+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

This week, you indeed have some work to do. In order to help with that, I’ve attempted to use your discussion board assignment to help scaffold the work required in your Reading Response #1 due this week.

In the To Do List, you were instructed to thoroughly read 3 of Module 3’s assigned readings. In this discussion, I want you to choose one complete quote from each of the three readings of your choice that you found particularly impactful, informative, and/or illusory concerning race, class, and inequality in an introductory sense. Be sure to quote using a citation style you are most comfortable with (ASA, MLA, APA), the reading, and page number where you located it for others to reference. After your quote, write a brief description of why you chose the quote, what you learned, what you liked/didn’t, etc.

You must still meaningfully comment on the posts’ of 2 class members. Consider offering various perspectives, understandings, and connections on the quote(s) of their choice.

RACIAL FORMATIONS
Michael Omi • Howard Winant
Michael Omi and Howard Winant, eds., Racial Formation in the United States, Second
Edition, pp. 3-13.
In 1982-83, Susie Guillory Phipps unsuccessfully sued the Louisiana Bureau of Vital
Records to change her racial classification from black to white. The descendant of an
eighteenth-century white planter and a black slave, Phipps was designated “black” in her
birth certificate in accordance with a 1970 state law which declared anyone with at least
one-thirty-second “Negro blood” to be black. The legal battle raised intriguing questions
about the concept of race, its meaning in contemporary society, and its use (and abuse) in
public policy. Assistant Attorney General Ron Davis defended the law by pointing out that
some type of racial classification was necessary to comply with federal record-keeping
requirements and to facilitate programs for the prevention of genetic diseases. Phipps’s
attorney, Brian Begue, argued that the assignment of racial categories on birth certificates
was unconstitutional and that the one-thirty-second designation was inaccurate. He called
on a retired Tulane University professor who cited research indicating that most whites
have one-twentieth “Negro” ancestry. In the end, Phipps lost. The court upheld a state law
which quantified racial identity, and in so doing affirmed the legality of assigning individuals
to specific racial groupings.1
The Phipps case illustrates the continuing dilemma of defining race and establishing its
meaning in institutional life. Today, to assert that variations in human physiognomy are
racially based is to enter a constant and intense debate. Scientific interpretations of race
have not been alone in sparking heated controversy; religious perspectives have done so
as well.2 Most centrally, of course, race has been a matter of political contention. This has
been particularly true in the United States, where the concept of race has varied
enormously over time without ever leaving the center stage of US history.
What Is Race?
Race consciousness, and its articulation in theories of race, is largely a modern
phenomenon. When European explorers in the New World “discovered” people who
looked different than themselves, these “natives” challenged then existing conceptions of
the origins of the human species, and raised disturbing questions as to whether all could
be considered in the same “family of man.”3 Religious debates flared over the attempt to
reconcile the Bible with the existence of “racially distinct” people. Arguments took place
over creation itself, as theories of polygenesis questioned whether God had made only one
species of humanity (“monogenesis”). Europeans wondered if the natives of the New
World were indeed human beings with redeemable souls. At stake were not only the
prospects for conversion, but the types of treatment to be accorded them. The
expropriation of property, the denial of political rights, the introduction of slavery and other
forms of coercive labor, as well as outright extermination, all presupposed a worldview
which distinguished Europeans—children of God, human beings, etc.—from “others.” Such
a worldview was needed to explain why some should be “free” and others enslaved, why
some had rights to land and property while others did not. Race, and the interpretation of
racial differences, was a central factor in that worldview.
In the colonial epoch science was no less a field of controversy than religion in attempts to
comprehend the concept of race and its meaning. Spurred on by the classificatory scheme
of living organisms devised by Linnaeus in Systema Naturae, many scholars in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries dedicated themselves to the identification and ranking
of variations in humankind. Race was thought of as a biological concept, yet its precise
definition was the subject of debates which, as we have noted, continue to rage today.
Despite efforts ranging from Dr. Samuel Morton’s studies of cranial capacity4 to
contemporary attempts to base racial classification on shared gene pools,5 the concept of
race has defied biological definition. . . .
