Race and Ethnicity

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Tittle

Professor’s Name

Date

Autobiographical Essay

As a kid, I was made to envision that if we do our best and work hard enough, then we can all have access to good opportunities that everyone else has. It happened that I was raised in a post-racial history. From Nursery school up to university, my involvement in the learning institution made me think that racism was a problem of the past. I went to a different high school where learners representing six diverse racial groups were allies, regardless of class differences. I thought that racialism and discrimination was a concern of the past and that the white and individuals of color may possibly have important interactions regardless of America’s racially prejudiced history. I was cloistered by a leading account relating to colorblindness and race. I did not comprehend the notions of Whiteness or White fragility.

As an alternative, I catered to my classmates’ incoherence and fragility of race discussions. I coveted to think that their practice of going to school with students of the color showed an obligation to racial fairness. In the end, they weren’t making an effort to be upsetting with their stereotypical rhetoric or jokes. For me, it was not until maturity that I came to realize the part that their rhetoric, jokes, or silencing of ethnic discussions took part in propagating the principal “social narrative.

At the finishing of High School, I traveled to Malaysia. I resided there with a Chinese household of six in a four-room concrete building the inside of a rubber farmstead. I was there for the reason that I had come to be allies with their daughter, who was of my age through a pen-pal column. That visit was possibly the defining racial and cultural instant of my life. A place where we resided in West Malaysia was somehow rural then, and there were nearly no people of my race there – or in any case, I on no occasion saw any. While I was there, I went to a Muslim institution with my friends, and everywhere I went, individuals were pointing, staring, and commenting. I was in a place between a freak and a celebrity. I was completely dissimilar, but individuals well-regarded me and treated me in such a loving and open way. Every time I went out with that friend, the police would stop us because they thought I was an intruder, and she was not garbed properly in a Hijab. She was Chinese, but often, she was confused about Malay. I saw discrimination in their community and their learning institutions. The Chinese were discriminated against and could not get as far as the Malays. When I tried to voice my wisdom of injustice, my non-Malay friends shrugged and alleged that it was their country. They did not like it but had no option rather than to accept it.

By the period I started my undergraduate studies, I comprehended that virtuous aims were merely not adequate (Gooding, 2014). Here, my color was put within a predominantly space, and it weighed seriously upon me. Previously, a different undergraduate body accepted my color devoid of discomfort, fear, or hesitation. In a learning institution, on the other hand, things changed. If we debated ethnic incarceration statistics in class, some undergraduates attempted to avoid eye contact with me or replied to my queries with slow turns towards me. Each time the term “race” was talked about, every person turned to me in order to confirm the pulsation on my temperament. I was an alien in this cosmos. The majority of my colleagues were not used to me being there, and they had difficulty comprehending the multidimensional assessment I took to classroom discussions. Some were not comfortable with me. On the other hand, their uneasiness turned into separation, which subjected my distrust.

I frequently walked unaccompanied to and from the tutorial and extramural events. I was much conscious of my separation when passing some colleagues walking in clusters: they would pass me, at times say hello, and carry on to the teaching space. Immediately we were inside; our isolation continued. I supposed that our sharing of a major and aspiration to combat for fairness would have assisted in nurturing partnerships and relationships. As an alternative, I was up against mentalities that dehumanized, invalidated, and generalized my experiences. If I pushed or probed back against racially or inaccurate comments or racist, I was met with several reactions: expressions of guilt, silence, yells, denials, or even tears. They were irritated with my “elongated” talks about race, with my predilection for class-based evaluations, and they did not want me to consider them as racist. As days went by, it became so uncomfortable to use the words “racism” and “race” in the tutorial room or even among my peers. I felt their reactions tried to disrupt the talks away from ethnicity, and I had to move it forward.

Tutors also validated and perpetuated a social account on the shortfalls of the Black community. Not recognizing how to deal with talks on race, I was taken to as an expert. I had to elucidate the Black experience’s socio-cultural fundamentals, counter concepts that degraded the Black race, and correct prescribed stereotypes. I was foreseeable to be a professional on race associated subjects, yet I don’t have a context even to reflect my personal lived experience. I don’t have the language to combat or explain the institutionalized and individualized racism that I feel, and I do not know that Black students normally experience this sensation of cultural isolation and racialized tokenism (Gooden & Doherty, 2016). It was a weighty load to carry and my treads to and from the schoolroom turned out to be harder. But I was devoted to creating up the capability to withstand myself in the classroom: intelligibly, emotionally, and politically.

