Final Exam
Week 2
Please treat the lectures as complements to your required reading assignments. How has the history of racialization in the U.S. informed and impacted immigration laws on Asian Americans & Pacific Islander Americans? We will piece together how these concepts and perspective helped to frame and shape APA legal experiences in the U.S.
Required Reading:
*Nakanishi & Lai, “Part II: The Impact of Immigration Laws on Asian America” pp. 47-88
*Ancheta, Angelo, “Chapter 1: Legacies of Discrimination,” pp. 19-41
Resources:
*Use California State Constitution – contemporary version – as a resource:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and 1880 version
http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
*Use the Declaration of Independence & The Constitution, as a resource:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
*Read & Know Asian American Historical Timeline:
https://www.us-immigration.com/asian-american-history-timeline/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.asian-nation.org/first.shtml (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.asian-nation.org/internment.shtml (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.ecaasu.org/site/important-dates-in-asian-american-history/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Extra Credit Reading:
*Aoki and Takeda, Chapter 3, pp. 53-76
In this class, we will be talking and using terms such as "race," "ethnicity," "racism," etc. with great complexity and analytical depth. Let's define and operationalize some of these terms and concepts and offering a variety of ways to think about and apply these terms. Today's focus will be on "race" (that four-letter word in our society)!
With the outcome of cases like the Trayvon Martin Case, many Asian Americanists are drawing parallels to the Vincent Chin Case (1986). http://www.rafu.com/2012/03/from-vincent-chin-to-trayvon-martin/
http://www.rafu.com/2012/03/from-vincent-chin-to-trayvon-martin/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://owning-my-truth.com/post/56527740934/trayvon-martin-vincent-chin (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.startribune.com/vincent-chin-30-years-later/159414685/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Perhaps this history of racialization and racial formation provides the historical context of the application of these concepts.
WHAT IS RACE?
In the social sciences the notion of "race" has long been defined and their applications have been brought to life in everyday life.
We use this four-letter word ("race") with all of its complexity, epistemology, history, politics, economics, and layers of connotative socio-political meanings to argue and assume, even if we may actually be referring to something very to slightly different. The same can be said with the notion of "racism," --at times "race" and "racism" could be defined and/or interpreted as one in the same (as perhaps some of you have expressed in some of the discussion boards, such as in "Is it progress to not identify an alleged suspect of a crime as 'Asian'?"
TWO BROAD SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
There are two primary schools of thought to explain various social realities that may help us examine concepts such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, and many others: 1) primordialism/essentialism and 2) social construction/instrumentalism.
ESSENTIALISM/PRIMORDIALISM:
The first school of thought or paradigm, "primordialism/essentialism," looks at social realities as objective, innate, essential, deeply primordial. In the case of "race," race from a primordialist or essentialist view is seen as biologically innate. Eugenics and "scientific racism" are both products of extreme essentialist thinking: that races existed, that races are biologically determined and distinct from one another. The crux of primordialism is to argue that our differences racially (human physical/physiological variations) are rooted in biology.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION/INSTRUMENTALISM:
The second school of thought or paradigm, "social construction/instrumentalism," examines race as a man-made, human created reality. It is an instrument that was constructed sociohistorically in order to allocate resources. Any difference human beings may have is "biologically insignificant." In fact, Anthropologist Richard Lewontin found (by examining blood proteins, DNA, etc.) across clustered populations around the world and found that there are as many differences within a socially defined so-called, "race" as there are across so-called "racial groups." In other words, 80% of human variations were found within a group and that we would find as many (if not more) variation within a group than across groups. Put simply, probability of two so-called "whites" whose ancestors both originate from Northern Ireland are more likely to be different from one another (80%) than a "white person whose ancestors come from Northern Ireland" with an "Asian/Pacific" person whose ancestors come from the Philippines or Indonesia.
The bottom line for instrumentalism/social construction: there is no basis in biology in looking at race. It's all made up. Any differences we see visually are superficial without any concordance with our abilities in athletics, intelligences, etc. Human variation is not race. Human variations are result of geographic clusterings and do not go "skin deep" (or beyond phenotype).
paradigm = a theoretical framework within which interrelated ideas and concepts guide our thinking.
With these two paradigms in mind, let's look at the concept of "race" today. (We will also look at "ethnicity" and "pan-ethnicity" )
Please note that we are not using "dictionary definitions" of these terms. Dictionary definitions are fine in terms of demonstrating simple meanings and common sense meanings but they are often uncritical and not analytical. In this class, we are critically and analytically examining these concepts and offering paradigmatic ways to delve into their meanings and their applications.