Attempts to discern the scientific meaning of race continue to the present day. Although
most physical anthropologists and biologists have abandoned the quest for a scientific
basis to determine racial categories, controversies have recently flared in the area of
genetics and educational psychology. For instance, an essay by Arthur Jensen argued that
hereditary factors shape intelligence not only revived the “nature or nurture” controversy,
but raised highly volatile questions about racial equality itself.6 Clearly the attempt to
establish a biological basis of race has not been swept into the dustbin of history, but is
being resurrected in various scientific arenas. All such attempts seek to remove the
concept of race from fundamental social, political, or economic determination. They
suggest instead that the truth of race lies in the terrain of innate characteristics, of which
skin color and other physical attributes provide only the most obvious, and in some
respects most superficial, indicators.
Race as a Social Concept
The social sciences have come to reject biologistic notions of race in favor of an approach
which regards race as a social concept. Beginning in the eighteenth century, this trend has
been slow and uneven, but its direction clear. In the nineteenth century Max Weber
discounted biological explanations for racial conflict and instead highlighted the social and
political factors which engendered such conflict.7 The work of pioneering cultural
anthropologist Franz Boas was crucial in refuting the scientific racism of the early twentieth
century by rejecting the connection between race and culture, and the assumption of a
continuum of “higher” and “lower” cultural groups. Within the contemporary social science
literature, race is assumed to be a variable which is shaped by broader societal forces.
Race is indeed a pre-eminently socio-historical concept. Racial categories and the
meaning of race are given concrete expression by the specific social relations and
historical context in which they are embedded. Racial meanings have varied tremendously
over time and between different societies.
In the United States, the black/white color line has historically been rigidly defined and
enforced. White is seen as a “pure” category. Any racial intermixture makes one
“nonwhite.” In the movie Raintree County, Elizabeth Taylor describes the worst of fates to
befall whites as “havin a little Negra blood in ya’ just one little teeny drop and a persons all
Negra.”8 This thinking flows from what Marvin Harris has characterized as the principle of
hypo-descent:
By what ingenious computation is the genetic tracery of a million years of evolution unraveled and
each man [sic] assigned his proper social box? In the United States, the mechanism employed is the
rule of hypo-descent. This descent rule requires Americans to believe that anyone who is known to
**principle that
have had a Negro ancestor is a Negro. We admit nothing in between. . . . “Hypo-descent” means
affiliation with the subordinate rather than the superordinate group in order to avoid the ambiguity ofjustifies the one
drop rule
intermediate identity. . . . The rule of hypo-descent is, therefore, an invention, which we in the United
States have made in order to keep biological facts from intruding into our collective racist fantasies.9
The Susie Guillory Phipps case merely represents the contemporary expression of this
racial logic.
By contrast, a striking feature of race relations in the lowland areas of Latin America since
the abolition of slavery has been the relative absence of sharply defined racial groupings.
No such rigid descent rule characterizes racial identity in many Latin American societies.
Brazil, for example, has historically had less rigid conceptions of race, and thus a variety of
“intermediate” racial categories exist. Indeed, as Harris notes, “One of the most striking
consequences of the Brazilian system of racial identification is that parents and children
and even brothers and sisters are frequently accepted as representatives of quite opposite
racial types.”10 Such a possibility is incomprehensible within the logic of racial categories in
the US.
To suggest another example: the notion of “passing” takes on new meaning if we compare
various American cultures’ means of assigning racial identity. In the United States,
individuals who are actually “black” by the logic of hypo-descent have attempted to skirt
the discriminatory barriers imposed by law and custom by attempting to “pass” for white.11
Ironically, these same individuals would not be able to pass for “black” in many Latin
American societies.
Consideration of the term “black” illustrates the diversity of racial meanings which can be
found among different societies and historically within a given society. In contemporary
British politics the term “black” is used to refer to all nonwhites. Interestingly this
designation has not arisen through the racist discourse of groups such as the National
Front. Rather, in political and cultural movements, Asian as well as Afro-Caribbean youth
are adopting the term as an expression of self-identity.12 The wide-ranging meanings of
“black” illustrate the manner in which racial categories are shaped politically.13
The meaning of race is defined and contested throughout society, in both collective action
and personal practice. In the process, racial categories themselves are formed,
transformed, destroyed and reformed. We use the term racial formation to refer to the
process by which social, economic and political forces determine the content and
importance of racial categories, and by which they are in turn shaped by racial meanings.
Crucial to this formulation is the treatment of race as a central axis of social relations which
cannot be subsumed under or reduced to some broader category or conception.
