Delgado, Richard; Stefancic, Jean (2001-05-01). Critical Race Theory (Critical America (New York University Paperback)) (Kindle Location 252). NYU Press academic. Kindle Edition.
- According to Delgado and Stefanic (2001), Critical Race Theory is: “… [a] movement [which] is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.” Is there an inherent relationship between race and power? Please explain.
- "First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational—“normal science,” the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country. Second, most would agree that our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material. The first feature, ordinariness, means that racism is difficult to cure or address." The above quote speaks to the (specious) positioning of whiteness as normative, as the default “race”; how is this reality instantiated, and, how is it (potentially) damaging for non-whites?
- “Many modern-day readers believe that racism is declining or that class today is more important than race.” Where do you find yourself, theoretically, on this continuum? That is to ask, do you agree that class injustice now takes precedence of racial injustice; or, do you think that the obverse is true?
Roberts (2011). Fatal Inventions: How Science, Politics, and Big Business re-create race in the Twenty-First Century.
In response to the question that states, “Many modern-day readers believe that racism is declining or that class today is more important than race", I agree with the fact that racism is decreasing, and I also believe that people focus more on social class than race. In this reading, Delgado supports this argument by stating that obviously the extreme suffering such as "lynching and other shocking expressions of racism are less frequent than in the past". He also states that studies show that people of color live shorter lives, finish fewer years of school, and have worse medical care. These are all examples of how people of color have lesser opportunities and therefore struggle later on in life. But, is this because of their race, or is it because they are apart of the working class, giving them very little access to higher opportunity?
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, I find myself agreeing with this statement-- I think that if you are apart of a more developed social class, then you are going to have access to more opportunities and theoretically, live a more successful lifestyle. The availability of opportunities is very important when working toward your future. Obviously, if you have supportive parents that put you through school and push you to go to college, then you will most likely be able to find a job and have a steady income. If you are apart of the working-class, this is more of a struggle, because schooling and bright futures are not main priorities, no matter what race you are. In order to pursue a successful career, schooling, work ethic, experience, and integrity are just some of the very many qualities a company or organization looks for. These qualities stem from having the most beneficial resources, which are more accessible for individuals apart of the more developed social classes.
In conclusion, I believe that racism is decreasing. Like Delgado said, we do not perform any of the consequences of racism that were practiced in the past. An individuals placement in social class is very important toward their future lifestyle and it is parallel to the amount of accessibility and opportunity an individual has.
My interpretation of the first quote from Roberts about race as a political grouping (from the reading Fatal Inventions: How Science, Politics, and Big Business re-create race in the Twenty-First Century) is that race is often mistaken as an inherently biological grouping, but it is in fact an inherently political one. In the first chapter, Roberts gives an example by tracing back the history of how the stereotype that Africans were inferior to white men came to be. Biological grouping was a result of political grouping, and not vice versa. After all,as Roberts points out, biologically there is only one human race, and people's perceptions of so-called race continue to be molded by social and political factors. I think Roberts makes a good point because humans can be classified based on many things--height, shape of eyes, type of voice. But skin color happens to be closely tied to our ethnic origins, and so it happens that people naturally take the characteristic of skin color and latch it onto socio-political tensions that have occurred between groups of different cultures.
ReplyDeleteI would like to touch on and respond to the first and last questions about the CRT article. In regards to the relationship between race and power, I believe that today, the connection between the two is not as prominent as it was fifty years ago because of the higher prevalence of various other cultures; America is no longer viewed as black and white. Whites continue to dominate the higher and more professional positions in the workplace, but there are distinguished non-white leaders who have worked their way up the social, political, and economic ladder. When non-white or minority figures gain power in any of the aforementioned realms, they also increase the “power” of their race in the sense that they help that race gain recognition or publicity in some way (good or bad, it depends on the situation). I agree that there is an inherent relationship between race and power, but it is most prominent amongst non-whites.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda and there is a greater focus on social class than race today, especially in the bay area. I feel that there is greater diversity on both the west coast and the east coast, but I also realize that even within the bay, this diversity is regionalized and there are areas that can be characterized by the minority groups that live in that area. I believe that it is because of these areas characterized by race that there are fewer racial problems and class issues instead.
