T O P

How do we know that a particular ethnic group's disadvantage when compared to the majority is caused by ethnic descrimination and not by class disparities/class descrimination?

How do we know that a particular ethnic group's disadvantage when compared to the majority is caused by ethnic descrimination and not by class disparities/class descrimination?

AutoModerator

Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Revenant_of_Null

I am going to recycle a couple of illustrations I provided recently. First, see how Black American families tend to live in different worlds even when they share the same economic status as their compatriots ([such that affluent African American families still end up in poorer neighborhoods than their non-Black peers]( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html)). See for example [Chetty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Chetty) et al. (2020), *Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: an Intergenerational Perspective*. [To quote the team:](https://voxeu.org/article/race-and-economic-opportunity-united-states) >Our results show that **the black–white gap in upward mobility is driven primarily by environmental factors that can be changed.** But, the findings also highlight the challenges one faces in addressing these environmental disparities. **Black and white boys have very different outcomes even if they grow up in two-parent families with comparable incomes, education, and wealth, live on the same city block, and attend the same school.** This finding suggests that many widely discussed proposals may be insufficient to narrow the black–white gap themselves, and suggest potentially new directions to consider. Second, see environmental racism. To quote a [2018 *Lancet Planetary Health* editorial](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196\(18\)30219-5/fulltext): >**While a common counterargument to the narrative of environmental racism is that these are conditions that arise from poverty, not racism, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case,** including a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency in February, 2018, which noted that “Disparities [in exposure to PM emissions] for Blacks are more pronounced than are disparities on the basis of poverty status.” **The roots of environmental racism are complex, but share similarities with many other types of social injustice. One of the major issues is the lack of resources in minority communities.** Wealthier communities can afford to mount effective opposition to the building of potentially environmentally hazardous sites—with campaigns that are often characterised as taking the “Not in my back yard”, approach—whereas **minority communities, who typically have fewer political, economic, and legal means at their disposal, are less able to do so.** The threat of collective opposition tends to drive companies and organisations looking for a site for their hazardous operations down the path of least resistance, further worsening the situation for already disadvantaged communities. Economic arguments might also come into play in low-income areas where potential polluters are also potential employers, although few cost-benefit evaluations take account of the eventual health costs resulting from these activities. **Yet another problematic point has been the historical exclusion of people of colour from the leadership of the environmentalist community.** While not necessarily a deliberate omission, **this creates a situation in which minority groups do not feel engaged with the movement and the effects of a successful opposition campaign are not considered in a broader regional context,** both of which contribute to further the preferential choice of minority communities as sites for polluting industries. For a specific illustration, see [Sampson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Sampson) and Winter's (2016) study of lead poisoning in Chicago: >**If pictures could talk, Figures 3 - 5 would speak volumes about the racial and ethnic disparities in lead toxicity that children in segregated Chicago neighborhoods have had to endure, both historically and in the contemporary era—Flint, Michigan, is not an aberration.** We have shown, for example, that Black and Hispanic neighborhoods exhibited extraordinarily high rates of lead toxicity compared to White neighborhoods at the start of our study in 1995, in some cases with prevalence rates topping 90% of the child population. **Black disadvantage in particular is pronounced not only relative to Whites but even relative to Hispanics (Figure 4), in every year from 1995-2013.** The profound heterogeneity in the racial ecology of what we call toxic inequality is **partially attributable to socioeconomic factors,** such as poverty and education, and to housing-related factors, such as unit age, vacancy, and dilapidation. **But controlling these factors, neighborhood prevalence rates of elevated BLL remain closely linked to racial and ethnic segregation**. These are just a couple of examples of recent studies which show that economic factors do not trump group membership to racialized groups in America. I should also cite the recent study by Pierson et al. (2020) employing the veil-of-darkness test to investigate police stops across the United States: >We assessed racial disparities in policing in the United States by compiling and analysing a dataset detailing nearly 100 million traffic stops conducted across the country. **We found that black drivers were less likely to be stopped after sunset, when a ‘veil of darkness’ masks one’s race, suggesting bias in stop decisions.** Furthermore, by examining the rate at which stopped drivers were searched and the likelihood that searches turned up contraband, we found evidence that **the bar for searching black and Hispanic drivers was lower than that for searching white drivers.** Finally, we found that **legalization of recreational marijuana reduced the number of searches of white, black and Hispanic drivers—but the bar for searching black and Hispanic drivers was still lower than that for white drivers post-legalization.** Our results indicate that police stops and search decisions suffer from persistent racial bias and point to the value of policy interventions to mitigate these disparities. This is just a taste. There are plenty of other studies, and the answer to your main query does not (cannot) rely only on quantitative research, but also qualitative research and sociohistorical analyses which inform the conclusions expert make on the matter. --- [Second part next comment]


