Tag Archives: intergenerational

The Right Language: Talking About Race and Identity

by Same Air

I was recently reading about racial identity formation and the author of the book explicitly rejected the term “non-White.” This is a term I use frequently in previous posts, so I began reconsidering the language I use in race-based discussions. I want to start by saying that I am reflecting my opinions on the language I choose to use. I do not mean to say anything about any large group of people (e.g., all x people like to be called z). What sort of words do we use to identify people? Why does it matter?

Why does it matter?

At the risk of being dismissed as an attempt to be “politically correct,” I will explain that language matters. It is more than political correctness. Language is a window into the brain. This has been well-established. The type of language we use and the way we structure sentences can speak volumes about our thought processes. It only follows that, in order to be critical of a thought process (perhaps even a discriminatory thought process), one can begin by being critical of the language one uses. Going beyond the individual, language sends a message. The way we talk is suggestive of what we find important, valuable, worthwhile, beautiful, as well as what we feel is unimportant, worthless, negative, or somehow less. These messages are then interpreted and, over time, internalized by members of society, creating and perpetuating a cycle of thought.

In short, I believe changing the way people speak is a first step in changing the way people think.

The words we use…

Black

In my experience, this is an acceptable term. It acknowledges a person of a darker skin tone as well as involuntary membership in a subordinate group in U.S. race culture. Although, the danger lurking in this term is that a person with strong ethnic ties may feel a denial of her heritage. For example, a person hailing from the Caribbean with a darker skin tone and a person whose family is from Africa could both fall under this category, thereby affirming neither of their backgrounds. On the other hand, some may prefer the term. The best strategy here is to politely and respectfully ask.

African American

As a White person, my culture tells me that this term is most closely linked to accusations of attempts at “political correctness.” As stated above, this may be an appropriate term for a person whose heritage is traced to other parts of the world. The assumption behind these words is that every person with darker skin comes from Africa. I imagine (but, being White, cannot know) that this would be similar to calling all Asian people Chinese…For those who embrace an African American identity, this term is obviously appropriate. I will try to avoid it, however, as a blanket generalization.

Person of Color

As far as blanket terms go, I feel that person/people of color is an appropriate term. When discussing subordinate/dominant groups, I feel that ‘people of color’ allows a writer to include all those with a darker skin tone without making any assumptions about that group. Further, by affirming a persons humanity before assigning them a label, the term ‘person of color’ acknowledges the reality that we are discussing human beings who are more than the label we seek to assign them.

Non-White

In my recent reading, this term was rejected for reasons I agree with. It has a negative connotation, implying that somehow to be ‘non-whatever’ is to be missing or lacking something. Do we call women non-male? No. While it seems to capture people who do not have a light skin tone without making assumptions, it seems that it is polemical to ‘person of color’. In other words, female is to non-male as person of color is to non-white.

White

If you have read my short essay The United States Created Race, then you will understand the long battle we as a country have fought when it comes to defining who is White. And perhaps it was not about defining who was White as much as it was about defining who was not White. Either way, for purposes of this discussion, White will be regarded as the identification of a lighter skin tone as well as membership in the dominant race group in U.S. race culture. For more on dominant and subordinate groups, see What is White Privilege?

I do not mean this to be an exhaustive list and I apologize for those who I’ve left out. My blog is, once again, becoming too long. I need to cut myself off before this becomes a paper.

Thanks for reading. Comments and criticism encouraged.

People of Color Hit Harder in Sub-Prime Mortgage Market

by Same Air

Thanks, Washington Post.

I like this graph because it sort of shows cause and effect from left to right. Black and Brown folks ended up with a disproportionate number of high-interest loans. When the bubble burst, those folks lost the most equity in their homes. In turn, their net worth continued to sag below that of Whites. A large share of a families net worth is in their home, making it a particularly important point of comparison. This measure also illustrates the wealth imbalance along race lines. Home ownership is fundamental in passing wealth from one generation to the next as well.

Identities and Privileges: Examining My Advantages

by Same Air

When I look at my resume, I see achievements and successes resulting from my own hard work, perseverance, and desire to succeed. This is what I want to find. While those characteristics are important, I cannot help but wonder how my identity factored in to my opportunities to acquire and develop skills, which cultivated further opportunity. This is somewhat more difficult and certainly less desirable to uncover.

Each person is composed of multiple identities and thus belongs to multiple groups. These groups, dominant or subordinate, can contribute in either a positive or negative way to the life of each individual claiming membership.

For example, a Black male identifying as heterosexual is a member of a subordinate group in U.S. race culture through identifying himself as a person of color. However, he is a member of the dominant group (and thus gains those privileges) in terms of sexuality (by being heterosexual) and gender (by being male). While he may face the structural disadvantages of being a person of color, he stands to gain privileges afforded only to males and heterosexuals. The list goes on.

Lets pretend this man is from a wealthy family. He also stands to gain the advantages that follow wealth. If he was lower class, he would be disadvantaged because of it. Moreover, his membership in two substantial subordinate groups  (being a person of color and being lower class) exacerbate the disadvantages he may face and irritate a host of new stereotypes on which he may be judged.