Even if I am equipped with implements to converse the dashes of realism of Blackness, I find myself recounting a social story that is digestible for and catered to, Whiteness. For instance, I come to an agreement that Black youth don’t have the essential resources to be prosperous, and it’s necessary to equip them with the resources they require to thrive (Gooden & Doherty, 2016). I recognize this concern as a more productive viewpoint validated the current resources of Black individuals and the worth latent within our societies. I came to realize that depriving individuals of their culture, ethnicity, or discrimination regarding race deprive them their sense of personality. Racial and ethnic issues ought to be addressed always.

Reference

Gooding-Williams, R. (2014). Autobiography, Political Hope, Racial Justice. Du Bois Review, 11(1), 159.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X14000101

Gooden, M. A., & O’Doherty, A. (2015). Do you see what I see? Fostering aspiring leaders’ racial awareness. Urban Education, 50(2), 225-255.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085914534273

Race and Ethnicity
Name
Institution

Race and Ethnicity
Race is an individual’s physical appearance with respect to eye color, skin color, hair color, and jaw structure. On the other hand, ethnicity is related largely to the cultural aspects that incorporate culture, nationality, ancestry, beliefs, as well as language. The difference in race and ethnicity has been the major cause of discriminations, especially in the U.S. This is because individuals belonging to the African American community are discriminated against and are viewed as inferior to other groups such as the white. Certain groups are viewed as inferior on many grounds, ranging from educational capabilities to reasoning capacities. With regard to conflicts, brutal conflicts have existed between many ethnic groups. These conflicts have existed throughout history, but in most countries, most groups live peacefully.
Racial prejudice is the main problem throughout the world, today. A minority group is not necessarily comprised of a small number of individuals, but this comes about with regard to other factors that include race, color, religion, and social status. The members of the minority group usually suffer disadvantages at the hands of the majority group. Furthermore, the group is identified through socially visible characteristics, and they normally have a strong sense of unity with respect to beliefs, culture, and traditions. AIDitionally, in the American society, egalitarianism is lacking since women do not receive equal treatment as the male population. Throughout history, the composition of the American society has changed from the periods when individuals were identifiable through race and ethnicity to the modern perspective. In the contemporary situation, this identification is not easy to accomplish due to intermarriages that lead to lost identities (Barkan, Vecoli, Alba & Zunz, 1995).
Most minority groups find it exceedingly difficult to assimilate into the American society due to discrimination. There are many hurdles, both cultural and structural, that discourage minority communities from assimilating. Scholars define assimilation as a “process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memory, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons and groups.” (Barkan et al., 1995, p. 230). Moreover, some scholars maintain that the process of assimilation is not only progressive, but also irreversible. Despite the fact that differing cultural patterns could pose as the major threats towards assimilation, like-mindedness is not necessary in this process. The process of assimilation is important, especially due to the alarming rising population of immigrants in the U.S. There are different responses with respect to minority groups and assimilation. One of the responses is that the assimilationist minority crave for the fullest opportunity of participation in the majority group. This is with the view of willing incorporation in the dominant society. However, for the process of assimilation to be successful, there is bound to be a willingness from both groups: the dominant group and the minority group. Other assimilation response types among the minority groups include pluralistic, militant, and secessionist (Bayor, 2013). This suggests that not all minority groups could respond to assimilation. Furthermore, the period required for assimilation to take place is influenced by aIDitional factors. These include the difference in racial and cultural aspects, the strength of the social systems, and subordination differences.
Most scholars also agree that the role of race in assimilation is critical and represents one of the major impediments in the process. AIDitionally, since integration or assimilation would mean the disappearance of a group in order to embrace another group, the process of integration becomes aIDitionally difficult since, in the American history, no group has ever disappeared entirely. There was the development of the “Law of Third Generation Return” during the 1950s, which claimed that assimilation is not linear since rejection is usually followed by nostalgia (Barkan et al., 1995). Assimilation also continues at different rates for diverse groups and differently for distinct elements of a specific group. The ethnic groups in America were referred to as people who had been created as something new. The assimilation potential rests on the existing presumption that discriminatory treatment, hostile attitudes, as well as conflict situations, which would cause rejection of persons with specific ethnic ancestry, have disappeared. Because of rejection and discrimination against the minority groups, some of the groups have opted to remain apart physically, culturally, as well as socially. These groups have also resulted in reinforcing own boundaries with respect to beliefs and practices as well as discouraging their members from abandoning their practices and embrace those of another group (Rodriguez, 2000). The result of this is having different ethnic groups being at different levels with respect to cultural distinctiveness, institutional cohesion, salience of in-group identification, native language usage, and geographical concentration. Specifically, this implies that there is an increase in the fading of ethnicity amongst American communities.