Revenant_of_Null

To develop the second part of my answer, I would also suggest reading sociologist Roderick Graham's blog post *[How Should Antiracists Respond to “Shouldn’t We Just Focus on Class?”](https://roderickshawngraham.medium.com/how-anti-racists-should-respond-to-shouldnt-we-just-focus-on-class-e25b099b81c3)*. To quote a part relevant to my discussion: >But when consulting the academic literature on the many causes that lead to poor academic performance, **we find that economics is only one of many factors.** >Below are a few categories of events that can impact populations of color. These events are race-based in that they are disproportionately found within populations of color. They are evidence-based in that social scientists have been exploring these phenomena for quite some time and know they have an impact. >* **Economic Insecurity** — sporadic income and a lack of a wealth safety net can lead to short term decisions that may impact long term goals. >* **Individual Discrimination** — stereotypes and attitudes held by people in authority (teachers, health professionals, law enforcement) can negatively impact people of color’s life chances. >* **Institutional Discrimination** — in this context, institutional discrimination refers to educational institutions where students of color are in more crowded classrooms, have less access to technology, and less support staff like guidance counselors and resource teachers. >* **Neighborhood Effects** — the culture of a neighborhood, where young adults who experienced the above impacts and are in the process of dropping out of mainstream society are now setting a deviant tone for the younger cohort. >* **Environmental Racism** — the engineering of pollutants’ flow into less desirable areas — air pollution from factories, noise pollution from traffic can harm the learning outcomes. >**Income and wealth cannot be a proxy for all these phenomena. For one thing, stereotypes are not based on class but on visual markers.** Rich Latinx folks can shield themselves somewhat from the impacts of discrimination, but their money does not eliminate these phenomena. **Second, these phenomena are relational. And so, one could claim that if Latinx families increase their income and wealth, they could move into areas with better schools and less pollution. This is true.** But the benefits of a neighborhood are relational. Meaning, that **if Latinx families move into communities currently occupied by families of more wealth, it is likely that those families, seeking exclusivity, will move to wealthier neighborhoods.** Jumping off Graham, who argues that "to be antiracist is also to be anticlassist," I would strongly encourage moving past the dichotomization between "race" or ethnicity and class, towards the appreciation of more complex systems within which multiple kinds of discrimination co-operate and/or build upon each other. Racism and classism are interrelated (but not the same), and our societies tend to have multiple hierarchical systems which operate contemporaneously. To quote *Racisms: An Introduction* by sociologist Steve Garner (2009): >The main thrust of this book is to suggest ways in which racism (as defined in Chapter 1) can be conceptualised, analysed and understood. None of this is possible in a model where only ‘race’ matters in the construction of identities. **Nobody is ‘just’ an Asian, a white or a black person. They are, for example, a middle-class professional Asian woman; a working-class white man; a lower middle-class black woman. If we separate these identities out, ignore, underplay or overplay elements of them, we miss the messy combinations that make social identities and racism such complex phenomena.** ‘Race, class, and gender’, argue Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1993: 63–6) ‘are not independent variables that can be tacked onto each other or separated at will **… They are concrete social relations … enmeshed in each other’.** To make my point further, I quote sociologist Michael Gaddis (2020): >**Recent work has uncovered early evidence related to the question of how individuals engage in racial-ethnic discrimination in the age of ubiquitous internet correspondence.** This work **has shown strong links between individual racial perceptions of white and black names and the social class origins of those names** (Gaddis 2017a) **as well as individual social class perceptions of names and the racial origins of those names** (Gaddis 2019a). These findings suggest that **agents in positions of power likely use both cues of race-ethnicity and social class status to engage in racial-ethnic discrimination.** Other evidence suggests that **for Hispanics and Asians in the United States, signals of immigrant generational status and assimilation play roles in racial-ethnic discrimination** (Gaddis 2017b, 2019b; Gaddis and Ghoshal 2019). Still, significant gaps remain in our knowledge about how employers and other agents use explicit and implicit racial-ethnic signals included in correspondence and other outside information (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn) to engage in racial-ethnic discrimination. Also see the case of attitudes toward welfare for an illustration of how racism can influence ostensibly non-racial topics, operating to the detriment of both racialized minorities *and* those who are economically disadvantaged regardless of ethnic membership. To quote political scientist Gilens (1995): >These findings underscore the continued impact of race in American politics. It is widely recognized that racial issues figure prominently in many elections, and that candidates continue to be judged by the color of their skin. But this study shows that **the influence of racial attitudes extends beyond explicitly racial issues, and that particular beliefs about blacks can have a striking impact on an ostensibly nonracial issue.** This last point is an important one, for **it is not simply that many white Americans harbor a generalized antipathy toward blacks** (though there is certainly no shortage of antipathy toward blacks). **Rather, particular beliefs about blacks lead to particular policy preferences on the part of white Americans** [...] >While there can be little doubt that race-targeting adds an additional burden to mustering public support for social welfare programs, the findings presented earlier show that **any antipoverty policy will have to face the very substantial skepticism of white Americans toward the deservingness of the black poor. Whether race-specific or race-neutral, antipoverty policy in this country has become hostage to white Americans' cynicism toward poor blacks and specifically to the belief that blacks' economic problems are of their own making.** And more recently, Wetts and Willer (2018): >Our findings provide consistent support for our claim that **white Americans’ welfare attitudes are shaped by concerns about the status of their racial group in American society.** First, we found that whites’ and minorities’ welfare attitudes diverged in 2008, the year of the candidacy and election of President Obama and the financial crisis, and whites’ racial resentment rose during this time as well. Next, we found that white Americans who saw a demographic report emphasizing the decline of the white majority tended thereafter to voice greater opposition to welfare, and this effect was partially mediated by increased racial resentment. In our final study, we found that information threatening the white economic advantage resulted in increased opposition to welfare programs when whites perceived those programs to primarily benefit minorities, but did not affect support for programs portrayed as benefiting whites. **These findings implicate racial status threats as a causal factor shaping whites’ opposition to welfare.** --- There is much more which I could discuss, such as in regard to your remark about overt racism and classism (such as the nature of systemic racism in relation to subtle and covert forms of racism). But this is already a long reply. --- Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2020). Race and economic opportunity in the United States: An intergenerational perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(2), 711-783. Gilens, M. (1995). Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 994–1014. Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J., Corbett-Davies, S., Jenson, D., Shoemaker, A., ... & Goel, S. (2020). A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. Nature human behaviour, 4(7), 736-745. Sampson, R. J., & Winter, A. S. (2016). The racial ecology of lead poisoning: Toxic inequality in Chicago neighborhoods, 1995-2013. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 13(2), 261-283. Wetts, R., & Willer, R. (2018). Privilege on the precipice: Perceived racial status threats lead White Americans to oppose welfare programs. Social Forces, 97(2), 793-822.