RACE:
Biology has been historically used to explain human variation. Scientists, geneticists, social scientists have all used "pseudo-science," eugenics, scientific racism simple Mendelian genetics (which are all part of biological essentialism) were used to explain some of human differences (using phenotype as the main marker). Phenotype is physical appearances (eye color, eye shape, skin tone & complexion, height, weight, amount of hair on the body, genitalia size, cranial capacity, length of arms & legs, etc.)
And these physical characteristics were used to explain physical abilities, intelligence, artistic qualities, etc. In biological essentialism, physical characteristics were seen as being in concordance with biology. (e.g. Asian brains better in math; African American physical constitution makes better biologically equipped at running short distance and jumping but not swimming, Whites have a different biological sense of rhythm than Blacks, etc. etc. etc.) These so-called differences were explained by "biology."
For most of the application of the concept of "race," for the past 500+ years, the notion of "race" being "biologically rooted"
Within the last 50 years or so, social constructionist or instrumentalist views have become more widely accepted. In this view, race has come to be seen as even a "racist invention" to divide and allocate resources. The elaborate use of biology ideologically in explaining human differences became widespread is treated as "biologically essentialistic" and even "scientifically racist" (i.e. pseudo-scientific). However, it is still popularly applied. (e.g. African Americans in the NBA, Asian American honor students & high rates of university attendance, etc.)
Sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant have defined race as "a sociohistorical concept." They explain,
"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." (Omi & Winant, 1994)
They urge us to understand "race" as "an unstable and decentered complex of social meanings constantly being transformed by political struggle. " Then, they go on to define race as a concept or an idea that symbolizes and signifies social conflict and social interests by referencing different human body types. (from Omi & Winant, Racial Formation in the United States, 1994).
Omi and Winant also employ the term, "racialization," to signify "the extension of racial meanings to a previously racially unclassified relationship, social practice or group." Racialization is an ideological process with a particular history. (Omi & Winant, 1994). Many of you have already discussed in some of discussion boards how Asian Americans have been "racialized."
Omi and Winant tell us that "race" is used as a compass to navigate social relations in which preconceived notions of what each specific racial group looks like, acts like, sounds like, etc. here in the U.S. They write,
"One of the first things we notice about people when we meet them (along with their sex) is their race. We utilize race to provide clues about 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." (Omi & Winant, 1994)
When we say things like, "Wow, you don't seem very Asian!" or "Why don't you speak English with an accent?" or "President Obama sounds more white than black." etc. , these are all expressions of this "racial compass" Omi & Winant discuss.
There is a kind of "racial etiquette" Omi & Winant explain "a set of interpretative codes and racial meanings which operate in the interactions of daily life." (The other way to talk about the "racial etiquette" is how some people feel like they are "walking on racial egg shells" all the time!)
Perhaps, that is why when a "crime suspect" is racially-identified or not racially-identified (as in our discussion around Catherine Becker), some of you felt, it was "unnecessary" or "irrelevant." What does "race" have to do with this crime? A crime is a crime, regardless! For those of you who say, "Race is a non-issue." Then, if it's a non-issue, it shouldn't matter *if* race *is* brought up as much as *if* race isn't brought up because it would be a non-issue. It apparently *does* matter --either way.
Understanding the history, the social scientific & so-called scientific origins the paradigmatic perspectives, the cumulative understanding of the history of race and their application/impact on everyday life might help to explain why "race" is sometimes such a "touchy" subject.
Here's are ways our language reflects the two paradigms:
Racial "is" as a biological concept = essentialism
Racialized "has made to become" as a socially constructed construct = instrumentalism
From Essentialist Perspectives to Social Constructionist Perspectives:
Black people are slaves. -> Black people were enslaved.
Asian Americans were "surrogate slaves. ->
Asian peoples in the U.S. have gone from being "surrogate slaves" to "American dreamers."
What's in a name? Oriental versus Asian American/Asian Pacific American
Let's consider the term, "Oriental." As a "racialized" term, how is this term problematic? Why does it evoke controversy? When is it okay to use? What is the sociohistorical implications, its political implementation, its social use, its use as "compass," etc.) ? What does this term tell us about American society's views of Asian Pacific Americans and the social location of Asian Pacific peoples here in the U.S. and abroad?
