Reading Response “RACE”URGENT DEADLINE 4PM TODAYPlease read the readings posted below. Then write a 200-400 response to the reading. Responses can consist of intelligent questions, disagreements with the texts, interesting insights, linkages between readings, linkages to current events, or even linkages to things happening in your own life (as long as you are able to situate these things in an anthropological context).
Reading Response “RACE” URGENT DEADLINE 4PM TODAY Please read the readings posted below. Then write a 200-400 response to the reading. Responses can consist of intelligent questions, disagreements wit
7/14/2019 AAA Statement on Race – Connect with AAA https://www .americananthro.or g/ConnectW ithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 1/4 F ro m O u r S p o n so rs Home | Connect with AAA The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association on May 17, 1998, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of “race.” We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists. A A A S tate m e n t o n R a c e 7/14/2019 AAA Statement on Race – Connect with AAA https://www .americananthro.or g/ConnectW ithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 2/4 In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical dierences. With the vast expansion of scientic knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic “racial” groupings dier from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever dierent groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species. Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among dierent indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. Historical research has shown that the idea of “race” has always carried more meanings than mere physical dierences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many elds argue that “race” as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor. From its inception, this modern concept of “race” was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus “race” was a mode of classication linked specically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used “race” to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnied the dierences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status dierences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The dierent physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status dierences. As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each “race,” linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and ctitious beliefs about the dierent peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought. Early in the 19th century the growing elds of science began to reect the public consciousness about human dierences. Dierences among the “racial” categories were projected to their 7/14/2019 AAA Statement on Race – Connect with AAA https://www .americananthro.or g/ConnectW ithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 3/4 greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes. Ultimately “race” as an ideology about human dierences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of “race” and “racial” dierences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of “inferior races” (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust. “Race” thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human dierences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into “racial” categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today nd that reliance on such folk beliefs about human dierences in research has led to countless errors. At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modication. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call “culture.” Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are. It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of dierent language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned dierent cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world. How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The “racial” worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called “racial” groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances. [Note: For further information on human biological variations, see the statement prepared and issued by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1996 (AJPA 101:569-570).] 7/14/2019 AAA Statement on Race – Connect with AAA https://www .americananthro.or g/ConnectW ithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 4/4 Y o u M ig h t A lso L ike Proposal Submission Types ANTHROPOLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS (Formerly the Society for the Anthropology of Counsciousness) AAA Interest Groups SOCIETY FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIETY FOR CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY AAA Position Paper on “Race”: Comments?   As a result of public confusion about the meaning of “race,” claims as to major biological dierences among “races” continue to be advanced. Stemming from past AAA actions designed to address public misconceptions on race and intelligence, the need was apparent for a clear AAA statement on the biology and politics of race that would be educational and informational. Rather than wait for each spurious claim to be raised, the AAA Executive Board determined that the Association should prepare a statement for approval by the Association and elicit member input.   