meister2983

Great detailed response. In some sense, the topline question is poorly written (though I can't respond top-level without sources), since it ignores the possibility of disparity not caused by class differences and also not caused by discrimination (e.g. internal cultural differences). Still, looking at your answer it may still be giving more weight to race over class and cultural assimilation - or at least doesn't substantiate the salience of race per se (outside of statistical discrimination and group clustering that can lead to the richer members of a poorer group living in poorer areas). A few points, with the caveat I'm in Northern California where the traditional black-white way of thinking about society is not applicable given demographics (and consequently certain patterns quoted above actually might not apply): >For one thing, stereotypes are not based on class but on visual markers. Rich Latinx folks can shield themselves somewhat from the impacts of discrimination, but their money does not eliminate these phenomena. I'm finding this claim strange. Aside from that fact that LatinX isn't a race, but an ancestral category - it seems very difficult to identity who in your neighborhood is LatinX or not absent class or language cues. Once you talk about the assimilated group (English speaking, etc.): * A LatinX person is largely indistinguishable from someone who is European, Middle Eastern, and/or Hapa. * The "flight" pattern described appears to be more of a class one than a race one. Or if we're talking about more culturally Hispanic groups (which perhaps is what the author means given that 50+% of highly educated Hispanics are married to non-Hispanics), a neighborhood cultural shift, not a "racial" one. >Nobody is ‘just’ an Asian, a white or a black person. They are, for example, a middle-class professional Asian woman; a working-class white man; a lower middle-class black woman. If we separate these identities out, ignore, underplay or overplay elements of them, we miss the messy combinations that make social identities and racism such complex phenomena But let's flip this statement around. Is anyone just a middle-class professional women? How relevant is them being Asian or white once you know the former? Its relevant statistically I suppose in making predictions, but in some sense it's too broad to be that meaningful. In my experience, the social distance between class within an ethnic group of different professions (or at least class) far exceeds that of different ethnic groups within professions. >Other evidence suggests that for Hispanics and Asians in the United States, signals of immigrant generational status and assimilation play roles in racial-ethnic discrimination In part because they are different cultures. Even conditioned on class, the gap between a recently immigrated Chinese professional and an American one is far greater than the American born Chinese professional and a 4th generation white American professional (especially one that grew up in a heavily Asian area such as CA). In some sense, this is more "foreigner" discrimination (which rolls into ethnic) than racial. ​ Either way, I think the question originally being asked (discrimination or other) is extremely difficult to answer (the answer is all of the above, but it's difficult to tease out the amount). As you later go into, obviously statistical discrimination is easily provable with randomized tests, but it is very difficult to actually tease out the net effect on outcomes -- it's hard to control for everything.