The transformation of "racialized categories" from Oriental, Asiatics, Mongolian, Malay, Asian-Americans, Asian Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Asian Pacific Islander Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander ancestries, etc. etc. is really the process of "racial formation" and "racialization" taking place. Welcome to the (sociohistorical) process!
Sources:
The "Illogic of American Racial Categories,"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/spickard.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
"The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans,"
http://www.ifatunji.com/references/kim%201999%20the%20racial%20triangulation%20of%20asian%20americans.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Lewontin Debunks Biologically Essentialist view of "Race,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~biology/eeb/Cramer/RCL/bigbiblio.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Racial Formation in the U.S.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Racial_formation_in_the_United_States.html?id=j9v6DMjjY44C (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Week #2 Lecture, Part 2: Ethnicity & Pan-Ethnicity
In continuation with examining “race” from essentialist/primordialist and social constructionist/instrumentalist perspectives from the previous lectures, let’s also look at “ethnicity.”
The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are often interchangeably used (along with terms like “nationality,” “national origin,” “background,” “heritage,” “ancestry,” etc. Some of the intentional and unintentional interchangeable uses of many of these terms is perhaps to diffuse some of the conflicts, controversies often associate with the term “race,” and its close ties to “racism.” For example, “race” being a “racist term.” (Note: we have not operationalized, defined or examined this very loaded term, "racism" yet). Of course, “race,” is perhaps the term that evokes most complicated responses because of the U.S.’s difficult history when it comes to “race relations” and what Omi & Winant described in their “racial formation” analysis and see below:
(Re-cap): Racial Formation, according to Michael Omi & Winant,is ”the sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed" (1994, p. 55). They argue that this process of racialization is situated between structure and representation, whereby, at certain points in history, racial meaning is extended to a racial relationship, social practice, or group. Racial ideology is constructed and reconstructed from preexisting conceptual elements and emerges from the struggles of competing political projects and ideas seeking to articulate similar elements differently. Additionally, Omi and Winant argue that race is an organizing principle not just at the societal (macro) level, but also at the individual (micro) level, shaping the identities of individuals and affecting all areas of social life. However, they do give substantial emphasis in their analysis to the macro level, arguing that racial conflict occurs primarily at the level of the state. In their estimation, the process of racial formation takes place in two steps: through racial projects and the evolution of hegemony.
ETHNICITY
The essentialist paradigm (a.k.a. primordialist paradigm) and social contruction (a.k.a. instrumentalist paradigm) also explain how “ethnicity” plays itself out in the lives of groups and individuals. While “race” is grouping people together based on “some sort of genetics” or “gene frequencies,” ethnicity is group people together base on common and overlapping culture, shared history, a sense of peoplehood and a consciousness of kind. (see Teresa Williams-Leon and Cynthia L. Nakashima, The Sum of Our Part: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans, 2001, p. 9). Social scientists have explained that “race” has been a category imposed from social structures in which groups have had to respond, whereas “ethnicity” is often an identification that arises from the internal experiences of a group in relationship to the outside. This explanation makes sense when considering the roles that “physical appearance,” “phenotype,” “some sort of genetics” (even though based in pseudo-science), and social status figure into conceptualizations, articulations, and applications of the term, “race,” whereas “culture,” “history,” and “a sense of peoplehood,” are the underlying definitional markers for “ethnicity. Some have simplistically described “ethnicity” as “race + culture). Indeed, many members of ethnic groups share phenotypical characteristics. Perhaps, this is more an explanation of geographical proximity and “moving of genes” than the socially constructed notion of “race.” How can it be that Indonesians, Pilipinos, Koreans, and Pakistanis, according to U.S. “legal definitions,” are of the same “race?” Do they share “genetics” (genotype, phenotype, DNA, mitrochondrial DNA, blood proteins, etc.)? As human beings (same species), absolutely! Do they share similar phenotypes? It would depend “who is doing the viewing” of their phenotypes, how they are being “marked” and what context the viewing and the marking are taking place.