Racial Ideology and Racial Identity
The seemingly obvious, “natural” and “common sense” qualities which the existing racial
order exhibits themselves testify to the effectiveness of the racial formation process in
constructing racial meanings and racial identities.
One of the first things we notice about people when we meet them (along with their sex) is
their race. We utilize race to pro vide clues abut who a person is. This fact is made
painfully obvious when we encounter someone whom we cannot conveniently racially
categorize—someone who is, for example, racially “mixed” or of an ethnic/ racial group
with which we are not familiar. Such an encounter becomes a source of discomfort and
momentarily a crisis of racial meaning. Without a racial identity, one is in danger of having
no identity.
Our compass for navigating race relations depends on preconceived notions of what each
specific racial group looks like. Comments such as, “Funny, you don’t look black,” betray
an underlying image of what black should be. We also become disoriented when people
do not act “black,” “Latino,” or indeed “white.” The content of such stereotypes reveals a
series of unsubstantiated beliefs about who these groups are and what “they” are like.14
In US society, then, a kind of “racial etiquette” exists, a set of interpretative codes and
racial meanings which operate in the interactions of daily life. Rules shaped by our
perception of race in a comprehensively racial society determine the “presentation of
self,”15 distinctions of status, and appropriate modes of conduct. “Etiquette” is not mere
universal adherence to the dominant group’s rules, but a more dynamic combination of
these rules with the values and beliefs of subordinated groupings. This racial “subjection”
is quintessentially ideological. Everybody learns some combination, some version, of the
rules of racial classification, and of their own racial identity, often without obvious teaching
or conscious inculcation. Race becomes “common sense”—a way of comprehending,
explaining and acting in the world.
Racial beliefs operate as an “amateur biology,” a way of explaining the variations in
“human nature.”16 Differences in skin color and other obvious physical characteristics
supposedly provide visible clues to differences lurking underneath. Temperament,
sexuality, intelligence, athletic ability, aesthetic preferences and so on are presumed to be
fixed and discernible from the palpable mark of race. Such diverse questions as our
confidence and trust in others (for example, clerks or salespeople, media figures,
neighbors), our sexual preferences and romantic images, our tastes in music, films, dance,
or sports, and our very ways of talking, walking, eating and dreaming are ineluctably
shaped by notions of race. Skin color “differences” are thought to explain perceived
differences in intellectual, physical and artistic temperaments, and to justify distinct
treatment of racially identified individuals and groups.
The continuing persistence of racial ideology suggests that these racial myths and
stereotypes cannot be exposed as such in the popular imagination. They are, we think, too
essential, too integral, to the maintenance of the US social order. Of course, particular
meanings, stereotypes and myths can change, but the presence of a system of racial
meanings and stereotypes, of racial ideology, seems to be a permanent feature of US
culture.
Film and television, for example, have been notorious in disseminating images of racial
minorities which establish for audiences what people from these groups look like, how they
behave, and “who they are.”17 The power of the media lies not only in their ability to reflect
the dominant racial ideology, but in their capacity to shape that ideology in the first place.
D. W. Griffith’s epic Birth of a Nation, a sympathetic treatment of the rise of the Ku Klux
Klan during Reconstruction, helped to generate, consolidate and “nationalize” images of
blacks which had been more disparate (more regionally specific, for example) prior to the
film’s appearance.18 In US television, the necessity to define characters in the briefest and
most condensed manner has led to the perpetuation of racial caricatures, as racial
stereotypes serve as shorthand for scriptwriters, directors and actors, in commercials, etc.
Televisions tendency to address the “lowest common denominator” in order to render
programs “familiar” to an enormous and diverse audience leads it regularly to assign and
reassign racial characteristics to particular groups, both minority and majority.
These and innumerable other examples show that we tend to view race as something fixed
and immutable—something rooted in “nature.” Thus we mask the historical construction of
racial categories, the shifting meaning of race, and the crucial role of politics and ideology
in shaping race relations. Races do not emerge full-blown. They are the results of diverse
historical practices and are continually subject to challenge over their definition and
meaning.