Revenant_of_Null

Graham could have been more explicit about his referent, but given the content of his blog and the fact that [this image is found at the beginning of his essay](https://miro.medium.com/max/1152/0*I9ZmgS8-njO652Ud.jpg), he is likely relying on the expectation that people will understand that he is primarily speaking of "brown people." The rest of the text supports this. For instance, a few paragraphs into the post: >**People often confuse skin color as an immutable characteristic with skin color as a proxy for ancestry, culture, or viewpoint.** This misunderstanding reveals an impoverished view of what race, ethnicity, and identity signify. **Advocates for race-based policies don’t want to see more Latinx folks represented simply because they have brown skin** but because they wish to reflect a multicultural society’s viewpoints. Therefore, in terms of stereotypes and visual markers, one can observe that it is common for people to think of [Consuela](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/familyguyfanon/images/1/15/Consuela.png/revision/latest?cb=20161215031734) and [Gerardo](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/familyguy/images/1/12/Gerardo.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090918180655) from Family Guy, rather than [Mahmoud](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D79yWcFQok), when they think "Latina" or "Latino." That said, I will be addressing your comment in broader terms, by discussing the concepts being employed. To do so, I will use the two following statements for the theme: 1. "Aside from that fact that LatinX isn't a race, but an ancestral category" 1. "In some sense, this is more "foreigner" discrimination (which rolls into ethnic) than racial." --- To begin, what is "race?" Summarily, it is a social categorization: "races" are social groups which are assigned, perceived, and/or treated as such (see racialization). Although it has historically been conceptualized as a biological category ([which it is not](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/mx0elh/why_is_transgender_transitioning_fine_but_not/gvov1r0/)), there is more to "race" than that. To quote anthropologist Bonnie Urciuoli (in Goodman et al., 2019): >**Race as we now know it began forming centuries ago**, built on the relation of colonizers to colonized, slave owners to slaves, and, more generally, those controlling resources to those whose worth was limited to their place in the resource system, as chattel or exploitable free labor or, in the case of indigenous inhabitants, simply occupiers of the land. Economic relations are critical to this historical process, **but what turned it into what we now recognize as race is the naturalization of origin as an inherent and inherited quality that was seen to fit that type of person for a specific social place.** In this way, **African slaves, dispossessed native populations, and exploited labor were all subject to racialization, imagined as a natural type signified by physical features shared by people thought to be connected to each other “by blood.” These are the historical origins of categories now known as black, Indian/Native American, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian.** (Other, once racialized categories like Irish, Jewish, and Italian are now assimilated into whiteness.) **Racial classifications and markers change over time.** What does not change is the privileged situation of whiteness. **Language plays a part in this process every step of the way. Racial thinking and concepts are transmitted through discourse. Racial categories are defined and codified in words and phrases. Racial perceptions are reinforced in everyday uses of language. Language itself may be racialized, standing in for an older notion of “blood.”** Although formally "Hispanic or Latino" may not be a racial category in the US (more on this below), concretely Latin American people are racialized (often treated as some sort of ethnoracial group). To begin, see what I wrote about Brazil and Mexico ([my other coimments](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/np6c5d/how_do_we_know_that_a_particular_ethnic_groups/h04a5mp/)). Regarding the US context, Almaguer (2016) argues: >The complex meaning of race and the particular way that racialization unfolds in the United States is an ever changing sociohistorical process. **Nowhere are the ambiguities and vagaries of racial formation in this country more starkly evident than in the case of the Latino population. Making sense of the unique way that race and racialization has been given cultural meaning among Latinos provides yet another window on a process that has been most eloquently articulated in Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s seminal work.** *Racial Formation in the United States* has enabled us to clearly see that race is fundamentally a sociohistorical category at once fictional and yet also profoundly real in its profound sociological implications. >**One of these implications is the particular way that the United States has given cultural meaning to racial designations and attempts to locate various populations within the logic of the racial categories deployed in the United States.** It is here that the Latino populations continue to complicate the very logic of the racial formation process in this country. As I show here, there is also mounting ethnographic evidence that **Latinos often resort to the way that race was given specific meaning in the Spanish colonial context to racialize one another. It is here, in the troubling convergence of two distinct racial regimes in the lives of the Latino population, that we may illuminate the conundrums and contestations inherent in the racial formation process in the United States.** --- Second, regarding 'ancestry.' To quote *[A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Everyone_Who_Ever_Lived)* by geneticist [Adam Rutherford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Rutherford): >The first thing worth mentioning is that **I’m not entirely sure what we mean by ancestry. It’s an imprecise word,** and although an obvious and sensible working definition might be “the people from whom you are descended,” we’ve already established that this in isolation is not very useful for the climb up your tree. **It fully depends on what time period you are sampling.** Geneticist [Ewan Birney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewan_Birney) also [ruminates](https://twitter.com/ewanbirney/status/1275027478784942086): >**I am also increasingly not finding "ancestry" a useful word.** Partly there is this large divergence between genetic + genelogical ancestry, in particular back to our African roots; partly most people don't have a good conceptualisation of human migration in pre-history; >**It's a classic situation where people think they know what "ancestry" means but then you have to say "no, by genetic ancestry I mean this" and then "just to say, most people don't realise the human coalescence goes back to the point when all living modern humans were in Africa"** In a separate discussion concerning the distinction between ethnicity and genetics, he [remarks](https://twitter.com/ewanbirney/status/1359146544675627008): >This is most obvious **in the "Hispanic" / "Latino" groupings** where **there are hugely different ancestry patterns which also just merge with many people who don't tick these boxes** (as expected - humans are one species, and we ... fall in love and have sex in all sorts of ways). --- To tie things together, I will discuss how the US Census categorizes people. [It is known for its changing definitions throughout the decades](https://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12404688/census-race-history-intersectionality) - which serve to highlight the social and political construction of so-called racial categories - and for confusing or conflating several kinds of social categories. To quote [Goodman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_H._Goodman) et al. (2019): >**One of the consistencies of the U.S. census over its 200-plus years has been inconsistency.** Census categories of race/color have changed with nearly every decennial census. [Currently, according to the US Census Bureau,](https://www.census.gov/topics/population/hispanic-origin/about.html) >**OMB defines "Hispanic or Latino" as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.** [At the same time, the Bureau has this to say about "racial categories":](https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html) >In addition, **it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups.** I do not believe I need to explicitly point out the glaring overlaps. Broadly speaking, we got an unclear melting pot of "race," ethnicity, nationality, etc. Keep in mind these amalgamations for the next part. --- [Continues next comment]


