Ways of Thinking...: 4.5 Race is a Social Construct

As students arrive, please look over Omi and Winant's Racial Formation

Reviewing from the last lesson:

If people look differently, why can't they be scientifically separated into races based on the differences?

An explanation of genetic variation from the Transpacific Project shows how complex it is here. But the short explanation is that although there are some genetic markers that point to a shared genetic heritage, these markers don't correspond to racial differences and there can be more genetic similarity between people who are different "races" than those who are the same "race".

The previous lesson explained that racial categories are not scientific. There is no way to separate humans biologically, physically or scientifically into distinct racial groups. If there was, then racial groups would be the same all over the world. But they are not the same as Omi and Winant explain in their book Racial Formation.

The book by Omi and Winant called "Racial Formation" (1986) provides a detailed explanation of how race is socially constructed. Here is a video of Omi and Winant explaining their seminal work.
Here is an excerpt: Racial Formation by Omi and Winant.

But instead, each country/culture has its own racial types. Racial classification in each country is based on the country's social, cultural and political history. In other words, each country constructs it's own racial categories based on the unique dynamics within that country.

Racial categories vary around the world.
The categories are formed in each country because of the local social, cultural and political history.

Since race is not a scientifically discrete category some sociologists have started referring to people from different races as "identified as [race]" or "radicalized as [race]". This emphasizes that racial identity is a social construction.

Race and Where You Live

Racial Identity in Japan

When I was in Japan, I asked some Japanese friends what races were in Japan and they said "nihon-jin and gai-jin," Which means "Japanese people and foreign people. In other words, the Japanese think that there are Japanese people in the world and then there is everyone else. And then I pressed him further and I said, " But aren't there different groups within Japanese culture?"

My friend finally said, " Ahh yes... there were ancient Japanese who settled the islands from the north and there were ancient Japanese who settled the islands from the south, and you know how to tell who came from where? Earwax." That's right, earwax! He explained that some Japanese have dry flaky earwax and others have wet greasy earwax. That determines where your ancestors came from and a different biological group that you are a part of- essentially a different race. But that makes no sense to us because in the US we never think of earwax as part of race.

Race in Mexico

Mexico has a complex history involving Spanish imperialism. Spain was already a mix of different ethnicities/heritages when it invaded Mexico and mixed with the first nations people living there as well as with black Africans brought there through the Atlantic slave trade. The result is a complex mix of races. Here are the racial groups from the early history of Mexico

Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother
Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother
Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father
Mulatto: Spanish and black African
Moor: Spanish and Mulatto
Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother
Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother
Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother
Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother
Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother
Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother
Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother
Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother
Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother
Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother
Ahi Tan Estas: Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother

Race in Brazil

As opposed to the U.S., Brazil has a much longer and more diverse history of interracial marriage between indigenous people, former slaves from Africa and Portuguese immigrants. Because of this, Brazilians are far more conscious of physical variations within their population and less concerned with bloodlines and lineage. For example, in 1976, the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) conducted a study to ask people to identify their own skin color. Here are the 134 terms, listed in alphabetical order:

Acastanhada (cashewlike tint; caramel colored)
Agalegada
Alva (pure white)
Alva-escura (dark or off-white)
Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")
Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)
Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)
Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)
Amarela (yellow)
Amarelada (yellowish)
Amarela-quemada (burnt yellow or ochre)
Amarelosa (yellowed)
Amorenada (tannish)
Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)
Azul (bluish)
Azul-marinho (deep bluish)
Baiano (ebony)
Bem-branca (very white)
Bem-clara (translucent)
Bem-morena (very dusky)
Branca (white)
Branca-avermelhada (peach white)
Branca-melada (honey toned)
Branca-morena (darkish white)
Branca-p�lida (pallid)
Branca-queimada (sunburned white)
Branca-sardenta (white with brown spots)
Branca-suja (dirty white)
Branqui�a (a white variation)
Branquinha (whitish)
Bronze (bronze)
Bronzeada (bronzed tan)
Bugrezinha-escura (Indian characteristics)
Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)
Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)
Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)
Caf� (coffee)
Caf�-com-leite (coffee with milk)
Canela (cinnamon)
Canelada (tawny)
Cast�o (thistle colored)
Castanha (cashew)
Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)
Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)
Chocolate (chocolate brown)
Clara (light)
Clarinha (very light)
Cobre (copper hued)
Corado (ruddy)
Cor-de-caf� (tint of coffee)
Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)
Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)
Cor-de-leite (milky)
Cor-de-oro (golden)
Cor-de-rosa (pink)
Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")
Crioula (little servant or slave; African)
Encerada (waxy)
Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)
Esbranquecimento (mostly white)
Escura (dark)
Escurinha (semidark)
Fogoio (florid; flushed)
Galega (see agalegada above)
Galegada (see agalegada above)
Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)
Laranja (orange)
Lil�s (lily)
Loira (blond hair and white skin)
Loira-clara (pale blond)
Loura (blond)
Lourinha (flaxen)
Malaia (from Malabar)
Marinheira (dark greyish)
Marrom (brown)
Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)
Meio-branca (mid-white)
Meio-morena (mid-tan)
Meio-preta (mid-Negro)
Melada (honey colored)
Mesti�a (mixture of white and Indian)
Miscigena��o (mixed --- literally "miscegenated")
Mista (mixed)
Morena (tan)
Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)
Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)
Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)
Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)
Morena clara (light tan)
Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)
Morena-jambo (dark red)
Morenada (mocha)
Morena-escura (dark tan)
Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)
Moren�o (very dusky tan)
Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)
Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)
Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)
Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)
Moreninha (toffeelike)
Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)
Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)
Negra (negro)
Negrota (Negro with a corpulent vody)
P�lida (pale)
Para�ba (like the color of marupa wood)
Parda (dark brown)
Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)
Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)
Pouco-clara (not very clear)
Pouco-morena (dusky)
Preta (black)
Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)
Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)
Quase-negra (almost Negro)
Queimada (burnt)
Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)
Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)
Regular (regular; nondescript)
Retinta ("layered" dark skin)
Rosa (roseate)
Rosada (high pink)
Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)
Roxa (purplish)
Ruiva (strawberry blond)
Russo (Russian; see also polaca)
Sapecada (burnished red)
Sarar� (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)
Sara�ba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)
Tostada (toasted)
Trigueira (wheat colored)
Turva (opaque)
Verde (greenish)
Vermelha (reddish)

Choose one of these countries to comment on - Japan, Mexico or Brazil. What is most striking about this classification?

Can a plane ride change your race?

Looking at the distinctions in Japan, Mexico and Brazil might not make sense to us because we view race so differently. However, all of this is evidence that race is a social construction. Read the passage below (also available here) and then answer the questions after.

2. After reading the above passage, answer this:
Did the girl’s race change? Why or why not?

When finished, click here for an explanation. Read the explanation then answer #3 below.

3. Did you answer in number 2 the way I explained it above? If not, do you understand the explanation?

The next exercise will be examining different censuses from around the world. You will see that depending on where you are, the country's census will classify you differently. Open the following link in a new window and in #4 note how you would be classified in each country. Feel free to simply type your response whether it is "white" or "other" or whatever. Be sure to respond to each country's question(s).
Here is a link to different censuses around the world.

4. What are the different ways you would be categorized around the world? List them here. Make a note of how many different ways you would be classified as around the world (this is number 5).

5. Count the number of different responses you had for number 4. How many different ways would you be labeled?

6. Choose one of the countries from the link above and hypothesize how the country's political, social or cultural history contributed to the way the country's people view race today.

7. Any questions about how race is a social construction based on where you live?

Race and When You Live

Because race is a social construction, racial categories change depending upon which country you are in. Using our sociological imagination, we will see that not only does race change depending upon where you are, but it also changes over time. In the U.S., depending on when you are living, your race might be different. Remember that Omi and Winant made the case that race is a product of social, political and cultural history. That is true within the history of the U.S. too. During different time periods within the history of the U.S., social, political and cultural dynamics influenced race. The sections below will show how different social institutions in the U.S. changed racial categorizations during various time periods.

Institutionalizing Race

Another way that race is constructed is that institutions influence both the opportunities and obstacles people face because of their race as well as how people see themselves and their racial identity.