The generalization made to the response of the fading ethnicity is the extent of ethnic vitality and persistence. The elements of a specific ethnic group may weaken or even disappear, but can also be rejuvenated by new immigrants. The process of assimilation starts on contact when two groups meet and undergo a process of six stages that may not be consequential. These stages incorporate contact, acculturation, adaptation, accommodation, integration, and, finally, assimilation (Barkan et al., 1995). The process does not follow the specified order since the response is different from one group to another. The stage of contact refers to recently arrived individuals as slaves, new immigrants, or recently conquered individuals. A perfect exemplar is the Latinos from the Southwest, in 1848, and the Puerto Ricans in the year 1898. At this stage, the usage of native language is predominant, and acculturation has not yet begun. During the second stage, acculturation, ethnic identities, and communities start to emerge with a range of organizations and organizational activities, as well as native language publications. Exposure to the dominant or the larger community also begins. People often tend to use their native language, participate in kin networks, and work in ethnically homogenous environments or settings. Some members might seek more interaction with members of the larger group implying that integration elements might begin to appear as early as the second stage. During the third stage, there exists a greater numerical balance between the native-born and the foreign born within the ethnic group. Among the native-born generations, substantial acculturation takes place. The existing secular and religious institutions are obligated to make adjustments in order to preserve the influence with group members. However, the third generations take direct steps to separate themselves from the ethnic group.
Increased integration is evident in certain events such as sports teams and unions. The fourth stage consists of more educated and more urbanized individuals who are professionally trained immigrants. The third and the fourth generations are more visible, at this point, with respect to sustained contact with the dominant community. A deficient attention to homeland issues is the major characteristic of this stage. This is, in aIDition to limited participation, in ethnic community affairs. Moreover, this stage is characterized by increased social class, educational mobility, occupational mobility, and increased intermarriages (Barkan et al., 1995). In the fifth stage, substantial inclusion in the dominant society has been attained. This is despite the fact that residual cultural, as well as behavioral characteristics, are evident. Significant cultural assimilation is identifiable, as well as residential dispersion. In the last stage, there is the integration of the ethnic group members within the dominant group, and they no longer view themselves as members of an ethnic group.
The other oppressed group is the female population. During the 1930s, women were increasingly involved in the labor market, but their rates of employment were lower than that of men (Srigley, 2005). This is the period when there were “men’s” jobs. Although women were increasingly being integrated into the job market, their employment options largely depended on race. This implies that whiteness and non-whiteness played an important role in determining whether an individual gets a job or not. During the 1930s, the Anglo-Celtic dominance determined both disadvantages and privileges for the female workers. This is because the female workers received different access to both training and employment. During the Depression period, they denied access to employment to even the most educated female persons because they belonged to specific races and ethnic groups. During this period, 84% of the most qualified women, either white or non-white, were involved in occupations such as teaching, nursing, and clerical occupations (Srigley, 2005). With respect to earnings, women received one third and the best earning female received one-half the salary offered to a male counterpart. Other disadvantages that women faced include being denied employment after marriage.