Revenant_of_Null

Finally, concerning racism it is important to be aware that for social scientists, there are multiple kind of racisms (plural) and that these can be overt/covert and blatant/subtle (among other dimensions). This has implications for its relationship with colorism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, etc. As Augoustinos and Every explain (2015): >**Over the past 50 years, social psychologists and social scientists more broadly have argued that contemporary racism has become less about beliefs in a biological hierarchy between groups, and increasingly about beliefs in the cultural superiority of a dominant group’s values, norms, and practices** (Barker, 1981). Survey studies consistently demonstrate that blunt, hostile, segregationist, and White supremacist beliefs are less openly acceptable to White majority group members in Western liberal democracies. However, racial inequality continues to exist. To explain this, a distinction is therefore commonly made between ‘old-fashioned racism’ and ‘modern’ (McConahay, 1986) or ‘symbolic racism’ (Kinder and Sears, 1981), which in contrast, is subtle, covert, and paradoxically, endorses egalitarianism. **Modern racism rejects racial segregation and notions of biological supremacy, and is instead, based on feelings that certain social groups transgress important social values such as the work ethic, individualism, self-reliance, and self-discipline: values that are embodied in the Protestant ethic. Symbolic or modern racism justifies and legitimates social inequities based on moral feelings that certain groups violate such traditional values** [...] Every and Augoustinos (2007) provide illustrations in their discursive analysis of Australian parliamentary debates on asylum seekers: >**The expression of negative views of others coupled with discursive strategies used to present these views as ‘not racist’ has been referred to as ‘new’ or ‘modern’ racism, which denies being racist, in contrast to ‘old-fashioned racism’, which was less ambiguous in terms of its racist agenda.** Billig (1988) explains this shift as **a response to the contemporary social taboo against expressing unjustified negative views against out-groups.** He argues that **general norms and values against irrationality prohibit blatant forms of prejudice**, which, since the Enlightenment, has come to be understood primarily as an irrational, unreasonable and subjective/emotional response (Billig, 1988; Van Dijk, 1992). In view of this, speakers attempt to maintain a ‘rational’ subject position by strategically working up their views as reasonable, and framing their talk in such a way as to undermine or prevent possible charges of prejudice. **Those who wish to express negative views against out-groups take care to construct these views as legitimate, warranted and rational (Rapley, 2001), denying, mitigating, justifying and excusing negative acts and views towards minorities in order to position themselves as decent, moral, reasonable citizens** (Condor et al., 2006). See the meanings attached to 'immigrants' and 'refugees' and how discourses regarding these categories are constructed; who gets assigned which labels, how they are perceived, which ideas are evoked, etc. Also see, for instance, what has been called 'cultural racism', i.e. per Garner (2009): >**Cultural racism is the attribution of cultural deviance and backwardness to minorities**, which explain patterns of social exclusion that have outlived the civil rights era. And per Chua (2017): >**More recent inquiries on cultural racism re-examine further the meaning-making interpersonal, intergroup, and institutional practices that distinguish racial groups.** These inquiries take into greater analytically account the major conceptual shift in constructing and maintaining racialized meanings, relying on the seemingly naturalness of nonphysical markers of racial-ethnic group differences and boundaries. **Instead of using old racial labels to discriminate, this practice of racism uses** ***culture*** and ***cultural distinctions*** **as new racial logics.** For instance, early on, certain religious logic of racism highlights how leading institutions mark religious practices (and, more generally, religious groups) with greater or lesser racial worth and morality, and therefore, with notable material consequences such as racial genocide and assimilation related to colonial and nation-building projects (see Bhatt 2012). Other nonphysical traits and markers include language use, fashion aesthetics, behavioral profiling, food consumption, immigrant status, social welfare dependency, and potential traits of criminality, terrorism, and counterinsurgency. Furthermore, social theorists such as Bhavnani (1993) and Hall (1999) also highlight how the persistence of cultural racism and its changes relate to gendered and sexualized meanings and practices as well as associated racial-ethnic and migrant identity construction and their sense of exclusion, belonging, and community. There is much more which can be discussed or elaborated upon, but this is far from an ideal platform for complex discussions, and my time and energy are regrettably limited resources. --- Almaguer, T. (2016). 9. Race, Racialization, and Latino Populations in the United States. In The New Latino Studies Reader (pp. 210-228). University of California Press. Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2007). The language of “race” and prejudice: A discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 123-141. Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2015). Racism: Social psychological perspectives. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Chua, P. (2017). Cultural Racism. In B. Turner et al. (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Goodman, A. H., Moses, Y. T., & Jones, J. L. (2019). Race: are we so different?. John Wiley & Sons.