My point is that each of us claim more than one identity. The culmination of these identities play a key role in life outcomes. Contemplating identities has forced me to examine my own.

Identities I claim:

  • White
  • Male
  • Heterosexual
  • Able-bodied
  • Middle-class
  • Non-religious
  • Fit/Healthy
  • Educated
  • Young
  • College student

The identities above in bold I believe contribute positively to my life because, in my culture, that group holds power.

The three in red are the most influential.

Those not bold place me in a subordinate group.

I have management experience in the restaurant industry. I started as a line cook, was promoted to server, and later became a manager. I was hired through a family connection at the restaurant. Would I have made it out of the kitchen (and received a substantial pay increase) if I was Black? Maybe. Would I have been promoted if I was a woman? Would a man, although less qualified, have been promoted over me? If I was wheelchair-bound, would I have become a server?  These are examples of critical crossroads in my life where my membership in dominant cultural groups may have provided me with somewhat unearned opportunity.

How will my experience as a manager benefit me in the future? It has the potential to create further benefits or what I’ll call stacking opportunities. Perhaps this experience, which I may never have had the opportunity to earn, is a deciding factor in a hiring decision later. Perhaps a career is opened up to me through this experience in combination with my other skills, experience, and membership in dominant groups. How might those experiences lend themselves to my success? How do my unearned advantages snowball into achievement?

While listing these identities, I could not help but notice their permanence. Arguably, the most important identities in our culture are race, class, and gender. All three are nearly permanent. All three place me in the dominant group. When I find myself in the subordinate group by being young, a college student, and non-religious, how permanent are these factors? Two of three will change quite quickly. The other is by choice, unlike race, class, or gender.

What sort of unearned advantages have I already accumulated? How will these work to my benefit in the future? If one or more of my identities were different, how would my resume be different?

The United States Created Race

by Same Air

What? How could that be true? The United States didn’t make people Black, Asian, Latino/a.

A brand of sociology that falls under the umbrella ‘Critical Race Theory’ proposes that, in the latter half of the 18th century, the United States colonies began to coin the term ‘race’ in reference to an individuals outer appearance – namely their skin color. Further, through illegitimate means that we easily recognize as such today (like I.Q. testing and the ‘feeblemindedness theory’), ‘race’ became a way to divide people – a way to make classifications based on appearance alone. By use of this concept, the subjugation of entire groups of people were permitted and, by and large, felt to be intuitive and reasonable.

As Americans, we learn to make the connection between race and slavery quickly. The first thing that comes to mind when one reads this is, “That is false. The U.S. did not create slavery.” I agree. We did not. Slavery existed for thousands of years before the United States was even a thought. But lets draw a line between slavery and the concept of race. ‘Race’ had never been a reason to enslave a person, however. Slavery was based on being conquered by your enemies (early), paying off a debt, a caste/class system or social structure, or simply as an occupation (more recently). Prior to the U.S., people did not have a slave or a servant because that individual was Black. People found themselves in those positions as a result of social structures or family relationships or economic means; your family was poor, your parents were servants, you were stuck at a low position in a caste system, or your villiage/people were conquered, etc…

It was not until the United States that ‘race’ became a way to group people. It was not until the United States that people began to believe that, “Black people are biologically inferior.” Why? What motivation did our ancestors have to do this? Well, if you want to believe in (or simply justify) the subjugation of an entire group of people visually different from yourself, spouting the idea that they are somehow inferior in unchangeable ways is a good place to start. If you want a reason to make someone your slave, a lesser biological capacity is as good a reason as any. If you have a new economy and need to add fuel to the fire, why not ship people over from another continent that are just plain useless except in your fields?

The many advantages of this domination soon became apparent. Black slaves were largely responsible for the agriculture exports of the 19th century, exploited Chinese workers greatly assisted in the establishment of our railroad system, Native Americans were herded onto special land to allow us to continue using the natural resources which originally belonged to them.

The best part? ‘Race’ is nothing more than a social construction. The biological components on which race was originally based have been found to be non-existent. In fact, there is more genetic diversity on the continent of Africa than there is in present day United States. Race is not real.

I do not mean to say that people are not different. Ethnicity, cultural backgrounds, belief systems, and ideologies all play important roles in our sense of self and our sense of community. However, the idea that, because a person was Black, that person was less intelligent, had less capacity for learning, for feeling, for advancement, due to some piece of their nature or their body type is simply false.

Also, it is important to note that, although the facts on which race was built have turned out to be untrue, the results of that information being perceived as factual and accurate are very real. While the concept of race may have no concrete basis, the outcomes produced by the concept are clearly tangible. At this point, an understanding that the ideas behind race are essentially fake must not lead us to the assumption that racism and discrimination are also fake. Slavery was not and is not fake. A higher proportion of non-Whites who are jobless and poor is not fake. The Jim Crow laws were not fake. The totality of abuses and injustices faced by non-Whites throughout the course of American history cannot be disregarded, nor can the impacts of race (a fabrication) in this time be ignored.

Where is this chapter in our white, male high school history books?

Food for thought on a Tuesday.