Race Lesson 3: Amazing! Race Around the World (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?

Yesterday's 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.  They would fit into the scientific classification system such as kingdom, order, phylum etc...  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.

For more information on how race is socially constructed:

See the book Racial Formation by sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant.

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.

Examples of race being constructed in different societies.

Race in Japan

For example, 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

1. Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother
2. Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother
3. Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father
4. Mulatto: Spanish and black African
5. Moor: Spanish and Mulatto
6. Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother
7. Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother
8. Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother
9. Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother
10. Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother
11. Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother
12. Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother
13. Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother
14. Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother
15. Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother
16. 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)

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

Here is the Google form for this lesson.  Open it in a new window and as you read this post answer when prompted.


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.



In sum, today we used our sociological imagination to examine how race is different based on where you are.  And that difference means you will be classified, viewed and treated differently based on where you are.  You may even see yourself differently.  In other words, you will experience the world differently based on where you are and how your race is perceived.  Race is a social construction.  Tomorrow we will see how race has changed over time right here in the U.S.  In other words, we will use our sociological imagination to see that race is different depending on when you are there as well.


7.  Any questions about how race is a social construction?

Operationalizing Terms and "Erasing" Ignorance: Race Lesson 2

As we wait for students to show up, please try this "What Race Am I?" quiz.  

Debriefing the What Race Am I Quiz? above

The quiz above highlights a number of realities about race:

• We assume that race is biological, but our biological assumptions do not make sense.  In the case of the survey, there are people from different continents with different skin tones - there are people from every continent who have dark skin - not just Africa, and similarly, there are people with different eye shapes and hair types from all over the world too.
• Second, we often use ethnicity, nationality or heritage to mean race but this doesn't always make sense.  For example, Russia is often considered a European nation and thus racially white, but large parts of Russia are located in Asia.  Are these people Asian or White and what defines that?
• Lastly, this survey highlights a difficulty with race - For 160 years, the US defined race like you just did; census collectors looking at people and choosing their race.  But in 1965, the census started allowing people to self-identify their own race.  By this standard, we can't really know the race of any of the people in the survey unless they were asked to choose.

The anatomy and biology of race

In lesson 1,  I asked you to try and define race based on your prior knowledge.  Today, I want to clarify what race is (and is not).  

First, let's consult the biology and anatomy textbooks and find out the answers to the questions I asked you.  If you have access to a biology or anatomy textbook, please use the index to look up the definition of race.  If you do not have access to a biology or anatomy textbook, then please choose one of the bullet points below and examine the link for how they explain the biology of race.

• Bill Nye explains why there is no way to define race biologically.
• A 2017 article from the NY Times explains that the latest evidence from genetics is that there is not a connection between genes and race.
• Harvard School of Biomedical Sciences "there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call 'races' have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races"
• The U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health published this article which explains, "Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race."
• Race; Power of an Illusion Documentary FAQs answered by these experts.
• The American Association of Physical Anthropologists published this statement about race, including, "There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past. "
• Contexts sociology blog The press release reports the results of this panel’s initial analysis of almost 500 cases. Most startlingly, it reports that FBI examiners gave inaccurate testimony in 96% of those cases.... As a 2009 review of forensic science by the National Research Council (NRC) put it, “No scientifically accepted statistics exist about the frequency with which particular characteristics of hair are distributed in the population.”
• Science Magazine "The study adds to established research undercutting old notions of race. You can’t use skin color to classify humans, any more than you can use other complex traits like height, Tishkoff says. 'There is so much diversity in Africans that there is no such thing as an African race'.”
• Science Buzz: "...there’s more variation within any racial group than there is between them...Our genes are constantly moving around the planet. We’ve had 100,000 years of genes moving and mixing and re-assorting in countless different ways. We’re always mating outside our groups. [As a result, there’s] very little variation among us."
• Live Science: there is only one human race. Our single race is independent of geographic origin, ethnicity, culture, color of skin or shape of eyes — we all share a single phenotype, the same or similar observable anatomical features and behavior - See more at livescience. "...there is only one human race. Our single race is independent of geographic origin, ethnicity, culture, color of skin or shape of eyes — we all share a single phenotype, the same or similar observable anatomical features and behavior..."

