ETHNICITY AND RACE
WHAT IS AN ETHNICITY?
1) FROM THE
LATIN ETHOS – “MY PEOPLE.”
2) CONSCIOUSNESS
OF KIND.
3) COMMON
STOCK OF KNOWLEDGE.
4) IN MODERN
EVERYDAY USAGE ETHNICITY CONNOTES IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF
“CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS.”
ETHNICITY – A COLLECTIVITY OF PEOPLE WITH SHAREED “CULTURAL
TRAITS,” INCLUDING LANGUAGE, RELIGION, OR ANCESTRY. CANADA OFFICIALLY SANCTIONS ETHNIC DIVERSITY AS A
LEGITIMATE FORM OF IDENTITY AND IT IS CELEBRATED THE CANADIAN MOSAIC IN THE
FORM OF "MULTICULTURAL POLICY".
WHAT IS A RACE?
1) ORIGIN
UNCERTAIN – IN EARLY ITALIAN RAZZA – “BREED, LINEAGE, COMMON DESCENT”
2) A
PARTICULAR PEOPLE OR STOCK.
3) CHARACTERIZED
BY A COMBINATION OF SHARED PHYSICAL TRAITS WHICH ARE GENETICALLY TRANSMITTED.
4) IN MODERN
EVERYDAY USAGE RACE CONNOTES THE IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF
“PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.”
RACIAL GROUPS
DEFINE THEMSELVES AND/OR ARE DEFINED BY OTHER GROUPS AS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER
GROUPS BY VIRTUE OF "INNATE AND IMMUTABLE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS".
THESE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE IN TURN BELIEVED TO BE INTRINSICALLY RELATED
TO MORAL, INTELLECTUAL, AND OTHER NON-PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OR ABILITIES
IN SHORT, RACE REFERS TO A
GROUP THAT IS "SOCIALLY" DEFINED BUT ON THE BASIS OF
"PHYSICAL" CRITERIA.
RACIAL AMBIGUITY:
ONE
OF THE MOST DIFFICULT THINGS FOR STUDENTS TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT RACE AND
ETHNICITY ARE SOCIAL REALITIES NOT BIOLOGICAL/GENETIC REALITIES == IT IS
NOT JUST THAT THEY CHANGE OVER TIME AND SPACE == IT IS THAT PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK AT
HOW THEY CHANGE == PEOPLE TEND TO TREAT THEM AS A "THING-IN-ITSELF, NOT AS
"A WAY OF ORGANIZING ‘MEANING’ AND ‘STATUS’ IN THE WORLD"
IF WE THINK ABOUT “RACIAL AMBIGUITY” IN
OUR MIXED-GENETIC LIVES IT IS MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND HOW ETHNO-RACIAL CATEGORIES
ARE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.
SOCIOLOGICAL UPSHOT: ETHNICITY AND RACE ARE SOCIAL REALITIES THAT GIVE US
{OUR}IDENTITY, MEAN AND ATTACHMENTS
ETHNICITY - CANADA OFFICIALLY SANCTIONS ETHNIC DIVERSITY [AS A
LEGITIMATE FORM OF IDENTITY], WHERE DIFFERENT COLLECTIVITIES OF PEOPLE WITH
SHARED CULTURAL TRAITS, INCLUDING LANGUAGE, RELIGION, OR ANCESTRY COMPRISE THE
CANADIAN MOSAIC. ETHNIC IDENTITY IS CELEBRATED IN THE FORM OF
"MULTICULTURAL POLICY".
RACIAL - GROUPS DEFINE THEMSELVES AND/OR ARE DEFINED BY
OTHER GROUPS AS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER GROUPS BY VIRTUE OF "INNATE AND
IMMUTABLE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS". THESE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE IN
TURN BELIEVED TO BE INTRINSICALLY RELATED TO MORAL, INTELLECTUAL, AND OTHER
NON-PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OR ABILITIES
IN SHORT, RACE REFERS TO A GROUP THAT IS
"SOCIALLY" DEFINED BUT ON THE BASIS OF "PHYSICAL"
CRITERIA.
