Week 1 Reading Response

This week, we read Chapters 1 and 2 from Ronald Takaki's A Different Mirror as well as Omi and Winant's "Racial Formation" and Feagin and Feagin's "Theoretical Perspectives in Race and Ethnic Relations."

In Chapter 1 of Takaki's book, he talks about the "narrow but widely shared sense of the past" that all Americans have, regardless of race or ethnicity. He states that Americans are usually viewed as someone that is European in ancestry and how other people that claim to be "American" but have an obviously non-European background are seen as suspect. Takaki also claims that race is not the same as ethnicity.

Omi and Winant's "Racial Formations" essay attempts to define race and makes a case of race as a mostly social construct. Race consciousness and the attempts to define race are a modern phenomenon that largely occurs in the United States. Omi and Winant discuss the different ways in which race is a social concept and that race is shaped by broader societal forces. The meaning of race is created by social relations and historical contexts. The concept of "racialization" is also discussed. "Racialization" is the extension of racial meaning to a previously racially unclassified relationship, social practice, or group. This concept also takes into account the issue of class and how people of certain racial groups also define themselves by the type of labor or work that they do. At the end of the essay, Omi and Winant assert that race is not fixed and that as a social concept, it is able to metamorphosis and change along with the culture.

"Theoretical Perspectives in Race and Ethnic Relations" by Feagin and Feagin discusses different theories of race relations in the United States. These are theories that don't necessarily work separately from one another. Some of the theories discussed in this article include ideas of assimilation, biosocial perspectives, competition theories, and class theories. Throughout the article, Feagin and Feagin define and describe the different theories and perspectives of race and ethnic relations in the U.S. and the faults of these differing theories and perspectives. The assimilation theories are discussed in depth since this is one of the oldest theories that is still currently seen as an acceptable practice. In the assimilation perspective, migrating groups adapt to the ways and institutions of the established majority. Milton Gordon outlined the stages of assimilation, but this theory is problematic because it focuses mostly on European immigrants that came to the United States voluntarily. The other two theories that had the most resonance were the Internal Colonialism theory and Neo-Marxist Emphasis on Class. These theories also focus on the importance of class when considering race and how racial groups are treated by the majority.

I found this week's readings to be intense but also full of new and interesting concepts to me. Takaki's book affected me as a person from a mixed-race background. The first chapter was especially effective in discussing how immigrants and the histories of immigrants of the United States has been ignored in texts about U.S. history. Takaki's personal story with the taxi driver touched me because any person that is non-white is always seen as suspect when they declare their American-ness. If a person does not fit into the narrow idea of what an "American" is, they are instantly seen as an exotic foreigner. I've had the opposite happen to me. Since I have light skin and don't have an accent, I am instantly accepted as an American or "white" at face value. When I reveal my mixed ancestry: Irish, French-Canadian, Native-American, Mexican, and Chinese; I am greeted by suspicion. How could I possibly contain all of these backgrounds when I don't "look" ethnic or even ambiguously mixed? I also feel like there is something else in play with this suspicious reaction: why would I want to be seen as anything other than white? That is why I sometimes keep my racial background to myself because I then have to explain my convoluted background story and explain my family tree in detail.

I found Omi and Winant's article interesting especially when they discussed the role of the government in forming and upholding ideas of race in the U.S. It's interesting to compare the United States' very strict definition of race and racial differences to the way that Omi and Winant stated that Latin America, and Brazil in particular, choose not to define race. I wonder if we will ever reach a point in the U.S. where race can be seen as a more fluid concept, like sexuality.

Feagin and Feagin's article was difficult to digest but definitely worth it in order to learn about the different perspectives on racial formation in the U.S. The article presents the theories as separate entities but I think in order to truly encapsulate race in the United States, we need to use multiple theories outlined. The assimilation theory seemed old fashioned in its concepts; that one must assimilate in order to be accepted in the U.S. I can understand this theory to a point, it would be impossible to engage with society if you didn't speak the same language but this theory seemed like an either/or proposition to me. Either you have to give up your heritage or you will never fit into American society and reap the benefits. I think that this theory has evolved a bit from its first inception. The theories that struck me as being the most likely included issues of class and gender. The Neo-Marxist Emphasis on Class struck me as particularly valid, as I don't think that class and race can exist separately.