The Census and the Institutionalizing of Race

Not only was racial classification based on this subjective and visual categorization of people, but also the categories have changed over time. This is just one way that institutional policies constructed race differently throughout US history. Look at the different choices for the U.S. census over the years. Racebox has every census survey on its website or see the selections below. Note how you would be categorized if you were living during each census.

3. How many different races would you have been in the censuses above?

From The Society Pages, here is how the US census has changed in how it determines race over the years. Also worth reading the comments section.
The timeline below is from the PEW research center and it explains how the U.S. census has changed over the years. Click here for a more detailed look at the timeline of racial census categories.

4. As the census changed can you identify one change and what the social, political or cultural changes were that resulted in a changing census? (You can try to examine the graphic or use the Society Pages link above for a guided explanation)

When the first census was issued in 1790, the United States note that the categories were "free whites", "other free persons" or "slaves" but by 1820 those categories changed to "free whites" "free coloreds" and "slaves."

Why does that matter? What does the difference change about identity in the US?

Why does Chinese show up in 1870?

Why does Mexican show up in 1930 and then disappear?

One census example worth examining is "Mexican" which was only used in 1930 and then discontinued. In 1970 Hispanic was re-added as an ethnic group. Code Switch from NPR has a terrific history of the terms in Gene Demby's 2014 episode here. Both introductions were the result of social forces at the time, especially related to economy, and not the result of democratic demand by the people being labelled.

Sociology professor Julie Dowling from the University of Illinois Chicago explains the history in her 2015 book, Mexican Americans and the Question of Race,

Dowling's research challenges common assumptions about what informs racial labeling for this population. Her interviews demonstrate that for Mexican Americans, racial ideology is key to how they assert their identities as either in or outside the bounds of whiteness. Emphasizing the link between racial ideology and racial identification, Dowling offers an insightful narrative that highlights the complex and highly contingent nature of racial identity.

You can read a review of Dowling's work here:

Immigration Law and the Institutionalizing of Race

The 1965 immigration law was another institution that played a pivotal role in shaping the U.S. and making it the multi-cultural nation that it has become. This 2019 episode of NPR's Fresh Air highlights Tom Gjelten's 2016 book, A Nation Of Nations: A Great American Immigration Story.

The 1965 law opened the U.S. to countries all over the world, and it also created a demand for cheap labor that lead to the illegal immigration crisis from Central America. This was the beginning of marked change in the U.S. that resulted in the immigration challenges and criticisms that the U.S. has had for the last 50 years. Here are three important dynamics that emerged from this law:

The U.S. became more diverse. The law prioritized what immigrants could offer to the U.S. over what ethnicity they were. This lead to a much more diverse population coming to the U.S.
The ethnic diversity did not bring labor and educational diversity. Instead, many of the diverse people were emigrating with advanced degrees and skills that allowed them to climb the U.S. social class ladder. This had the unintended result of white middle and working class citizens resenting the new diversity that seemed to be climbing the social class ladder faster than them.
Lastly, this new immigration that favored skilled labor over unskilled dried up the cheap European labor that bolstered the economic growth through industrialization. In other words, businesses who relied on cheap labor could not find the workers that they once did. This resulted in a demand that pulled easily accessible labor from over the border - especially from Mexico and Central America.

The Supreme Court and the Institutionalization of Race

The Census Bureau is not the only U.S. institution that subjectively affected racial categorization over the years. Because of the subjective nature of race in general and the census in particular, a number of Supreme Court Cases were forced to determine racial classification and policy.

United States V. Thind

Bhagat Singh Thind (1892-1967) was born in Punjab and came to America in 1913. He attended the University of California at Berkeley and paid for it by working in an Oregon lumber mill during summer vacations. When America entered World War I, he joined the U.S. Army. He was honorably discharged on the 16th of December, 1918 and in 1920 applied for U.S. citizenship from the state of Oregon. Several applicants from India had thus far been granted U.S. citizenship.