Commissioned by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, a position paper on race was authored by Audrey Smedley (Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, 1993) and thrice reviewed by a working group of prominent anthropologists: George Armelagos, Michael Blakey, C. Loring Brace, Alan Goodman, Faye Harrison, Jonathan Marks, Yolanda Moses, and Carol Mukhopadhyay. A draft of the current paper was published in the September 1997 Anthropology Newsletter and posted on the AAA website for a number of months, and member comments were requested. While Smedley assumed authorship of the nal draft, she received comments not only from the working group but also from the AAA membership and other interested readers. The paper above was adopted by the AAA Executive Board on May 17, 1998, as an ocial statement of AAA’s position on “race.”   As the paper is considered a living statement, AAA members’, other anthropologists’, and public comments are invited.  See also Statement on “Race” and Intelligence See also AAA Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting 154
Reading Response “RACE” URGENT DEADLINE 4PM TODAY Please read the readings posted below. Then write a 200-400 response to the reading. Responses can consist of intelligent questions, disagreements wit
Ethnicity and Race CHAPTER OUTI.INE Ethnic Groups and Etl1lni(:itv Status Shifting Race The Social Construction Roce Hypodescent: Race in the United States Race in the Census Not Us: Race in Japan Phenotype and Fluidity: Race in Brazil Stratification and “Intelligence” Ethnic Groups, Nations, and Nationalities Nationalities and Imagined Communities Peaceful Coexistence Assimilation The Plural Society Multiculturalism and Ethnic Identity Roots of Ethnic Conflict Prejudice and Discrimination Chips in the Mosaic Aftermaths of Oppression ETHNIC GROUPS AND ETHNICITY W e know from the chapter on “Culture” that culture is learned, shared, symbolic, integrated, and all-encompassing. Now we consider the relation between culture and ethnicity. Ethnicity is based on cultural similarities and differences in a society or nation. The simi­ larities are with members of the same ethnic group; the differences are between that group and others. Ethnic groups must deal with other such groups in the nation or region they inhabit, so that interethnic relations are important in the study of that nation or region. (Table 5.1 lists American ethnic groups, based on 2004 figures.) 95 TABLE 5.1 Racial/Ethnic Identification in the United States, 2004 (as Claimed in Census) Claimed Identity Millions of People Percentage Hispanic Asian Two or more races Pacific Islander American Indian Black White Total population SOURCE: U.S. Census Files, 2005. As with any culture, members of an ethnic group share certain beliefs, values, habits, customs, and norms because of their common background. They define themselves as different and special because of cultural features. This distinction may arise from language, religion, historical experi­ ence, geographic isolation, kinship, or “race” (see Spickard 2004). Markers of an ethnic group may include a collective name, belief in common descent, a sense of solidarity, and an association with a specific territory, which the group mayor may not hold (Ryan 1990, pp. xiii, xiv). OVERVIEW Ethnicity is based on cultural similarities (among members of the same ethnic group) and differences (between that group and others). Ethnicity is revealed when people claim a certain ethnic identity for themselves and are defined by others as having that identity. A race is an ethnic group that is assumed to have a biological basis. “Races” are socially constructed, defined in terms of contrasts perceived in particular societies. In the United States children of mixed unions, no matter what they look like, tend to be classified with the minority-group parent. Other cultures have different systems of racial classification. Environmental variables involving educational, economic, and social backgrounds provide better explanations for performance on intelligence tests by races, classes, and ethnic groups than do genetic differ­ ences in learning ability. Most nation-states are not ethnically homogeneous. Multi­ culturalism contrasts with assimilation, in which minorities abandon their cultural traditions. Ethnicity can be expressed in peaceful coexistence, or in discrimination or violent con­ frontation. A dominant group may try to destroy ethnic prac­ tices (ethnocide) or force ethnic-group members to adopt the dominant culture (forced assimilation). 