(Click here to open the Google form for this document)

1.  What source did you consult?  What is the science or biology behind different races in that source?  


What is racial hegemony?

The answer to the questions yesterday is that race is not a scientific term.  And so neither the biology nor the anatomy textbooks even mention race.  Race is not measurable in any objective way.  And races are not mutually exclusive of each other; in science, this is known as discrete classification.  Race is not a discrete category.  However, in the United States, we are so familiar with the idea of "race" that we use it all the time assuming that we know what it means, but never stopping to examine what it is.  This acceptance of race as a real scientific category without ever questioning it is called racial hegemony.  If you were asked to identify the race of students in our room, I bet you would be able to say what "race" they are, but can you say what exactly "race" is?   Sometimes the misunderstanding of what race is comes from confusion with other terms.  Read each of the following terms below and think about the following question:

Which of these terms have you used to define or describe race in the past?  Do you have questions about any of these terms?

Operationalizing terms

Nationality is the country where someone is a citizen.  For example, if your passport is from the U.S. then your nationality is the United States, often referred to as "American".

Ethnicity is a group of people linked by a common culture, ancestry and often associated with a geographic location.  For example, one might say that Italians are an ethnic group.  But ethnicity doesn't have to apply to a country, it can be a group like Assyrians, Deng (from the Sudan) or Roma people.

Heritage is where a person's ancestors can be traced to.

Genotype is an individual's specific combination of genes that makes up their DNA.  Mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to a common ancestor.  So scientifically, all humans share a common genetic lineage. This video explains that.

2.  Which of the above terms have you used to define or describe race in the past?  Do you have questions about any of these terms?

Note how the biology of the people in the quiz above does not reflect the people's heritage, ethnicity or nationality.  For example, Russia is generally considered a European country and thus "white" even though a large portion of Russia is in Asia.  For the purposes of the survey, I 

Phenotype and Race

Phenotype is the observable characteristics/traits that an individual manifests from their genotype interacting with the environment.  Think about what traits people use to classify humans into "races."  If you lined people up from all over the world, they would resemble a spectrum instead of distinct groups.  People cannot be grouped distinctly into "races" in a scientific, biological way.  If you tried to separate them based on a trait, the categories you create would be arbitrary and subjective.  For example, we will examine skin color below.  You will see that skin color is not discretely divided into biological groups.

Phenotypic Traits and Race; Humans look different, why is that not race?

Yes, humans have different phenotypes such as dark skin or curly hair.  These phenotypes do come from different genetic combinations, but these combinations are not divisible into distinct groups.  Instead, the divisions we create are arbitrary divisions. If you lined up all of the people in the world according to a trait, the divisions would be less obvious. It would look more like a spectrum that changes gradually blending into one another.  For example, think about skin color, one of the most obvious phenotypes in the U.S. and often the default for socially constructing race.  See this evidence about why skin color does not differentiate into discrete groups:

From the American Anthropological Association, The Human Spectrum activity shows that deciding how to categorize people is arbitrary.

 



Another example that demonstrates why the phenotypic trait of skin color is NOT a way to categorize people racially is from a post on the soc images blog, this artist created a palette of colors showing that human skin is much more of a spectrum than distinct groups.  See this post for more about the artist and the project, including a Ted Talk.
Where would you divide up this palette into different races?

For an explanation on the biology of skin color, the article "Skin Deep" by Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin from Scientific American  explains the science behind skin color and how around the world, skin color would look more like a spectrum than distinct groups.  The map below from the article explains the correlation between UV light intensity and skin color.  Going back to our metaphor about the traits, do you see how the trait of skin color is a spectrum rather than distinct groups?