The portion of this reading that caught my attention was the paragraph about the third theme of the critical race theory: “the ‘social construction’ thesis, which holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations…races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient.” Delgado and Stefancic go on to discuss both human, higher-order traits like personality, intelligence and moral behavior as well as physical traits like skin color, physique, and hair texture, which they say have little or nothing to do with the former traits. They then observe that “society frequently chooses to ignore these scientific facts [human, higher-order traits], creates races, and endows them with pseudo-permanent characteristics…” I am not sure if I interpreted this idea the way Delgado and Sefancic wished to portray it, but they seem to be saying that physical traits bring races together rather than intelligence behavior and to me that makes sense. In any society or setting, it is the social atmosphere that has the greatest effect on ones social life. I feel that it is difficult for people to create a bond or lasting relationship solely on the basis of human, higher-order traits if they have distinct culture, which they wish to preserve or is prevalent in their lives. I would like to know other people’s opinion on this matter: what role do physical and higher-order traits play in different societies?
I believe that there certainly is an inherent relationship between race and power. I believe that those people that have the means of control and domination are mainly white. Although the critical race theory originated in the law, we see the overlapping of the theory being applied to education to explain the inequities that exist, particularly the achievement gap. The scholars denote that the development of the critical race theory began in the 1960s and 70s during the third liberation world front, Chicano movement and Black Panther movement, etc. These movements have been largely known for their emphasis on race and racism as it pertains to structures of oppression. I will say that gender and other forms of identification are just as important in our analyses. Further, these movements would have never existed if segregation, poverty or any other indicator of oppression would have existed. I will argue that, in some cases, things have only gotten worse. Schools are far more segregated than the early 20th century and people of color are struggling to find homes.
ReplyDeleteOur society is fascinated by categories. We attempt to categorize people and place a value onto them. This mentality has certainly applied to race as it relates to access to power. For example, the ways schools track their students has disproportionate effects on students of color. Tracking is a mechanism that creates the unequal outcomes for students; most do not have a choice in which track they will be placed in. In addition, race influences the prison complex system and educational system. Many states gather the reading scores of 3rd grade colored boys and determine how many jail cells to build for the future. This places people that are in governmental positions to have the power over the fate of students of color.
“Many modern-day readers believe that racism is declining or that class today is more important than race.” Where do you find yourself, theoretically, on this continuum? That is to ask, do you agree that class injustice now takes precedence of racial injustice; or, do you think that the obverse is true?
ReplyDeleteI believe that to assert that racism is declining or that class today is more important than race is a falsehood. To say that class trumps race in America is a failure to recognize the history of racism and oppression that have led to class and race becoming intricately linked in the United States. In America today poverty and race have become more or less synonymous; while outright racism and government-sanctioned segregation perhaps do not occur as they once did, different forms of racism have emerged. Segregation in terms of housing and educational and employment opportunities still persist and race is definitely still a valid issue in our country.
One thing that I do believe is overlooked when simply focusing on race is that it leaves out marginalized people that might not be considered minorities. For instance, focusing simply on race leaves out white Americans living in poverty. While black and Latinos are disproportionately poor, white Americans still comprise over half of the American population living below the poverty line. While no doubt being a minority in America presents obstacles and challenges, I feel like the plight of poor and working class white Americans is often overlooked as a result.
I believe that in present times class is more important than race. I know very judgmental people coming from a very low income ghetto and but going to school in a very country area. I know that more upper class citizens did not look down on people because of their race, and not necessarily because of their class either, but by their actions and in regards to the question, their actions were most closely related to their class, not their race.
ReplyDeleteI noticed my upper class associates critically judged people by the way that they dressed and the way that they talked. If a man, black or white walks by wearing a 4X Tall T and size 40 jeans but he's only 5'9 and 170 pounds, he is going to be judged differently than a man of the same physical characteristics but wearing jeans that fit and a buttoned-up shirt and tie.
The same goes for the other way around, my low class associates would judge a man driving a brand new Mercedes Benz than they would a man driving a 1999 Buick Skylark on 30" rims.
I believe that people are more judged by their class than their race because if someone were to read this, I believe that they would assume that the man wearing the baggy clothes and the man driving the Buick were both from a lower class compared to the man wearing a dress shirt and driving the Mercedes.
This is why I believe that people are not judged as much by their race but more by how they portrait themselves and I believe that class is more closely related to that than race is.
I don't believe that class discrimination is taking over race discrimination at all. I think both are important issues, but I don't think that it's fair to say one is taking over the other. I think we've simply redesigned racism. There's an article that I read for a different class, called the New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. According to that article, the U.S. isn't explicitly racist anymore. It's almost "uncool" to be explicitly racist. But we are racist in so many other ways. We label Blacks and Mexicans as being unmotivated, and perhaps even lazy or dangerous. It's false if we say that those stereotypes are all gone. Class discrimination is a huge deal too. We find ourselves judging people based on socioeconomic standings everyday. But I do think that the United States' stance on race is stronger. Sometimes, it even overlaps. Many lower-income tend to be racial minorities. So then, does it even matter if one takes precedence over the other? They eventually target the same group of people.
ReplyDelete