41.3 14.1% 12.1 .4.1 3.9 1.3 0.4 0.1 2.2 0.8 36.0 12.2 197.8 67.4 293.7 100.0% According to Fredrik Barth (1969), ethnicity can be said to exist when people claim a certain ethnic identity for themselves and are defined by others as having that identity. Ethnicity means identifica­ tion with, and feeling part of, an ethnic group and exclusion from certain other groups because of this affiliation. But issues of ethnicity can be complex. The “News Brief” describes how African Ameri­ cans who travel to Ghana to strengthen or reclaim an ethnic heritage are excluded from that heritage by many Ghanaians. Ethnic feelings and associated behavior vary in intensity within ethnic groups and countries and over time. A change in the degree of importance attached to an ethnic identity may reflect political changes (Soviet rule ends­ ethnic feeling rises) or individual life-cycle changes (young people relinquish, or old people reclaim, an ethnic background). We saw in the chapter “Culture” that people participate in levels of culture. Groups within a cul­ ture (including ethnic groups in a nation) have dif­ ferent learning experiences as well as shared ones. Cultural differences may be associated with ethnic­ ity, class, region, or religion. Individuals often have more than one group identity. People may be loyal (depending on circumstances) to their neighbor­ hood, school, town, state or province, region, nation, continent, religion, ethnic group, or interest group (Ryan 1990, p. xxii). In a complex society such as the United States or Canada, people con­ stantly negotiate their social identities. All of us “wear different hats,” presenting ourselves some­ times as one thing, sometimes as another. In daily conversation, we hear the term status used as a synonym for prestige. In this context, “She’s got a lot of status” means she’s got a lot of prestige; people look up to her. Among social scien­ tists, that’s not the primary meaning of “status.” Social scientists use status more neutrally-for any position, no matter what the prestige, that someone 96 PART 2 Cultural Diversity r 19 12 occupies in society. In this sense, status encom­ passes the various positions that people occupy in society. Parent is a social status. So are professor, student, factory worker, Democrat, shoe salesper­ son, homeless person, labor leader, ethnic-group member, and thousands of others. People always occupy multiple statuses (e.g., Hispanic, Catholic, infant, brother). Among the statuses we occupy, particular ones dominate in particular settings, such as son or daughter at home and student in the classroom. Some statuses are ascribed: People have little or no choice about occupying them. Age is an ascribed status; we can’t choose not to age. Race and gender usually are ascribed; people are born members of a certain group and remain so all their lives. Achieved statuses, by contrast, aren’t automatic; they come through choices, actions, efforts, talents, or accomplishments, and may be positive or negative (Figure 5.1). Examples of achieved statuses include physician, senator, con­ victed felon, salesperson, union member, father, and college student. Status Shifting Sometimes statuses, particularly ascribed ones, are mutually exclusive. It’s hard to bridge the gap between black and white, or male and female. Sometimes, taking a status or joining a group requires a conversion experience, acquiring a new and overwhelming primary identity, such as becoming a “born again” Christian. hi. IAscribed statuses III Achieved statuses FIGURE 5.1 Social Statuses. The person in this figure–ego, – or -(–occupies many SOCIal statuses. The green Circles indicate ascribed statuses, the purple circles representachieved statuses. f” TABLE 5.2 American Hispanics, Latinos, 2002 National Origin Percentage Mexican American 66.9% Puerto Rican 8.6 Cuban 3.7 Central & South American 14.3 Other Hispanic/Latino origin 6.5 Total 100.0% SOURCE, R. R. Ramirez and G. P. de 10 Cruz, “The Hispanic Population in the United States,” Current Population Reports, 2003, P20-545. U.S. Census Bureau. “Hispanic” and “Latino” are ethnic categories that cross-cut Some statuses aren’t mutually exclusive, but “racial” contrasts such contextual. People can be both black and His­ as that between panic, or both a mother and a senator. One iden­ “black” and “white.” tity is used in certain settings, another in different Note the physical ones. We call this the situational negotiation of diversity exemplified by social identity. When ethnic identity is flexible these Latina teenagers and situational, it can become an achieved sta­ tus (Leman 2001). Hispanics, for example, may move through levels of culture (shifting ethnic affiliations) as they negotiate their identities. “Hispanic” is an ethnic category based mainly on language. It includes whites, blacks, and “racially” mixed Spanish speakers and their ethnically conscious descendants. (There are also “Native American,” and even” Asian,” Hispanics.) “Hispanic,” repre­ senting the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, lumps together millions of people of diverse geographic origin-Puerto Rico, Mex­ ico, Cuba, EI Salvador, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and other Spanish-speaking countries of Central and South America and the Caribbean. 