Nina Jablonski explains the significance of skin color in her Ted Talk here.

3.  Do you understand why skin color cannot be used to categorize people into distinct races?


Other phenotypes besides skin color are also not racially discrete

Click here to go to the Race; Power of Illusion website to see why there is no way of biologically separating people into "races"  based on physical appearance (including skin color, nose shape and head size), geographic origins or genetic similarities.

Race Essentialism - an erroneous but persistent theory

During the 1800s and for nearly a century afterward, scientists, including anthropologists and biologists, erroneously concluded that humans evolved from three distinct groups of hominids.  Known as the "essentialist theory", this incorrectly posits that each group started as a "pure race" in three separate locations: Mongolia, Caucasia, and Nigeria.   Eventually, the groups intermixed but some individuals stayed "more pure" based on less mixing.  Using the scientific data that is available to us now, biologists, doctors, anthropologists, and sociologists know that this is not true.  Instead of evolving separately, all humans began in Africa and gradually spread out across the globe.  However, some people still promote essentialist race theory.

So what is race?

Race is a socially constructed idea that humans can be separated into distinct and discrete groups based on biology.  For example, one society might say that there are 3 races in the world: Asian, African and white.  But as you will see, other societies have their own categories of race such as Dinka and Bantu and countries will use any combination of heritage, ethnicity, religion or phenotype to create their own ideas about race.   Another way to explain the definition of race is that race is the misguided/incorrect belief that people can be separated into groups based on their biological traits such as skin color, hair, eyes, nose, genes, etc...

4.  Do you understand that race is not a scientific topic; it cannot be measured discretely or distinctly using any biological trait?


Other Resources to help understand what race is not:

Anthony Peterson "What I am learning from my white grandchildren" at TED talks Antioch explains why race is NOT real but it does matter and why it's important to talk about race with children.  He notes that many of us teach that race is real but it doesn't matter and that teaches children the wrong message.


Genetic Research from the Transpacific Project shows multiple maps of genetic markers around the world.

For more about skin color, this lesson from biointeractive shows the distribution of ancestral alleles and derived alleles that affect skin pigment.

From Princeton U. Commons this map shows the spread of humans based on traceable gene mutations in mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes.

Anatomy Class.  Race was so hegemonic that for my first 20 years, SHS anatomy taught that there were 3 essential races!  Even after I tried to correct them numerous times.  The idea that people can't be categorized biologically into races is difficult to accept and process because race is so ingrained in our society that we never question it.  It gets validation from many places, including our very own anatomy classes! (until 2018) (click here for a clarification of the anatomy forensic lesson).

Jefferson Fish also explains how race doesn't make sense in the article titled "Mixed Blood" from Psychology Today, 1995.

For more info you can checkout the April 22, 2005 episode of Odyssey, a radio program that used to air on Chicago Public Radio. This episode about the genetics of race and if you listen carefully to the caller segment, you can hear a very interesting high school sociology teacher commenting. [Listen the program here (the good part is after 35:26)]

This article from Slate explains why ancestry kits do not explain race.  And below is an example of my own genetic sequence:

Race Lesson 1: On Your Marks, Get Set, Race!

After learning about social class and inequality, we will now learn about race and inequality.  Before talking about race specifically, recall the unit on how to have a sociological perspective.  We learned that sociology sometimes "makes the familiar strange."  It sheds light on areas of our life that we never questioned before.  This can be an eye-opening experience that is sometimes difficult to accept.  Learning about race may be eye-opening and may make you think about everyday life in a new way that might be uncomfortable.  We also learned that society constructs a reality for how we feel and experience the world.  Learning about race may challenge the previous feelings that we have had.  And, finally, remember that we are like fish in water never having to question or notice the water.  Race is one of those cultural constructions that we have never questioned. Please begin by reflecting on what you have already come to understand about race by answering numbers 1-3 below.  

