Whiteness Of A Different Color

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.

Neda Maghbouleh’s The Limits of Whiteness: Iranian Americans and the Everyday Politics of Race is a book that demonstrates the harsh and often complex reality of being an Iranian in America. By law, Iranians are classified as white and at home, this classification is supported by the “Aryan Myth” that Iranians are white. To support her idea that there are limitations of whiteness, Maghbouleh cites past court cases as well as case studies of several Iranian Americans who experience racism in their everyday lives. Based on the information provided by the book, I will argue that the laws that classify whiteness and its effect on Iranian Americans is a main factor in why Iranians are treated like outsiders. I will also argue that the way whiteness is perceived by American society also contributes to how limiting it is to be classified as white.

How race determined who was in and who was out. As Dickerson states “if race is real and not just a method for the haves to decide who will be have-nots, then all Europeans immigrants, from Ireland a to Greece, would have been “white” the moment they arrived here. Instead, as documented in David Roediger’s excellent Working Towards Whiteness, they were long considered inferior, nearly subhuman, and certainly not white” (69). This shows how race wasn’t about common culture or history but a concept to decide what race is good enough to be consider “white” or better than others. Even though the Europeans where the same race or color of the other people who considered themselves Americans or “white” they were still discriminated for being different and immigrants like everybody else. But soon they realized that identifying them self as being white gave them some sort of hierarchy. It gave them more class compared to the other races. As Debra Dickerson said, “If you were neither black nor Asian nor Hispanic, eventually you could become white, invested with enforceable civil rights and the right to exploit-and hate-nonwhites” (69). Being identify as white gave the power to have privileges that non-whites will never have since they are not the same color. Non- whites are treated unfairly compared to the white people in many ways. Discrimination not only took place between people of different races but

Traditional historiographies of whiteness in the United States emphasize the critical examination and reorganization of the persistent racial discrimination constructed from the problem of white identity. Lipsitz investigates the racialized structure of contemporary America and unveils

Much of America’s history has been saturated with situations dealing with race and the people associated with them. It is impossible to talk about the founding of America without looking at the invention of race. This is because race was intricately embedded in the foundation of America through the two part process of racialization. Through this a dichotomous race structure was developed and implemented. This was carried out mainly by the U.S. government, which used policies, social arrangements, and institutional patterns (class notes 10-6-10) to further embed race into American society. The government helped to increase white’s superiority. When the government could not do it all publicly they brought in the private sector. The public

Since the beginning of time, individuals have been discriminated against based on their religion, culture, race, and sexual orientation. The article “How Did Jews Become White Folks?” by Karen B. Brodkin highlighted the struggles that European immigrants, Jews, and African Americans faced in the United States pre and post World War II. In her article Brodkin focused on the idea of “whiteness” in America, and how the word has evolved over time to include a variety of ethnicities.

“We use the term racial formation to refer to the process by which social, economic and political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories, and by which they are in turn shaped by racial meanings.” (Omi and Winant 14) Through observing certain events in the economy, politics, and society, we can understand the unwanted ascribing of racial identities to the minorities that led to their unfair treatment and discrimination. The underlying factors that led to this utilization of racial formation were a scarcity of jobs, political policies to maintain power, and racial division through class differences.

Since the start of time, there has been individuals in society that have been discriminated against based on their religion, culture, race, and sexual orientation. The article “How Did Jews Become White Folks?” by Karen B. Brodkin highlighted the struggles that European immigrants, Jews, and African American faced in the United States pre and post World War two. Brodkin focused in on the idea of “whiteness” in America, and how the word has evolved overtime to include a variety of ethnicities.

(1) Why was the last half of the 1800s a time of conflict over the meanings of citizenship in relation to race, ethnicity, and gender?

In Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s essay “Racial Formation”, we see how the tendency to assign each individual a specific race as misleading. This essay suggests that race is not merely biological, but rather lays more in sociology and historical perspective. Once we look at someone and say, “They’re white”, it brings forth all the stereotype’s that go along with that “race”, and once the race is assigned, it is assumed that we can know something about the person.

Within the definitions and perceptions of race exists a dichotomy that Duster illuminates as inconsistent, transforming, and historically erratic depictions of what represents the racial categorization of “white”. Vacillating between racial portrayals of “whiteness”, embodying a divergence between the fluidity of historic and social transformation and a disingenuous reflection of bigotry, disrespect, and intolerance, Duster distinguishes race as a compilation of divergent biochemical, neurological, and social identities (Duster n.d.). Cognizant of concessions shown to the “white” race, Duster denotes an inevitability to refute the moral reality of “white’ exclusivity,

In the presentation by Evelyn Nakano Glenn, Glenn’s main idea was on how colonial settler legacies have created a line of segregation on race and gender which determines U.S. Citizenship. Evelyn Nakano Glenn is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and is well educated in her studies of gender and women studies. Glenn used points from Joan Acker, a mentor to her, who is a feminist sociologist. The lecture circulated the topic of race and gender operating as central citizenship of America because it creates exclusion of groups. The founding fathers excluded many people such as African Americans, Women, Asians, Latinos, and American Indians. They used citizenship and rights as a gift to races. Citizenship was always contradicted

Throughout history, people have used the words “whiteness”, “white”, and “dream”. These words all had many different uses; some good, and others bring people down, or put them below others. “Whiteness” and “White” are words used everywhere, and they elicit an emotional response from people, impacting how an audience view these words. To some “white” could be symbolic of the hurt, and degration; due to the fact that people use it as a way as a cause for negitive separation. For certain populations “whiteness” was used to justify unequality, and there wasn’t a chance for change. This goes all the way back to England before revolution of America. Where there was the discrimination wasn’t even all based on color, but on ethic and religion. Yet over the years people started to see what was wrong with segrating different people out by ethic groups, instead of by their actions.

An interesting dynamic in the school system that covertly guise colorblindness is the conceptual language to describe whiteness and blackness (Kumasi, 2011). Society For instance, non-discriminatory language such school achievements, intelligent, beauty etc., represent whiteness, whereas, language like gangs, welfare recipients and, basketball represent the marginalized youth of color (As cited in Kumasi, 2011, p200). These words are created through the social construct of how America operates, as individuals are categorized. This is manifested through false media representation, negative labels, false stories, and what constitutes a favored racial identity (Kumasi, 2011). This is another barrier that stripes youth of color of their humanness,

The creation and existence of citizenship can be directly related to Marxist theory. Citizenship has major implications in the distribution of power in the United states. The use of citizenship or the act of denying certain groups full citizenship directly relates to the exploitation, class struggle, the role of the State, and reserve labor army. Specifically, the second chapter of Evelyn Nakano Glenn, Citizenship: Universalism and Exclusion, can analyzed by marxist theories to show the effect of economic and social institutions on individual interactions maintaining or contesting boundaries between genders and race. The particular framework utilized by Evelyn Nakano Glenn is feminist power analysis. Glenn challenges