1 “Latino” is a broader category, which can also a1 include Brazilians (who speak Portuguese). The dl national origins of American Hispanics/Latinos U II~ in 2002 were as shown in Table 5.2. Mexican Americans (Chicanos), Cuban Amer­ oj icans, and Puerto Ricans may mobilize to pro­ ~~ mote general Hispanic issues (e.g., opposition to “English-only” laws) but act as three separate d interest groups in other contexts. Cuban Ameri­ cans are richer on average than Chicanos and ~ Puerto Ricans are, and their class interests and vot­ rl ing patterns differ. Cubans often vote Republican, 11i but Puerto Ricans and Chicanos are more likely to l:j favor Democrats. Some Mexican Americans whose ~ families have lived in the United States for genera­ ~ tions have little in common with new Hispanic immigrants, such as those from Central America. ~ Many Americans (especially those fluent in Eng­ ~ lish) claim Hispanic ethnicity in some contexts but ~ shift to a general” American” identity in others. In many societies an ascribed status is associ­ ated with a position in the social-political hierar­ chy. Certain groups, called minority groups, are subordinate. They have inferior power and less secure access to resources than do majority groups (which are superordinate, dominant, or control­ ling). Often ethnic groups are minorities. When an ethnic group is assumed to have a biological basis (distinctively shared “blood” or genes), it is called a race. Discrimination against such a group is called racism (Cohen 1998; Kuper 2005; Montagu 1997; Scupin 2003; Shanklin 1995). RACE Race, like ethnicity in general, is a cultural cate­ gory rather than a biological reality. That is, eth­ nic groups, including “races,” derive from contrasts perceived and perpetuated in particu­ lar societies, such as Ghana, as described in the “News Brief,” rather than from scientific classifi­ cations based on common genes (see Wade 2002). It is not possible to define human races biolog­ ically. Only cultural constructions of race are possible-even though the average person con­ ceptualizes “race” in biological terms. The belief that human races exist and are important is much more common among the public than it is among scientists. Most Americans, for example, believe that their population includes biologi­ cally based “races” to which various labels have been applied. These labels include “white,” “black,” “yellow,” “red,” “Caucasoid,” “Negroid,” “Mongoloid,” “Amerindian,” “Euro-American,” “African American,” “Asian American,” and “Native American.” We hear the words ethnicity and race frequently, but American culture doesn’t draw a very clear line between them. As an illustration, consider two 100 PART 2 Cultural Diversity _____________________ u so ie )s r­ )­ o e 1­ :i articles in the New York Times of May 29,1992. One, discussing the changing ethnic composition of the United States, states (correctly) that Hispanics “can be of any race” (Barringer 1992, p. A12). In other words, “Hispanic” is an ethnic category that cross-cuts “racial” contrasts such as that between “black” and “white.” The other article reports that during the Los Angeles riots of spring 1992, “hun­ dreds of Hispanic residents were interrogated about their immigration status on the basis of their race alone [emphasis added]” (Mydans 1992a, American rules for assigning racial status can be even more arbitrary. In some states, anyone known to have any black ancestor, no matter how remote, is classified as a member of the black race. This is a rule of descent (it assigns social identity on the basis of ancestry), but of a sort that is rare outside the contemporary United States. It is called hypodescent (Harris and Kottak 1963) (hypo means “lower”) because it automatically places the children of a union or mating between members of different groups in the minority group. Hypodescent helps divide American soci­ ety into groups that have been unequal in their access to wealth, power, and prestige. The following case from Louisiana is an excel­ lent illustration of the arbitrariness of the hypo­ descent rule. It also illustrates the role that governments (federal, or state in this case) play in legalizing, inventing, or eradicating race and eth­ nicity (Williams 1989). Susie Guillory Phipps, a light-skinned woman with “Caucasian” features and straight black hair, discovered as an adult that she was “black.” When Phipps ordered a copy of her birth certificate, she found her race listed as “colored.” Since she had been “brought up white and married white twice,” Phipps challenged a 1970 Louisiana law declaring anyone with at least one-thirty-second “Negro blood” to be legally black. In other words, having 1 “Negro” great­ great-great-grandparent out of 32 is sufficient to make one black. Although the state’s lawyer Chapter 5 Ethnicity and Race Tiger Woods in Texas for the EDS Byron Nelson Championship on May 14, 2004 The numberof inter­ racial marriages and children is increasing. which has implications for the traditional Amer­ ican system of racial classification What IS Tigers race? Map 7plats the distribution -of human skin calor in relation to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. 101 admitted that Phipps “looks like a white person,” the state of Louisiana insisted that her racial clas­ sification was proper (Yetman 1991, pp. 3–4). Cases like Phipps’s are rare, because “racial” and ethnic identities are usually ascribed at birth and usually don’t change. The rule of hypodes­ cent affects blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics differently (see Hunter 2005). It’s easier to negotiate Indian or Hispanic identity than black identity. The ascription rule isn’t as definite, and the assumption of a biological basis isn’t as strong. To be considered “Native American,” one ancestor out of eight (great-grandparents) or four (grandparents) may suffice. This depends on il whether the assignment is by federal or state law p or by an Indian tribal council. The child of a His­ n panic may (or may not, depending on context) at claim Hispanic identity. Many Americans with an fe Indian or Latino grandparent consider them­ bE selves “white” and lay no claim to minority­ group status. otl {.