He was applying based on the naturalization law at the time which was the 1790 United States Naturalization Law. It stated the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. The law limited citizenship to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good character". The census forms allowed Singh to choose from these categories: White, Black, Mulatto, Chinese, American Indian. His application for citizenship was challenged by the immigration office. Singh argued that he was white from a state very close to the Caucasus Mountains, the region where anthropologists believed that Caucasians emerged from.

5. Decide how you would rule:

____ Singh is a white man who deserves citizenship.

____ Singh is not white and therefore does not deserve citizenship.

The Court determined that Thind was not white or Caucasoid, even though he did not fit into the other categories of race at the time (Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black, American Indian). Instead, the court ruled that because most people would say that he is not white, then he is not white. The court also ruled that this ruling applied to all Hindus - even though Thind was not even Hindu! He was Sikh. This was just one way of many that the legal system that shaped race throughout U.S. history. For more information about Thind, checkout the Scene on Radio podcast. It has a whole season on race and a whole episode about Thind (embedded below) as told through his son, who, surprisingly, had no idea about the case and everything that his dad went through!

I really want to emphasize the significance of Thind here. The Thind case represents a simple idea that complicates race relations in the U.S. in so many ways:

For many Americans, being "American" means being White.

In Thind's case it is quite literally being considered not a citizen; After the Thind ruling one-third of all Americans with Indian descent leave the country!

Besides the Thind ruling, here are some other ways that the legal system (legislation subsequently reinforced by Supreme Court) constructed race in the U.S.:

Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 (Black Americans could never be citizens of the United States.)
Chae Chan Ping v. United States 1889 (Limited rights for Americans who had Chinese ancestry.)
Pace v. Alabama 1883 (miscegenation law allowed criminalizing interracial marriage - not overturned until 1967!)
Ozawa v. U.S. 1922 (Japanese are not white.)
Thind v. U.S. 1923 (If you don't seem white, you are not and Hindus are not white.)
Lum v. Rice 1927 (Citizens who are Chinese don't have the right to attend white schools.)
Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Americans can be held in prison or concentration camps because of their ethnicity and without due process.)

The changing nature of whiteness in the U.S.

From Harper’s Illustration, (paraphrased)

They are distinctly marked – the small and somewhat upturned nose, the black tint of skin…They are uneducated, and as a consequence, they are jobless,, poor, and they don't save what little money they have. They drink alcohol, and act like barbarians…Of course they will violate our laws, they are like wild bisons leaping over the fences which easily restrain the civilized domestic cattle, and they will commit great crimes of violence, even murder, which certainly have increased lately.

6. Who do you think the magazine is talking about? Why?

This caption and illustration show the subjectivity of race in the United States. The writer was referring to the Irish who were emigrating in large numbers in the 1840s and 50s. The Irish were not considered white. Not only does this not make sense physically/biologically, but the caption reveals how subjective and social race was. They were looked down on because of the jobs they did (dock labor), because of their religion (Catholic), because of their culture (alcohol use) and their social class (poor). This subjectivity is just one example throughout the history of the United States. Over the years, Jews, Italians, Greeks and other Southern Europeans faced discrimination because they were considered less desirable than Northern Europeans, but all of these people are considered "white" by today's standards.

Changing Definitions of Whiteness

Here are some sociology readings about how different groups have changed over time:

My post on How Jews became White, which draws on Karen Brodkin's research.
Arab Americans and racial identity by Kristine J. Ajrouch and Amaney Jamal
How Italians became white; Vicious Bigotry and Reluctant Acceptance (NY Times) and this article details the largest single lynching in US history which was perpetrated against Italian Americans.
How Armenians became white.
When the Irish weren't white.
Hispanic identity and race in Chicago by Ana Y. Ramos-Zayas (2001) and the 2020 article from The Dubois Review published by Cambridge Press, "Whiteness" in Context, Racial Identification among Mexican-Origin Adults in California and Texas
Are Asian Americans Becoming White? by Min Zhou

All of these are examples of how race has changed over the years in America. Who is considered white changes because there is no empirical or objective way to define race. Race doesn't exist in any biological or empirical sense, it only exists as a social construction.

7. Is it surprising that the idea of who is white has changed so much over the years? Which group is most surprising to hear about?