(A) WHEN YOU
DEFINE A RACE, YOU DEFINE SOMEONE "BIOLOGICALLY" - WHEN YOU DEFINE A ETHNICITY YOU DEFINE THEM "CULTURALLY."
(B) IN CANADA
TODAY, WHAT USED TO BE CALLED RACE IS BEING SUBSUMED UNDER THE CATEGORY OF
"ETHNICITY" (I.E., BEING GIVEN A "CULTURAL VOCABULARY" FOR
SPEAKING OF PEOPLE).
(C) THE TERM
"RACE" IS BEING RESERVED FOR PEOPLE DEFINED AS "WHITE",
"BLACK", AND "ASIAN"
MANY SOCIOLOGISTS BELIEVE THAT THIS RACIAL
CLASSIFICATION WILL EVENTUALLY BE A “PROBLEM” IN OUR SOCIETY — DO YOU KNOW
WHY?
DIFFICULTIES ARISE WHEN THINKING IN TERMS OF
"RACE". THE USE OF THE TERM IMPLIES THAT RACIAL PURITY EXISTS -- AS
IF THERE IS A CLARITY, EXACTNESS TO BIO-PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC.
(IN FACT, MOST SCHOLARS ARGUE THERE ARE NO
"PURE" RACIAL TYPES (BIOLOGICAL UNITS) IN THIS WORLD.
IN FACT, MANY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS SUGGEST THAT THE
CONCEPT OF "RACE" IS REALLY A MYTH -- (RACE IS REALLY A INVIDIOUS STATUS DISTINCTION).
IT MAY BE A BIOLOGICAL MYTH — BUT — IT IS A
SOCIAL REALITY {IT IS REAL IN ITS CONSEQUENCES}
EX: THE CONCEPT OF RACE IS ONLY IN EXISTENCE
BECAUSE OF RACISM -- THE ACQUISITION OF POWER AND STATUS --
"POLITICS OF DOMINANCE AND DOMINATION" -- CREATES "STATUS AND
STATUS ANXIETY".
1) ORIGINALLY
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS -- CALLED RACES THE VARIOUS SUB-SPECIES OF HOMO
SAPIENS CHARACTERIZED BY CERTAIN "PHENOTYPE" (VISIBLE COMPOSITION)
AND "GENOTYPE" (INHERITED-GENETIC COMPOSITIONS) [E.G.,
"CAUCASIAN RACE", "NEGROID RACE", OR "MONGOLOID
RACE"] ...
PHENOTYPE - (CULTURAL POTENTIAL) IS A PRODUCT OF BOTH
NATURE [GENETIC EQUIPMENT] AND NURTURE [ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES AND FORCES].
GENOTYPE - (GENETIC POTENTIAL) INNATE CAPACITY
INHERITED FROM ANCESTORS THROUGH GENES, WHICH DETERMINES THE LIMITS OF THEIR
MENTAL OR COGNITIVE GROWTH.
2) (MODERN
LIFE IS SUBJECT TO WIDE BIOLOGICAL VARIATIONS THAT HAVE LEAD TO A MODERN
PHENOMENON OF RACIAL AMBIGUITY– EX: MARIAH CAREY, AMANDA MARSHALL, JENNIFER
BEALS, TIGER WOODS] == WHICH EXPOSES THE “SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION” OF RACE == THEIR
BODIES DON’T DEFINE THEM, WE DEFINE THEIR BODIES — AND “ONLY WHEN THEY ARE
DEFINED, DO CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THEIR LIVES AND SENSIBILITIES COME INTO
PLAY”
EX: (A) ALTHOUGH WE MAY ASSUME THAT WE
CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF "RACE", BIOLOGY WOULD
CONFIRM THAT MOST CANADIANS, LIKE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD, ARE GENETICALLY
MIXED.
(B) TIGER
WOODS - MOTHER IS ONE-HALF CHINESE AND ONE-HALF THAI, AND HIS FATHER HAD ONE
WHITE, ONE NATIVE, AND TWO BLACK GRANDPARENTS. (WHAT IS HE? FUZZY
ZEOLLER - FRIED CHICKEN AND COLLAR GREENS).