Racialization: The Historical Development of Race
In the United States, the racial category of “black” evolved with the consolidation of racial
slavery. By the end of the seventeenth century, Africans whose specific identity was Ibo,
Yoruba, Fulani, etc., were rendered “black” by an ideology of exploitation based on racial
logic—the establishment and maintenance of a “color line.” This of course did not occur
overnight. A period of indentured servitude which was not rooted in racial logic preceded
the consolidation of racial slavery. With slavery, however, a racially based understanding
of society was set in motion which resulted in the shaping of a specific racial identity not
only for the slaves but for the European settlers as well. Winthrop Jordan has observed:
“From the initially common term Christian, at mid-century there was a marked shift toward
the terms English and free. After about 1680, taking the colonies as a whole, a new term of
self-identification appeared—white.”19
We employ the term racialization to signify the extension of racial meaning to a previously
racially unclassified relationship, social practice or group. Racialization is an ideological
process, an historically specific one. Racial ideology is constructed from pre-existing
conceptual (or, if one prefers, “discursive”) elements and emerges from the struggles of
competing political projects and ideas seeking to articulate similar elements differently. An
account of racialization processes that avoids the pitfalls of US ethnic history20 remains to
be written.
Particularly during the nineteenth century, the category of “white” was subject to
challenges brought about by the influx of diverse groups who were not of the same AngloSaxon stock as the founding immigrants. In the nineteenth century, political and ideological
struggles emerged over the classification of Southern Europeans, the Irish and Jews,
among other “nonwhite” categories.21 Nativism was only effectively curbed by the
institutionalization of a racial order that drew the color line around, rather than within,
Europe.
By stopping short of racializing immigrants from Europe after the Civil War, and by
subsequently allowing their assimilation, the American racial order was reconsolidated in
the wake of the tremendous challenge placed before it by the abolition of racial slavery.22
With the end of Reconstruction in 1877, an effective program for limiting the emergent
class struggles of the later nineteenth century was forged: the definition of the working
class in racial terms—as “white.” This was not accomplished by any legislative decree or
capitalist maneuvering to divide the working class, but rather by white workers themselves.
Many of them were recent immigrants, who organized on racial lines as much as on
traditionally defined class lines.23 The Irish on the West Coast, for example, engaged in
vicious anti-Chinese race-baiting and committed many pogrom-type assaults on Chinese
in the course of consolidating the trade union movement in California.
Thus the very political organization of the working class was in important ways a racial
project. The legacy of racial conflicts and arrangements shaped the definition of interests
and in turn led to the consolidation of institutional patterns (e.g., segregated unions, dual
labor markets, exclusionary legislation) which perpetuated the color line within the working
class. Selig Perlman, whose study of the development of the labor movement is fairly
sympathetic to this process, notes that:
The political issue after 1877 was racial, not financial, and the weapon was not merely the ballot, but
also “direct action”-violence. The anti-Chinese agitation in California, culminating as it did in the
Exclusion Law passed by Congress in 1882, was doubtless the most important single factor in the
history of American labor, for without it the entire country might have been overrun by Mongolian [sic]
labor and the labor movement might have become a conflict of races instead of one of classes.24
More recent economic transformations in the US have also altered interpretations of racial
identities and meanings. The automation of southern agriculture and the augmented labor
demand of the postwar boom transformed blacks from a largely rural, impoverished labor
force to a largely urban, working-class group by 1970.25 When boom became bust and
liberal welfare statism moved rightwards, the majority of blacks came to be seen,
increasingly, as part of the “underclass,” as state “dependents.” Thus the particularly
deleterious effects on blacks of global and national economic shifts (generally rising
unemployment rates, changes in the employment structure away from reliance on labor
intensive work, etc.) were explained once again in the late 1970s and 1980s (as they had
been in the 1940s and mid-1960s) as the result of defective black cultural norms, of
familial disorganization, etc.26 In this way new racial attributions, new racial myths, are
affixed to “blacks.”27 Similar changes in racial identity are presently affecting Asians and
Latinos, as such economic forces as increasing Third World impoverishment and
indebtedness fuel immigration and high interest rates, Japanese competition spurs
resentments, and US jobs seem to fly away to Korea and Singapore.28 . . .
Once we understand that race overflows the boundaries of skin color, super-exploitation,
social stratification, discrimination and prejudice, cultural domination and cultural
resistance, state policy (or of any other particular social relationship we list), once we
recognize the racial dimension present to some degree in every identity, institution and
social practice in the United States—once we have done this, it becomes possible to
speak of racial formation. This recognition is hard-won; there is a continuous temptation to
think of race as an essence, as something fixed, concrete and objective, as (for example)
one of the categories just enumerated. And there is also an opposite temptation: to see it
as a mere illusion, which an ideal social order would eliminate.