CULTURE
“Culture” is a key component to marking people “ethnically.” What is “culture?” It is a complex system of beliefs and behaviors (both material and non-material). Material culture would be objects and artifacts. Non-material culture would be ideas, values and norms. Culture includes languages, beliefs, ideas, customs, values, norms, mores, organizations, institutions, and so on. From taking off shoes in the house to respecting elders to showing affection in public to looking people straight in the eye, taking off hats in buildings, etc. are aspects of “culture.” It is also “a way of being.” We tend to look at “culture” as solely being “ethno-culture” (or associated with ethnic groups and their beliefs, behaviors, etc.). However, we also apply it to a variety of “groups” (both formal and informal “groups”). For example, there is somewhat of a “loosely defined yet distinct” southern California culture. We are a driving culture, a freeway culture. This past July (summer, 2011), there was so much made of a few exits and short distance on the 405 closed off. “Beware of Carmageddon!” People were throwing Carmegeddon parties, airlines were having special $4.00 flights from Long Beach to Burbank Airports, etc. Northern California or Manhattan (New York City) has a different kind of “culture.” Cultures develop, emerge, adapt, change and transform according to their environments. Peoples and cultures who live by the ocean, in the mountains, in the plains, warm climates, cold climates, etc. adapt to their physical environment, create tools and objects, and develop ideas, values, norms that make sense (or seem to make sense) in adapting to those environments.
PAN-ETHNICITY
Asian Pacific Americans are made up of many ethnic groups, as are all groups in the U.S. (that have also been “racialized” in specific ways). Latinos, Native Americans, African Americans, European Americans, Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, one could argue, are all multiple ethnic groups under one umbrella name, representing a variety of experiences, histories, incorporation processes into the U.S., identities, realities, political orientations, religious experiences/sects, etc. This “umbrella” entity of multiple ethnic groups into one has been called, “pan-ethnicity” by those like sociologist David Lopez of UCLA and Asian American studies scholar, Yen Le Espiritu of UC San Diego. Asian Pacific Americans are truly a “pan-ethnic” group of peoples. They are, like most racialized groups' experiences/social statuses in the U.S., forcing square pegs into round holes. More accurately, “racialized groups” in the U.S. are indeed “pan-ethnic” groups. The aggregate group we call, “Asian Pacific American” consists of many ethnicities, religions, languages, national origins, histories, incorporation processes, phenotypes, genomic structures, etc. The same can be said with African Americans, Latinos, Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, European Americans. Native Americans, etc.
Ethnicity through the Essentialist (Primordialist) Lens:
So how would an essentialist (or primordialist) articulate “ethnicity?” (Look back at how an essentialist examined “race.” That is, biology explained the constitution of races and differentiation among races. The existence of races and their differences were explained through so-called biology and “science.”) Here’s a little throwback to the SATs (don’t we all want to forget!): Biology is to an essentialist defining “race” as _______________ is to an essentialist defining “ethnicity.” If you guessed “culture,” you are correct! So, the essentialist “essentializes” everything down to “culture” when it comes to ethnicity as he/she “essentializes” everything down to “biology” when it comes to race. So, for example, essentialists would say that what fundamentally explains, defines, and differentiates groups of people is “culture.” (i.e. values, norms, mores, customs, behaviors, languages, religions, ways of life, etc.) For example, the reason why Asian Americans are so successfully because “It’s in their ‘culture’ to value education.” So, a “racial essentialist” would have said, “It’s in their biology (i.e. physical make-up, cranial capacity, brain size, left/right brain chemistry, shape of their eyes, etc.) to value culture.” Essentialist explanations are put forth as “objective, innate, primordial” qualities. Culture becomes the explanation for what an Asian American is, how they are, why they do what they do, etc. The difference of course between “biological” and “cultural” explanations is that biology is perceived as fixed (nature), whereas culture can change (nurture). However, in the racial formation process and racialization experiences of Asian Pacific Americans (and other groups) these explanations come to serve as elaborate “ideological justifications” and part of “racial hegemony.” People essentialize all the time.
Ethnicity through the Social Constructionist (Instrumentalist) View:
Again, comparatively look at how social constructionists view explain “race.” Social constructionists explain that “race” is used as a tool, an instrument that is used, manipulated, and defined contextually to serve dominant groups’ power interests. Subordinated groups can also use this tool to challenge their subordinate positions and to vie for inclusion. Thus, from a social constructionist perspective, “race” is not essential (that is, biologically-based). It is political. Meanings of race are different in different societies. People who are classified as “Black” in the U.S. may be classified as “White” in another society. In 1790, Congress restricted citizenship by naturalization to “free whites only.” (Naturalization Act of 1790) Although this law did include women, it did not extend citizenship to people whose father had never resided in the U.S. (This makes me think of all of the “birthers” who had questioned President Obama’s citizenship and his Kenyan father, although this does not apply in the President’s case. There is a socio-historical context from which to understand the “birther movement.” ) The 14th Amendment in 1868 granted citizenship to those born in the U.S. “Race” was explicitly a requirement for naturalization. This law stayed into effect from 1790 until 1954.