Here is the Google form for this lesson.  

On your marks...

Prior Knowledge Questions:

Answer the following questions off the top of your head.  Use what you have learned until now to answer.

1.  What is race?  Define it.  What determines what race a person is?  

1b. Is race scientific?

2. How many races are there? Name them (or as many as you can).   

2b.  What race are you?

3.  Before today's class, when was the last time you remember specifically discussing race?  What was the context of the discussion?  If you do not know or remember, that's ok, just say that.

3b.  What do you think might be difficult about discussing race during this unit?  

Get set...

The Difficulty of Race

Before we begin our study, I want to acknowledge that the topic of race can be a difficult topic to discuss.  

First, as evidenced by the student responses to questions 1 and 2 above, race is difficult to define.  Even though race has a long history in the United States (over 400 years, as the 1619 Project highlighted), and was written into the U.S. Constitution, we have difficulty defining "race."  If I asked you about race, you would know what I meant.  However, when asked to define race, students have difficulty agreeing on a definition.  We don't learn about race in anatomy class or biology class or even in US history.  Despite not learning about race, there is a hegemonic acceptance of what race is; Americans learn about it from a young age so they assume that they know what it is and they never question it.  However, because we don't learn about it, we don't have the language to talk about it.  That limits our understanding even more and contributes to racial anxiety when talking about it.

For question number 3 above, not only do we seem to accept the idea of race without truly understanding it, but for many Americans, they do not have to think about race in their daily lives.  Because America has been a white majority country, whites have traditionally been able to safely be considered the norm.  They can avoid discussing race, except when learning about it in relation to a particular situation - like in history class or when the protesters marched for George Floyd.   Because of that, whites do not have to think about being white.  They do not worry about being judged for being white.  They are able to focus much more on their identity as an individual and not as a member of a racial group.  So, when race becomes the topic of discussion among whites, it can be uncomfortable as something they are not used to discussing.  

Finally, a third reason that race is difficult to learn about is because many whites think of racism based on the way racism became a part of the national consciousness in the 1960s.  During that time, racists were seen as violent and extreme, like the KKK.  Racists were people who consciously hated minorities.  This was a very basic definition of racism that often reduced people to being either not racist or racist: either good or bad.  This label became a really awful label for Americans who are white.  As we have learned, people have complex identities and they are multifaceted.  They are not simply either racist or not. Instead, it is important to acknowledge that we all live in a society that has been historically racist and so, therefore, we are all capable and even likely to exhibit behaviors and attitudes that are racist.  That might be uncomfortable to acknowledge but it should not define us.  Not only are people complex and multi-faceted, but racism is as well.  It can be institutional and unintentional and explicit or implicit.  As we talk about racism, try to see how people of different races are treated unequally.  Try not to feel defensive or accused.  This is a learning process that takes time.  It was a long road for me to understand this as well.  There is a good chance that everyone in this class has said something or done something that was racist.  But that does not mean that you should have your entire identity defined as "racist"  - as Bryan Stevenson says in his book Just Mercy, "Each of us is better than the worst thing we have ever done."  So as we move forward, in terms of racism, focus on the words and actions and not on identity.  In other words, things that we say and do may be racist, but try to refrain from defining each other's identity as "racist." Say, "talking like that is racist" or "doing that is racist" rather than saying, "if you do xyz then you are racist."

4.  Do you understand why race might be difficult to discuss?  Which of the three might make it most difficult for you?  Do you think you will have difficulty discussing race?

In my own experiences, as a young sociology student in undergrad, I felt uncomfortable talking about race and racism because of all of the above reasons.  It was really hard for me to learn about racism without feeling accused of something wrong.  I felt guilty and that made me defensive and obstinate.  However, as my academic journey continued, I learned more about race and gradually I became more comfortable teaching about it.  However, over the last 20 years, I have noticed some of the same resistance to learning about race in the students that I teach.  It was not until I read Robin Diangelo's work that I had a name for the feelings that I originally had about race and the feelings that I now experience with my own students:  White fragility.  I want to acknowledge those feelings to help students understand the discomfort that you or your classmates might feel.  Hopefully in recognizing this discomfort and understanding it, makes it easier to learn about race throughout this unit and your life. 

