forty-five years ago.” (Alexander). America utilizes a racial caste system of institutionalized racism

Few people are going to openly admit to being prejudice against people of other races, gender, and religions. However that doesn’t stop many of us from having unintentional racist thoughts. In 1979, Henri Tajfel, a social psychologist, proposed that “the groups which people belonged to are an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.” This ideal of categorizing and subconsciously labeling ourselves is better known as “Social Identity Theory”. Tajfel continues by saying “In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world! We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudice views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers! Therefore, we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups). This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image.” We all unintentionally discriminate against others that are in the “out-group”, and by doing this we are excluding ourselves from certain religions, cultures, races, and even genders. This ideal of labeling ourselves can be traced back to childhood and factors such as where we

We are taught from a symbolic interactionist perspective racial socialization often give way to a sense of solidarity, a union with one’s ethnic group which can tribute to the hostility demonstrated towards another group. Another familiar term ethnocentrism, a place of superiority which contains the notion one’s ethnic group is superior while the other is inferior which proves the further we are from human values and the promotion of it peace can never be achieved. The Dalai Lama says if we have peace in us we can be at peace with those around us.

Critical Race Theory and Conflict Theory Society contains groups with diverse interests, where competing interests encourage conflict (Hutchison, 2013). The racial ideology in the United States is the belief in a hierarchy of races with whites at the top and other races grouped underneath (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2011). One way minorities are depicted as different from whites is through imagery that creates detachment and seclusion between groups (Ortiz & Jani, 2010). Critical Race Theory Critical race theory (CRT) assumes this society was created to empower White people; CRT is focused on transforming the relationships between race and racial power assembled by law and culture (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). This theory suggests that racism is embedded in American society (Helms, 2006), looking at how racial pride in being White can be exhibited in tolerable ways or as White superiority (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).

Based upon this, it is evident that other racial groups have a feeling of ethnocentrism towards Mexican Americans. Evidence of this is presented when the article states “Mexican Americans have been racialized throughout U.S. history and this limits their participation in society.” The discrimination and racial stereotyping of Mexican-Americans is further supported when the article discusses the educational inequality that has been experienced across multiple generations of Mexican American families living in the United States. This is evident when the article states, “school segregation has been extensive, both historically and in contemporary periods. Throughout history, Mexican children were sent to separate and inferior schools.” The article also continues on to mention that school segregation was repeatedly challenged in the

Eric Holder’s way of pointing out the natural search of race and affiliation, is relevant for the society’s development. I agree on Yolanda Yong’s view on the positive development in the American society, because the line between white and black has moved significantly through the past fifty years. But I also agree on the hidden patterns in the society and I think there is more to it, than just outlook and work partners as Eric Holder presents. Especially in today’s late modern society, affiliation and identity is keywords. It can therefor be hard to meld races permanently and ideal together. But on the other hand I do not agree on his statement of historical realization as the main key to equality. I agree in Walter Backstrom’s statement that

In Mary Rowlandson's A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Rowlandson, ethnocentric bias is clearly evident throughout the entire narrative. Ethnocentrism is the judgment of other cultures according to the standards of one's own cultural values or being closed-minded about the lifestyle of another ethnic and/or cultural group. Mary Rowlandson's narrative has many examples supporting the notion that Puritans are ethnocentric in their worldview.

Trump supporters have been even more ethnocentric than before, because of the Election Day closing in on us. The studies in the article show the dramatic difference in ethnocentrism between Republicans and Democrats. “Almost 20 percent of Trump supporters disagree with the Emancipation Proclamation, which ended slavery in the United States.” This goes to show that a small percentage of Americans today would not mind if we still had slaves in society today. Trump has said himself that he wants to deport all Muslims and Mexicans back to their countries. Ethnocentrism is demonstrated by a graph showing which party (Democrat or Republican) has a higher level of ethnocentrism. With Trumps’ people-pleasing tactics he can try and persuade millions

Ethnocide would still be considered a genocide because, as Martin Shaw points out, “groups are social constructions.” This means that cultures are not just the individuals who make up a specific group, but they are instead the ideas those in the group hold to be true. Even if murder is not involved, ethnocide would still be considered a genocide because the culture is being destroyed by removing their political or economic power to spread their ideas. Furthermore, Daniel Feierstein argues that ethnocide is genocide because, “The main objective of genocidal destruction is the transformation of the victims into ‘nothing’ and the survivors into ‘nobodies,’ that is, their social death.” This illustrates how eliminating their culture’s existence