3) PEOPLE DO
NOT SEE “RACE” THEY SEE WHAT SOCIOLOGISTS CALL “RACIALIZED” FORMATIONS” == OR,
“BIOLOGIZED FORMATIONS.”
4) COMBINATIONS
OF REAL AND IMAGINED SOMATIC {OF THE BODY} AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT
THEY ATTRIBUTE MEANING TO (WITH THE IDEA OF RACE).
5) TO SEE RACE IS ENGAGE IN A THOUGHT PROCESS
WHICH BIOLOGIZE PEOPLE BY ATTACHING STATUS TO THE PHYSICAL.
THE SOCIOLOGY OF ETHNCITY AND RACE
Ethnicity:
Sociologists do not agree on how to define and measure
ethnicity. Objective definitions of ethnicity assume that ethnic
groups exist because of people’s social attachments (Isajiw,
1977). From this point of view, ethnicity is something that people possess
because of differences in language, culture, customs, national origin, and
ancestry. Subjective approaches to ethnicity focus on the process
of ethnic identification. Sociologists who emphasize the socially constructed
nature of perceived reality insist that ethnicity is a “transactional” process.
Ethnic groups are made up of people who identify themselves, or who are
identified by others, as belonging to the same ancestral or cultural group.
Whether they actually display any of the cultural characteristics of the group
with which they identify, or whether they are merely born into that group, is
largely irrelevant. When subjective definitions are used, then, “ethnicity” is
self-defined and reflects “a shared ‘we-feeling’ within a collectivity (groupness) whose symbolic components can vary from time and
place” (Fleras and Elliott, 1996). From this
perspective, ethnic identities and boundaries are situational, variable, and
flexible.
Race:
For much of the twentieth century, there was little
difference between common-sense understandings of race and the way that
race was analyzed in the social and natural sciences. Most scientist
believed that races were real and objective subdivisions of Homo Sapiens.
These divisions in the scientific, or “social biology” discourse on race were
supposedly based on a combination of unalterable physical and genetic
characteristics. Characteristics such as skin colour hair texture, body and
facial shape, genetic diseases, metabolic rates, and distribution of blood
groups were used to construct various racial typologies. The most common
typology was the division of humanity into “caucasoid,”
“mongoloid,” and “negroid” races (Montagu, 1972).
During the 1930s, scientists began to raise a serious doubts about the scientific validity of the
concept of race (Barkan, 1992). Since the 1950s, the
scientific consensus is that racial classifications of humanity are arbitrary,
that genetic differences between groups are small, and that genetic differences
are behaviourally insignificant (Montagu, 1972).
Racial classification based on characteristics, such as, skin colour, are as
illogical as racial classifications based on the length of index fingers
(Miles, 1982). Thus, from a strictly genetic point of view, Paul Martin may
have as much more in common with Oscar Peterson than with George W. Bush.
In the critique of the social biology discourse on
race, differences between races came to be recognized as arbitrary, extremely
small, and without behavioural consequences. More and more, ethnic boundaries
and identities were viewed as flexible, negotiated, and historically variable.
This did not lead to the conclusion, however, that race and ethnicity are
unimportant aspects of modern society. Rather, as W.I. Thomas’s famous dictum
contends, if people define situations as real they are real in their
consequences (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918: 79). Even
though race is a hollow biological concept, and even though ethnic identities
and boundaries are neither fixed nor unchanging, many people believe in the
existence of ethnicity and race, and organize their relationships with others
on the basis of those beliefs. Therefore, race and ethnicity are important
parts of our social reality.
A Decade After Massacres, Rwanda Outlaws Ethnicity
By MARC LACEY
Published: April 9, 2004
IGALI, Rwanda, April 8 - Although he is not a
government spokesman, Ernest Twahrwa can recite
Rwanda's official view toward ethnicity with great precision: "There is no
ethnicity here. We are all Rwandan."
Mr. Twahrwa, a Hutu, is
halfway through a six-week government re-education camp set up to purge him and
other former fighters of any ethnic ideologies that they may still
harbor from 1994, when extremist Hutu massacred 800,000 Tutsi and moderate
Hutu.