meister2983

Thanks for the clarification. I broadly agree with your points (which I think agree with mine of the heightened importance of culture over phenotypes), but as a meta-comment, I must admit I do find the terminology used (perhaps in social science) vague. In particular, it's not clear anymore what's a race versus culture or what's racial vs. cultural discrimination. For instance, in your quote describing what race is: >Other, once racialized categories like... Jewish... are now assimilated into whiteness This doesn't seem quite correct. Certainly, much of my family, reform to secular Jewish (and highly intermarried with non-Jews), are mostly indistinguishable culturally from other whites in the area (and mind you that's a very specific type of liberal, coastal white - they are very distinct from whites elsewhere), but this isn't true for say Hassidic Jews. They are seen as culturally distinct and even are subject to [high rates of hate crimes](https://www.wsj.com/articles/hate-crimes-in-new-york-city-continue-to-rise-11620077186). In particular, I'm not seeing how sociologically, we'd consider Hassidic Jews in the same "race" as white (which I'll define poorly as the dominant culture in the US) under this definition. >concretely Latin American people are racialized (often treated as some sort of ethnoracial group) A similar framing applies to Latinos. The Census is certainly defining them (alongside Spaniards and occasionally Portuguese) as a singular ethno-racial group by a genealogical (not genetic) ancestral definition, but I'm dubious that the definition of "Hispanic/Latino" on the census maps correctly to social perception. You certainly see [substantial divergence in discrimination self-reports](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/02/hispanics-with-darker-skin-are-more-likely-to-experience-discrimination-than-those-with-lighter-skin/) of Hispanics of different skin color, 19% of Hispanics view society as viewing themselves as white (not Hispanic) \[same study\], and at some point, Hispanics are assimilated enough to not even [declare themselves as Hispanic on the census](https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/). (an issue which is common enough to make Hispanic [economic mobility look worse than it actually is](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.3.603)). For the broad population, the heuristic is probably good enough - for narrow sets (e.g. the upper income ones above described moving into a neighborhood) breaks down. A good example in LatinX in tech - most of the American Latinos showcasted by [tech firms](https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/latinx-founders) \- are probably not racialized (they are broadly the Latinos society would view as white). I'm very dubious anyone would look at the founders of Brex and think "Latino" (using the word or even thinking they have anything to do with the large population of working class Mexican and Central American immigrants in the Bay Area) - they'd think "white" and at most "Brazilian" if you pointed out they hailed from Brazil. >and increasingly about beliefs in the cultural superiority of a dominant group’s values, norms, and practices I'm going to assume "dominant" group refers to successful, not necessarily majority (in the sense that East Asians, Indians, and Jews, numerical minorities, can and probably are seen as culturally "superior", perhaps even to white gentiles). If we want to call this "racism", I suppose that's workable as a definition, but at the same point, it seems odd (I'd even go with wrong) to not believe that certain cultural traits would result in higher achievement in certain areas. If a group highly prioritizes education, that group tends to have children with high outcomes -- is it wrong to view that cultural trait as "superior" in the context of what American society is valuing? > Advocates for race-based policies don’t want to see more Latinx folks represented simply because they have brown skin** but because they wish to reflect a multicultural society’s viewpoints. This feels troubling at least if we're talking about educational preferences. LatinX folk intergenerational mobility conditioned on class [isn't that different from whites](https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/race/), and virtually indistinguishable at the low end. This ends up implying: * Assimilated LatinX (by geological ancestry) people are not LatinX. * A LatinX person (or white for that matter) that attends a mostly Asian school, picks up Asian cultural habits and ends up prioritizing education more, doing better than their peers at non-Asian schools, is not in fact LatinX anymore, but Asian. * Membership in a group whose [cultural priorities focus less on education](https://siliconhillslawyer.com/2020/06/03/the-weaponization-of-diversity/) (which is true broadly for the working class) should result in favoring over membership in groups that do (say minorites like Asians and Jews). That seems completely against what incentives should be - which is encouraging everyone to focus more on education.