In our view it is crucial to break with these habits of thought. The effort must be made to
understand race as an unstable and “decentered” complex of social meanings constantly
being transformed by political struggle.
NOTES
1. San Francisco Chronicle, 14 September 1982, 19 May 1983. Ironically, the 1970 Louisiana law was
enacted to supersede an old Jim Crow statute which relied on the idea of “common report” in
determining an infant’s race. Following Phipps’s unsuccessful attempt to change her classification
and have the law declared unconstitutional, a legislative effort arose which culminated in the repeal
of the law. See San Francisco Chronicle, 23 June 1983.
2. The Mormon church, for example, has been heavily criticized for its doctrine of black inferiority.
3. Thomas F. Gossett notes: Race theory . . . had up until fairly modern times no firm hold on European
thought. On the other hand, race theory and race prejudice were by no means unknown at the time
when the English colonists came to North America. Undoubtedly, the age of exploration led many to
speculate on race differences at a period when neither Europeans nor Englishmen were prepared to
make allowances for vast cultural diversities. Even though race theories had not then secured wide
acceptance or even sophisticated formulation, the first contacts of the Spanish with the Indians in the
Americas can now be recognized as the beginning of a struggle between conceptions of the nature
of primitive peoples which has not yet been wholly settled. (Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of
an Idea in America (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), p. 16.) Winthrop Jordan provides a detailed
account of early European colonialists’ attitudes about color and race in White over Black: American
Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (New York: Norton, 1977 [1968]), pp. 3-43.
4. Pro-slavery physician Samuel George Morton (1799-1851) compiled a collection of 800 crania from
all parts of the world which formed the sample for his studies of race. Assuming that the larger the
size of the cranium translated into greater intelligence, Morton established a relationship between
race and skull capacity. Gossett reports that: In 1849, one of his studies included the following
results: The English skulls in his collection proved to be the largest, with an average cranial capacity
of 96 cubic inches. The Americans and Germans were rather poor seconds, both with cranial
capacities of 90 cubic inches. At the bottom of the list were the Negroes with 83 cubic inches, the
Chinese with 82, and the Indians with 79. (Ibid., p. 74.) On Morton’s methods, see Stephen J. Gould,
“The Finagle Factor,” Human Nature (July 1978).
5. Definitions of race founded upon a common pool of genes have not held up when confronted by
scientific research which suggests that the differences within a given human population are greater
than those between populations. See L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, “.’The Genetics of Human Populations,”
Scientific American, September 1974, pp. 81-89.
6. Arthur Jensen, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?”, Harvard Educational
Review 39 (1969):1-123.
7. Ernst Moritz Manasse, “Max Weber on Race,” Social Research 14 (1947):191-221.
8. Quoted in Edward D. C. Campbell, Jr., The Celluloid South: Hollywood and the Southern Myth
(Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1981), pp. 168-70.
9. Marvin Harris, Patterns of Race in the Americas (New York: Norton, 1964), p. 56.
10. Ibid., p. 57.
11. After James Meredith had been admitted as the first black student at the University of Mississippi,
Harry S. Murphy announced that he, and not Meredith, was the first black student to attend “Ole
Miss.” Murphy described himself as black but was able to pass for white and spent nine months at
the institution without attracting any notice (ibid., p. 56).
12. A. Sivanandan, “From Resistance to Rebellion: Asian and Afro-Caribbean Struggles in Britain,” Race
and Class 23(2-3) (Autumn- Winter 1981).
13. Consider the contradictions in racial status which abound in the country with the most rigidly defined
racial categories-South Africa. There a race classification agency is employed to adjudicate claims
for upgrading of official racial identity. This is particularly necessary for the “coloured” category. The
apartheid system considers Chinese as “Asians” while the Japanese are accorded the status of
“honorary whites.” This logic nearly detaches race from any grounding in skin color and other
physical attributes and nakedly exposes, race as a juridical category subject to economic, social and
political influences. (We are indebted to Steve Talbot for clarification of some of these points.)
14. Gordon W Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Garden City, NY. Doubleday,1958), pp. 184-200.
15. We wish to use this phrase loosely, without committing ourselves to a particular position on such
social psychological approaches as symbolic interactionism, which are outside the scope of this
study. An interesting study on this subject is S.M. Lyman and W.A. Douglass, “Ethnicity: Strategies
of Individual and Collective Impression Management,” Social Research 40(2) (1973).