Take South Asian Indians, for example. South Asian Indians had been racially deemed “Caucasians” by 19th century & 20th century anthropologists and geneticists. Yet when they were denied citizenship due to their “not being white,” some of them took to the courts to challenge this contradiction. In 1909, Balsara wanted to be classified as “white” but was ruled, “probably not white,” but in 1910, in U.S. v. Balsara, upon “scientific evidence,” he was indeed judged to be “white.” In 1910, Dolla was legally deemed “white” upon visual inspection of his skin. The famous case of Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) was that he wanted to become a U.S. Citizen (p. 33 in Zia). Asian Indians were part of the Oriental racialized category who were “aliens ineligible for citizenship” as all “Orientals” had been. It meant if one was “Oriental” “Mongolian” or “Asiatic,” one could not become a naturalized citizen. (Pilipinos were exempt from 1898 to 1934). This law was in effect until the 1954. Thind took his case to the Supreme Court because he wanted to become a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that Thind is Caucasian but he is “not white” according to “common understanding.” Needless to say, his citizenship request was denied.
In 1912, Mr. Young of Washington state who was half-Japanese and half-German was trying to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. He was denied because he was half-Japanese (U.S. Supreme Court). The Supreme Court ruled that “half white and half Japanese is not full white.” He was promptly denied citizenship. These are examples of how the law has defined what is “race” and how it will be applied (in these cases to citizenship). These are examples of “race as a social construction.” It is used as a socio-political tool to allocate resources to a dominant group and deny or strict them from subordinated groups within a racial stratification system.
So how would a social constructionist explain “ethnicity?” There is a common joke in AAS that I've already shared with you in previous lectures that illustrate this point: How many Asian Americans were there before 1960? The answer is zero! How could that be? The Pilipinos were in the New World (what would become part of the U.S.) even before the U.S. was established. Cheng and Eng (the conjoined twins from Siam) fell in love with North Carolina and settled around 1839. The Chinese began coming to Hawai’i and the west coast as early as the 1830s. Yet the name, the term, the pan-ethnic understanding of aggregate group known as “Asian Americans” did not exist before 1960. See "A Myth and a Movement" from Chapter 2 in Helen Zia's book, "Asian American Dreams." (Zia, pp. 46-50).
Though subjected to either the same or similar “racialized,” race-based laws pertaining to just about all areas of life (e.g. employment, living quarters, marriage, voting, political participation, education, owning land, using public facilities, etc.), “Asians” (Chinese, Japanese, Pilipinos, South Asian Indians, Southeast Asians, etc.) did not come to see one another as part of one racialized group. A racial formation process (see Omi & Winant’s framework) took place based on ethnic identifications. “Asian Americans” or “Asian Pacific Americans” as a “pan-ethnic” group is an example of “social construction.” And still in the process of being formed and transformed, socially constructed, de-constructed and reconstructed. . .
Questions to Ponder: Both the Boston Bombers (Tsarnaev Brothers) and the San Bernadino Killers (Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik) were "ethnically" of Asian ancestry and they were Muslim by religious faith. The Tsarnaev brothers were ethnic Chechnyans within Russia and the married couple, Farook/Malik, were of Pakistani ancestry. What about their "race?" Do "race" and "ethnicity" and "religion" all match up in these cases?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/boston-attack-profiles/index.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.houstonpress.com/news/about-the-central-asian-link-to-those-boston-bombers-6718382 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-san-bernardino-shooting-malik-pregnant-20151228-story.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-barnardino-shooting-wife-tashfeen-malik-role-fear-jihad-brides/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Race, ethnicity, pan-ethnicity and religion all intertwine. Though they are all socially contructed instruments that either categorize groups of people, enforce social boundaries from within and without, they remain concrete, material and visual ways (albeit contradictory ways) in which we view, examine, and understand human social reality.
"Asian American" or "Asian Pacific Islander American" as a pan-ethnic category of people has been centuries in the making (at least since Filipinos began arriving in Louisiana in the mid-1700's and since the Chinese began arriving in Hawai'i and California in the 1830s. . .
Sources:
Espiritu, Yen Le. Asian American Panethnicity. 1993.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the U.S. 1994.
Williams-Leon, Teresa and Cynthia L. Nakashima. The Sum of Our Parts: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans.2001
Zia, Helen. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People. 2000.
http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/abizadeh/Ethnicity-Fulltext.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/03/the-social-construction-of-race-ethnicity-sex-and-gender.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