Revenant_of_Null

You're welcome. I apologize in advance, but I will just give some quick replies, mostly to flesh out or clarify some points I made, and to stimulate further thinking on the topic. (I am also responding in a different order, as to build a more or less cohesive message.) --- >This doesn't seem quite correct. I will acknowledge that regarding this topic, there is much which can be said, and that it is as much a complex topic as others. For more on the topic, see the other recent thread "[Do Jews have White Privilege?](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/nodk76/do_jews_have_white_privilege/)" in which I also contributed. I would not take the text I quoted as a complete in-depth analysis of the relationship between Jewish people and 'whiteness.' The book itself is meant to be an educational resource for general audiences. --- >A similar framing applies to Latinos. My bad, perhaps I should have said "Latino and Latin American" to be clear. I employed "Latin American" in a very broad manner, as a higher-level term including 'Latinos' insofar that they are considered people who "originate from Latin America" (in a parallel fashion to which "African Americans" are people considered to "originate from Africa"). For the rest, I will just acknowledge that, indeed, there are studies involving perceptions of Latino and Latin Americans which show the value of taking into account physical features such as skin tones. For illustration, see [López's critique of the US Census](https://theconversation.com/the-us-census-bureau-keeps-confusing-race-and-ethnicity-89649), who discusses the concept of 'street race.' There are definitely challenges which are particular to the study of 'Hispanic or Latinos', which is a heterogeneous group even though it is often perceived and depicted as homogeneous. The same can be said for 'Asian Americans' (e.g. see [Reeves et al. on the "pitfalls of generalization"](https://www.brookings.edu/research/asian-american-success-and-the-pitfalls-of-generalization/)"). --- >it's not clear anymore what's a race versus culture or what's racial vs. cultural discrimination. I would insist that the key word is complexity, and thinking in terms of webs. Reality, humans, racism, racists, it is all complex, and because of what is racism (see its history and its ideology), it is enmeshed with many other manners of thinking and forms of intergroup conflict. (Also, by the way, "race" and 'culture' are two different kinds of things. Perhaps you meant 'ethnicity', in which case I would argue that groups such as 'African Americans' are, in fact, ethnic groups, but racialized. For comparison, see national groups, which are ethnic groups, with a political dimension.) There *are* debates concerning how to conceptualize "racism" and its multiple forms, which are shaped by different traditions of research and theoretical perspectives (i.e. your mileage may vary at the level of details). But, broadly speaking, there is a common understanding that there are racism**s**, and that contemporary racism (in the broad sense) also involves cultural attitudes and beliefs which track with racialism (e.g. see essentialist thinking applied to "cultural traits" instead of "biological traits," or to ethnonational membership). It is why in my original reply I stressed the importance of qualitative research, and adopting a sociohistorical perspective. To understand what is called 'new racism' or 'modern racism', 'cultural racism', etc., it serves well to understand, for example, to understand the invention of "race", the development of the ideology of racism, racism as a system, social, cultural and political shifts which shape racism and its expression, etc. Also, I believe that I should here emphasize - contrary to certain popular accusations - that these (subtle racism, systemic racism, etc.) are not new developments or ideas. In fact, I personally use the term 'new' or 'modern' racism with some reluctance. [In 1967, Kwame Ture and Charles Hamilton write:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power%3A_The_Politics_of_Liberation) >**Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two, closely related forms: individual whites acting against individual blacks, and acts by the total white community against the black community. We call these individual racism and institutional racism.** The first consists of overt acts by individuals, which cause death, injury or the violent destruction of property. This type can be recorded by television cameras; it can frequently be observed in the process of commission. The second type is less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. The second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than the first type. [In 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. made the following claim:](https://youtu.be/SLsXZXJAURk?t=598) >**It is an unhappy truth that racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans, spoken and unspoken, acknowledged and denied, subtle and sometimes not so subtle**—the disease of racism permeates and poisons a whole body politic. And I can see nothing more urgent than for America to work passionately and unrelentingly—to get rid of the disease of racism. And in 1981, [Lee Atwater \(in\)famously explained **the abstraction of racial talking points**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ) in the pursuit of political goals which hurt "blacks" worse than "whites" without making explicit/overt/blatant references. --- >I'm going to assume "dominant" group refers to successful, not necessarily majority That is an interesting reading, and subsequent framing. But, no, it actually refers to the hierarchically superior group. The highest status group, the most influential, with most power, which defines what is the norm, etc. Thus, for instance, social psychologists Augoustinos and Every (2015) define 'cultural racism' in the following manner: >**Cultural racism occurs when the dominant group defines the norms, values, and standards in a particular culture.** These mainstream ideals permeate all aspects of the social system and are often fundamentally antagonistic with those embraced by particular minority groups. **To participate in society, minority groups often have to surrender their own cultural heritage and adopt those of the dominant group (e.g., the White majority).** From a sociological perspective, [here is a simple definition of 'dominant culture' provided by the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095725838): >Whereas traditional societies can be characterized by a high consistency of cultural traits and customs, modern societies are often a conglomeration of different, often competing, cultures and subcultures. **In such a situation of diversity, a dominant culture is one whose values, language, and ways of behaving are imposed on a subordinate culture or cultures through economic or political power.** This may be achieved through legal or political suppression of other sets of values and patterns of behaviour, or by monopolizing the media of communication. --- >it seems odd (I'd even go with wrong) to not believe that certain cultural traits would result in higher achievement in certain areas. If a group highly prioritizes education, that group tends to have children with high outcomes -- is it wrong to view that cultural trait as "superior" in the context of what American society is valuing? I will just say that 'cultural racism' involves, for example, constructing particular social groups as being characterized by negative traits (as defined by the dominant culture) - commonly with essentialist, inherentist and/or fatalistic undertones - not unlike with 'biological racism' and classic discourses about *we* having superior genes or purer blood, and *they* inferior and impure. Hence, Black Americans are not "*genetically* inferior," however they (inherently) have "bad culture" - a common line of reasoning allowing to dismiss claims about discrimination, legitimize social inequalities, avoid attributions of racism, etc. On this topic, I believe I should make an explicit reference to [the 'Model Minority Myth' regarding Asian Americans](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/04/authors-discuss-reasoning-behind-high-levels-asian-american-achievement) (discussed by Reeves et al.), which is often instrumentalized to criticize Black Americans. With that, I would ruminate on whether all cultural traits can be framed in the manner you chose to discuss the topic (e.g. what about forks and knives versus chopsticks?), whether everyone (including within the same 'cultural group') agrees on the same set of desirable outcomes, whether all or certain cultural traits are inherently categorizable as "superior" or "inferior," whether common claims about culture (e.g. the relationship with particular cultural traits and achievement) and social groups are substantiated, whether these claims come from a neutral standpoint, etc. (Also, regarding the success framework, there is the question of who gets to define success, and set the rules of the game.) Regarding your question on right and wrong, I will abstain from making normative claims, leaving those to venues such as r/askphilosophy or r/politics.