"They're trying to change what we think,"
Mr. Twahrwa said. "There have been many changes
in this country. I need to change too. I need to be a new person."
This country, where ethnic tensions were whipped up into
a frenzy of killing, is now trying to make ethnicity a thing of the past.
There are no Hutu in the new Rwanda. There are no Tutsi either. The government,
dominated by the minority Tutsi, has wiped out the distinctions by decree.
The re-education camp is one way of driving the point
home to people who once lived by the motto "Hutu power." As Hutu
fighters who fled to Congo after 1994 return to Rwanda they are sent to the
camp. Along with civics they are taught some hands-on skills like carpentry.
They leave with $75 and, at least in theory, a whole new way of thinking.
That new thinking has its critics - those who say that
denying that ethnicity exists merely suppresses the painful ethnic dialogue
that Rwanda requires.
But the government insists that if awareness of
ethnic differences can be learned, so can the idea that ethnicity does not
exist. Rwanda has an entrenched culture of obedience,
and the populace has been quick to pick up on the government's no-ethnicity
policy, at least in conversations with an outsider.
To hear Mr. Twahrwa put it:
"Ethnicity is bad. I want it to go away."
Ethnicity has already been ripped out of schoolbooks
and rubbed off government identity cards. Government documents no longer mention Hutu or
Tutsi, and the country's newspapers and radio stations, tightly controlled by
the government, steer clear of the labels as well.
Most dramatic is how Rwanda's eight million people now
shun the identifications that seemed to loom so large 10 years ago as Hutu extremists
began their mass killings.
"We don't like to use the terms at all in
class," said Bosco Manishaka,
the assistant director of a Kigali primary school. "The children do learn
about the history of the country and how we were divided. We advise them to
learn from the past."
It is not just considered bad form to discuss
ethnicity in the new Rwanda. It can land one in jail. Added to the penal
code is the crime of "divisionism," a nebulous offense that includes
speaking too provocatively about ethnicity.
Rwanda's approach contrasts markedly with that
employed in neighboring Burundi, which has the same ethnic makeup as Rwanda and
the same recent history of ethnic violence. Burundi's transitional government
has opted to set aside certain positions for Hutu and certain positions for
Tutsi. The two ethnic groups rotate the presidency. A Tutsi held it for 18
months, and now a Hutu fills the seat.
Critics argue that Rwanda's crackdown on
"divisionism" has turned into a way of quashing dissent toward the
governing party of President Paul Kagame, who led the
Tutsi rebel movement that swept in from Uganda in 1994 to oust the Hutu
militias known as Interahamwe, which were responsible
for much of the violence. His administration has shut down opposition parties
for being too divisive and jailed journalists and activists for the same.
The government does not want to hear suggestions that
one ethnicity or the other has too much power. Those are divisive thoughts. It
is not possible to know, or even discuss, whether the majority Hutu population
is well represented in universities. No such records are kept.
To try to repair tensions that still linger from 1994,
and reduce a huge backlog in the judicial system, Rwanda has created community
courts called gacacas. Locals gather together to
rehash the killings. They are encouraged to point fingers at suspected killers.
The accused are given a chance to stand up and defend themselves, or to
apologize.
Confessions can sometimes
bring the most extraordinary result: a hug from the accuser and an offer of
forgiveness. More often, though, there are arguments.
DEFINITIONS
1) Hutu
and Tutsi : Hutu is the name given to one
of the three ethnic groups occupying Burundi and Rwanda. The Hutu are the largest
group by far. 90% of Rwandans and 85% of Burundians are Hutu. Culturally,
it is something of an artificial division, based more on class than ethnicity,
since there are no significant language or cultural
differences between the Hutu and the other ethnic groups in the area, notably
the Tutsi. Historically, however, there were physical differences,
principally in average height. Hutu and Tutsi share the same religion and
language. Some scholars also point out the important role the Belgian colonisers have in creating the idea of a Hutu and Tutsi
race.