Race!

And White Fragility

One author who has written extensively about race is Robin DiAngelo who has been teaching about race and racism for over 20 years.  During that time, she observed that many people have difficulty in discussing race and racism.  In a 2011 journal article, DiAngelo explained the difficulty in discussing racism with Whites.  She called the difficulty "White fragility" and expanded on the idea that whites have difficulty in discussing race and racism in a book titled the same.

Please watch DiAngelo explain her work in the 6-minute Youtube video from NBC news and also available at The Guardian.

Her website explains her work;

White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress. Although white racial insulation is somewhat mediated by social class (with poor and working class urban whites being generally less racially insulated than suburban or rural whites), the larger social environment insulates and protects whites as a group through institutions, cultural representations, media, school textbooks, movies, advertising, and dominant discourses. Racial stress results from an interruption to what is racially familiar. In turn, whites are often at a loss for how to respond in constructive ways., as we have not had to build the cognitive or affective skills or develop the stamina that that would allow for constructive engagement across racial divides. leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This book explicates the dynamics of White Fragility and how we might build our capacity in the on-going work towards racial justice.

5.  Do you understand what DiAngelo means by "white fragility"?


In conclusion, as we begin this unit, I want to acknowledge the difficulty of discussing race and helping you to frame it so that you can be open to learning about race going forward.  While the topic of race can be difficult and emotional, I want you to know that I am willing to help you understand and I want our classroom to be a safe space for understanding.  Trust me and trust the process, and don't be afraid to ask questions.  Be curious, not judgemental.

Watch these two humorous takes on white fragility:

And here is an SNL skit making fun of white fragility:  5 Hour Empathy Pills

From Al Jazeera, this Newsbroke sketch is a public service announcement called "White Fragility Training: Raising Racial Awareness of White Discomfort with Racial Awareness"

Additionally,  UW Madison professor Pamela Oliver's website is really helpful.  Dr. Oliver has made a list of terms that explains the history and nature of racially-based terminology.  Her post is continually updated here, but she also posted a PDF version of this essay on SocArXiv.

In Sum:

• Race and Racism is part of American society
• Acknowledge these and be willing to talk about them even though they are uncomfortable topics.
• It is okay to talk about Americans who are identified as "White", "Black", "Asian", "American Indian" or "Hispanic/Latin" especially in the context of race. 
• However, some people will have personal preferences about the terms they identify with and that's okay.  It is always best to talk about individuals as specifically as you can.
• If you are anxious about other terms that can be offensive, see this website from Dr. Pam Oliver, UW Madison professor.  A few notable pieces of information:
• Don't use the term "colored" but you can use the term "people of color" to mean non-white people.
• If you talk about racism try to refer to actions or words as racist (as opposed to people).

EXTRA

Here are some more resources as we begin to learn about race and about DiAngelo's work:

DiAngelo's book, What Does It Mean to Be White?  is a terrific book for anyone wanting to be more racially literate.  Racism and Specific Racial Groups, Chapter 17 of her book,  is all about the different histories and discriminations against specific racial groups.  She does a great job of succinctly explaining the social, historical and political contexts that affect each group.  While I teach much of what she explains in her book, it is a valuable resource and I recommend it.

A Sociologist Examines the “White Fragility” That Prevents White Americans from Confronting Racism from the New Yorker.

Teaching Tolerance has an interview with DiAngelo and also a 30 min video.

NBC has a brief 3 min video with DiAngelo here.

Here is an 80 min video of DiAngelo at a book talk:

If there is still time, move on to lesson 2 to see what the answers are to questions 1 and 2 above.