16. Michael Billig, “Patterns of Racism: Interviews with National Front Members,” Race and Class 20(2)
(Autumn 1978):161-79.
17. “Miss San Antonio USA Lisa Fernandez and other Hispanics auditioning for a role in a television
soap-opera did not fit the Holly wood image of real Mexicans and had to darken their faces before
filming.” Model Aurora Garza said that their faces were bronzed with powder because they looked
too white. “‘I’m a real Mexican [Garza said] and very dark anyway. I’m even darker right now
because I have a tan. But they kept wanting me to make my face darker and darker’ ” (San
Francisco Chronicle, 21 September 1984). A similar dilemma faces Asian American actors who feel
that Asian character lead roles inevitably go to white actors who make themselves up to be Asian.
Scores of Charlie Chan films, for example, have been made with white leads (the last one was the
1981 Charlie Chan and the Curse of Dragon Queen). Roland Winters, who played in six Chan
features, was asked by playwright Frank Chin to explain the logic of casting a white man in the role
of Charlie Chan: “‘The only thing I can think of is, if you want to cast a homosexual in a show, and
get a homosexual, it’ll be awful. It won’t be funny . . . and maybe there’s something there . . .’ ”
(Frank Chin, “Confessions the Chinatown Cowboy,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 4(3) (Fall
1972)).
18. Melanie Martindale-Sikes, “Nationalizing ‘Nigger’ Imagery Through ‘Birth of a Nation’,” paper
prepared for the 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, 4–8 September
1978, San Francisco.
19. Jordan, White over Black, p. 95; emphasis added.
20. Historical focus has been placed either on particular racially defined groups or on immigration and
the “incorporation” of ethnic groups. In the former case the characteristic ethnicity theory pitfalls and
apologetics such as functionalism and cultural pluralism may be avoided, but only by sacrificing
much of the focus on race. In the latter case, race is considered a manifestation of ethnicity.
21. The degree of antipathy for these groups should not be minimized. A northern commentator
observed in the 1850s: “An Irish Catholic seldom attempts to rise to a higher condition than that in
which he is placed, while the Negro often makes the attempt with success.” Quoted in Gossett, op.
cit., p. 288.
22. This analysis, as will perhaps be obvious, is essentially DuBoisian. Its main source will be found in
the monumental (and still largely unappreciated) Black Reconstruction the United States, 1860-1880
(New York: Atheneum,1977 [1935]).
23. Alexander Saxton argues that:
North Americans of European background have experienced three great racial
confrontations: with the Indian, with the African, and with the Oriental. Central to each
transaction has been a totally one-sided preponderance of power, exerted for the
exploitation of nonwhites by the dominant white society. In each case (but especially in the
two that began with systems of enforced labor), white workingmen have played a crucial, yet
ambivalent, role. They have been both exploited and exploiters. On the one hand, thrown
into competition with nonwhites as enslaved or “cheap” labor they suffered economically; on
the other hand, being white, they benefited by that very exploitation which was compelling
the nonwhites to work for low wages or for nothing. Ideologically they were drawn in opposite
directions. Racial identification cut at right angles to class consciousness. (Alexander
Saxton, The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti- Chinese Movement in California
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971), p. 1; emphasis added.)
24. Selig Perlman, The History of Trade Unionism in the United States (New York: Augustus Kelley,
1950), p. 52; emphasis added.
25. Whether southern blacks were “peasants” or rural workers is unimportant in this context. Some time
during the 1960s blacks attained a higher degree of urbanization than whites. Before World War lI
most blacks had been rural dwellers and nearly 80 percent lived in the South.
26. See George Gilder, Wealth and Poverty (New York: Basic Books, 1981); Charles Murray, Losing
Ground (New York: Basic Books, 1984).
27. A brilliant study of the racialization process in Britain, focused on the rise of “mugging” as a popular
fear in the 1970s, is Stuart Hall et al., Policing the Crisis (London: Macmillan, 1978).
28. The case of Vincent Chin, a Chinese American man beaten to death in 1982 by a laid-off Detroit auto
worker and his stepson who mistook him for Japanese and blamed him for the loss of their jobs, has
been widely publicized in Asian American communities. On immigration conflicts and pressures, see
Michael Omi, “New Wave Dread: Immigration and Intra-Third World Conflict,” Socialist Review 60
(November-December 1981).

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!