-~ C Perceptions of Race and Skin Color on an American College Campus 1!!8ACKGROUND INfORMATION fmlDlln: Gretchen M. Haupt !!SUl’EllVISING PROFESSOR: Donna Hart SotooL: University of Missouri-St. Louis YIAR IN SCHOOL/MAJOR: Junior/ Anth ropology FUTURE PLANS: Complete a master’s in library science and pursue research as a librarian in an academic setting. PRoJKT Tm£: Perceptions of Race and Skin Color on an American College Campus For her senior honors thesis, Gretchen Haupt plans to buildon the research pro­ ject described here. To demonstrate that Americans’ perceptions of race, in relation toskin color, are arbitrary and socially constructed, Haupt asked asample of 30 students, Euro-Americans and African Americans, to complete a task: place 30 pigment chips inorder from darkest to lightest. Having done so, they were then asked to identify the dividing line between “black” and “white.” How much unifor­ mity do you expect shefound in their responses? Read the essay tofind out. T here is no such biological reality as separate human races. Extensive research conducted on the subject of variation within our species has only served to confirm that the biological definition of race is not applicable to humans. Despite this, people continue to put the global population in neat, concise little groups (or at least they attempt to). Inevitably, the dividing lines between geographic and/or eth­ nic groups cannot be genetically sup­ ported since there are no specific sets of alleles correlated with the common divisions of white, black, red, brown, or however many racial categories are postulated. While Homo sapiens manifests variation in physical charac­ teristics related to a population’s origi­ nal geographic environment, the most commonly used method for catego­ rization and race assignment in the United States is skin color. Conse­ quently, I chose to focus my research on the assumptions Americans make about race and skin color. Through this research project I wanted to test my hypothesis that the point on a continuum at which an indi­ vidual labels skin color “white” or “black” is arbitrary and subjective, therefore supporting the idea that pig­ mentation does not translate into per­ ceived races. I collected data from thirty individuals on the University of Missouri-St. Louis campus by means of surveys using thirty skin-tone color chips, from deep brown to pale cream. The chips were paint samples mounted on a white index card, ran­ domly assigned a letter or symbol. Each participant was asked to place the color chips in order from darkest to lightest and then identify where “black” ended and “white” began. By forcing individuals to choose a dividing point, I was able to evaluate hidden percep­ tions. They were also asked to select a color they thought most closely matched their own skin tone, where they placed their ancestry geographically, and where they would place their chosen skin color geographically. Even though a person may intellec­ tually accept that there are no biologi­ cally distinct races, it is my opinion that they will still evaluate every other person they encounter and attempt to assign them to one of a minimum of two groups. This illustrates how race is a socially constructed concept rather than one based in scientific fact. For the purpose of my research, I limited the group designations to African descent and European descent. My research found considerable variability in color placement (no one placed the chips in the same order) and the point of division. My research sub­ jects were asked to select the point on their constructed color continuum (the order in which they had placed the color chips) indicating where “white” skin color ended and “black” skin color began. The most commonly chosen division point was between positions 19 and 20 (smaller numbers indicate darker; larger numbers, lighter skin tone). This point was chosen by 9 of the 30 people I surveyed. The choices of the other 21 spanned between posi­ tions 15/16 and 26/27. To prevent bias, I kept track of the colors by means of letters and symbols on the back of each chip. Letters were assigned randomly. On closer examina­ tion of the actual color chips chosen by the nine people who selected 19/20, I discovered that they had not chosen the same colors. Where one person had placed chip “Y” as number 19 (indicat­ ing s/he felt that was a black skin tone) and chip “X” as 20 (indicating s/he felt that was a white skin tone), the next had chosen different color chips-“J” and “R” (for example) for the same positions. There were even instances where the choices were complete reversals (one person chose “Y” as white and the next chose “Y” as black). I plan to continue this research as my senior thesis (devoting a total of ten academic credit hours to the project), and expand my data collection to include individuals belonging to other ethnicities (e.g., Native American and Asian) to determine further the degree to which race is socially constructed. Chapter 5 Ethnicity and Race 103




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.