Moreover, although women were subjected towards sexism, the major setback was color. Studies indicate that other factors besides gender played an important role in shaping the female’s work experiences, in the 1930s. In fact, most jobless women decided to undertake other self-employed jobs such as making hats in the garment industry and cleaning houses. Because of the challenges that women faced during the Depression era, this resulted in delaying marriages in order to keep the low paying jobs. Women also abandoned educational aspirations due to the frustrations of not getting jobs and constantly found themselves constrained by economic insecurity. By 1931, a small section of the male population, 0.06% worked as domestic servants (Srigley, 2005). On the other hand, 50% of women wage earners were domestic workers, boarding house keepers, general cooks, and waiters. Although the domestic servant job was the least desirable occupation for women, they were forced through racial discrimination and sexism. The domestic servant job had the lowest payment and had the worst working conditions; consequently, since women did not have options, they took on these jobs. The immigrant and the married women represented the biggest portion of house workers (Miller, 1999). The maximum payment offered to a domestic worker was $5 per week. During the same period, certain ethnic groups were preferred or had a reputation of the domestic image such as the African American women. This shows that African American women were oppressed under ethnic and racial grounds.
The ethnic and the racial makeup of the American population are in flux. A huge measure of phenotypic and cultural diversity has become evident in the U.S. due to the high levels of immigrants belonging to the Asian and Latin populations, especially in the recent decades. The increased instances of intermarriages between the ethnic groups and the majority groups are causing the blurring of boundaries between them. This is also resulting in increased numbers of individuals bearing mixed ancestry (Perez & Hirschman, 2009). The commentators anticipate that there could be the possibility of a new melting pot referred to as the browning of the U.S. This is characterized by the blurring of initially distinct racial, as well as ethnic divisions. The interpretation of this is consistent with the declining significance of both race, as well as ethnicity, in the American society. Scholars see a new racial division arising from the integration of the communities that are allowed to assimilate with the white population. Diverse ideological presumptions, as well as racial and ethnic identities, comprise the major reasons why some groups can assimilate with the white population while others cannot. Bearing in mind that the American population is changing rapidly, projections of population composition in the U.S. by 2042 indicate that the non-Hispanic whites will not comprise the majority with respect to numbers. The reports indicate that the whites will become the largest group by 2050 (Perez & Hirschman, 2009).
The projections on race compositions in the future are flawed since the Census Bureau ignores the relativity of high intermarriage levels. Composition by race will depend heavily on the choice of identity that the persons having multiple racial, as well as ethnic origins will settle on. The increase in ethnic mixing is expected to reshape the racial, as well as ethnic boundaries, in the U.S., within several decades. This is because, presently, many Americans bear mixed or multiple identities, which reflects complex ancestral origins. For instance, an individual might identify themselves as Mexican while among ethnic relatives or Hispanic at the workplace or even American when they are overseas. For this reason, scholars state that America was a multicultural and a multiethnic community from the beginning. The American racial as well as ethnic landscape became complex during the 19th century when consecutive immigration waves stemming from the European, Asian, and African countries led to the growth and emergence of a diverse population. This makes it increasingly difficult to describe the ethnic constitution of the American society. This is because some of the members of the ethnic communities do not have knowledge of their ancestry origins because it is lost to history (Perez & Hirschman, 2009). This makes current ethnic composition data unreliable. However, some communities are reliable with regard to reporting ancestry origins such as those whose origins are Asian and Latino. This trend is not evident among the whites, as well as blacks. Between the 18th and the 19th centuries, the census takers reported numbers of free whites, slaves and free non-whites as opposed to the modern period when identifying individuals through race has become increasingly difficult.
In conclusion, during the19th century, individuals living in America were easily identifiable through ethnic background or race. This trend has changed due to the high cases of intermarriages between the ethnic groups and the dominant ones. Although the ethnic groups faced extensive conflicts from the dominant groups, this case has changed due to assimilations among the groups that were allowed to interact with the dominant groups. However, assimilation is not similar for all groups and takes different periods between different groups. Consequently, America is becoming a complex society with individuals who possess multiple ancestry origins.

References
Barkan, E. R., Vecoli, R. J., Alba, R. D. & Zunz, O. (1995). Race, religion, and nationality in
American society: A model of ethnicity: From contact to assimilation. Journal of American Ethnic History. 14(2), 38-101.
Bayor, R. H. (2013). Race and ethnicity in America: A concise history. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Miller, S. M. (1999). Race, ethnicity and gender in early twentieth-century American socialism.
Journal of American Ethnic History.18(3), 155-156.
Perez, A. D. & Hirschman, C. (2009). The changing racial and ethnic composition of the US
population: emerging American identities. Popul Dev Rev. 35(1), 1-51.
Rodriguez, C. E. (2000). Changing race: Latinos, the census, and the history of ethnicity in the
United States. New York: New York University Press.
Srigley, K. (2005). “In case you hadn’t noticed!”: Race, ethnicity, and women’s wage-earning in a
Depression-era city. Labour / Le Travail. 55(1), 69-105.