The
Hutu arrived in the Great Lakes region around the 1st century,
displacing the Twa. The Hutu dominated the area with
a series of small kingdoms until the 15th century. At that time, it is believed
that the Tutsi came into the area from Ethiopia and conquered the Hutu. The
Tutsi monarchy survived until the end of the colonial era in the 1950s, the
Belgian rulers using and codifying the ethnic division to support their rule.
The Tutsi monarchy soon fell and the area was divided into Rwanda and Burundi
in 1962. The Tutsi nonetheless remained dominant in Burundi, while the Hutu
gained a degree of dominance in Rwanda.
2) Five
Characteristics of Ethnicity:
A) Unique
cultural traits (such as language, clothing, holidays, or religious practices).
B) A
sense of community (shared identity).
C) A
feeling of “ethnocentrism” – the view that one’s own culture is better than
others, and/or the tendency to believe that what is true of your culture is
true of others.
D) Ascribe
membership from birth (membership over which you have no control), and
E) Territoriality,
or a tendency to occupy a distinct geographic area by choice or for protection
(in contemporary world =’s a “sense of place or homeland”).
3) What Have
We Learned about Social Stratification? ==
[[[Every society can be divided into layers or
hierarchies that can be ranked according to certain criteria in ascending or
descending order. This suggests that inequality is not random or fleeting, but
is patterned and predictable and tends to cluster around certain devalued
categories related to race or ethnicity.]]]
4) What Is
Hate in Canada: Canadian Hate Law Legislation —
Criminal Code
The three sections dealing with hate propaganda in the
Canadian Criminal Code are sections 318, 319 and 320.
1) Section
318 ("Advocating Genocide")
Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote
genocide (killing or inflicting conditions to destroy members of a group)
2) Section
319 ("Public Incitement of Hatred")
Section 319 creates two offences.
Subsection
(1) targets everyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group by
communicating statements in any public place, where such incitement is likely
to lead to a breach of the peace.
Subsection
(2) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable
group by communicating statements, other than in private conversation.
3) Section
320 ("Seizure of Hate Propaganda")
Section
320 permits a court to authorize the seizure of copies of a publication
believed to be hate propaganda.
Hutu and Tutsi: TheEthnicity Exercise
1) Can you
eliminate “ethnicity” through re-education? Or does denying that
ethnicity exists merely suppresses the painful ethnic dialogue
that Rwanda requires? ==== or, is the real issue —
2) Can you
eliminate {unlearn} “hate” by eliminating {unlearning} the
distinctions/ differences/ objects that it is attached to?
3) Official
opinion is – “if awareness of ethnic differences can be learned, so can the
idea that ethnicity does not exist” – is this a valid and consistent
proposition?
4) Can you legislate ethnicity out of existence by ripping it “out of
schoolbooks and rubbing it off government identity cards.”?
5) In
Rwanda, it is now a penal code offence to speak too provocatively about
ethnicity [the crime of "divisionism,"]. Is this similar to Canada’s
hate crime laws?
6) Do you
think Rwanda's crackdown on "divisionism" inevitably will be used as
a way of quashing dissent, why or why not? Are there historical examples to
draw on?
7) It has been said of Canada that it is transforming into a “post-national
state” — “What we appear to be witnessing is the emergence the emergence
of a post-national state, a country of people linked not by blood, race or
religion, but by a set of ideas and principles.” — could this be what
countries like Rwanda are hypothesizing? How can they get there? What is the
difference between a post-ethnic and a post-national state.”
{{{Note: Sociological Moral of the Tutsi Story: Human
beings can “learn” and “unlearn” hate and racism — but it is not simply a
matter of eliminating distinctions between people — nor legislating
it out of existence. Why???
(a) Ethnicity
and Race are concepts that evolve over space and time – meaning, they are
contingent upon interaction, and interaction is not contingent upon the
concepts;
(b) The way
to elimate racism is to change the structure of
interactions — (as anti-racism activist have discovered) through Direct
Action at Personal and Institutional Levels.
Or
(c) Foster’s
"Holistic" or Three Dimensional Approach === Addressing the
Cognitive, Normative and Valuative Levels of Life
Through the Combined Pro-Active Focus on Philosophy (education), Policy
(organization) & Practice (legislation).