meister2983

Thanks - just a few thoughts to close out >But, broadly speaking, there is a common understanding that there are racisms, and that contemporary racism (in the broad sense) also involves cultural attitudes and beliefs which track with racialism My sense reading this is that there isn't agreement. Certain academics circles may be using racism very broadly, but many people would not consider "cultural racism" a form of racism. Since definitions are arbitrary, I think of it like this: * widespread agreement racism is bad * widespread agreement that assigning value to people based on intrinsic phenotypical features (skin color, hair type, facial structure) is bad * Lack of alignment between assimilation between multiculturalism. To be honest, it feels like promoters of multiculturalism are effectively "weaponizing" language to refer to opponents (assimilationists) as racists. >Cultural racism occurs when the dominant group defines the norms, values, and standards in a particular culture. This definition is problematic because "group" is left undefined. The [outgroup](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) of the coastal liberals I surround myself with are Republicans (proxied as the white working class). There is certainly all aspects of what you describe as "cultural racism" present (even the [antagonism toward Christians](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/silicon-valley-episode-christian-tech_n_5adf58e3e4b061c0bfa243fc) is mocked in media), except for the fact that the "culture" is not per se being predicted by phenotype of the people. But again, I find the use of the word "racism" unfair here as it is so loaded. "racism" feels like predicting culture from race. Otherwise, we're just arguing that there's something more wrong (again, the term racism is loaded) about cultural superiority when the culture prejudice is expressed toward cultures that happen to be correlated with phenotype. >To participate in society, minority groups often have to surrender their own cultural heritage and adopt those of the dominant group (e.g., the White majority). To what degree? Indians are doing extremely well here and remain culturally Indian. Same with many Asian and MENA immigrants. Successful reform Jews may have lost aspects of culture that didn't correlate well to income (extensive religious study that comes at the cost of secular studies), but certainly go to synagogue and celebrate Jewish holidays. Individuals may need to surrender the heritage that may not be compatible with a *capitalistic society,* but broadly speaking if you personally have a strong focus on education (esp. stem education) and discipline, not only will you be able to participate, but will even succeed. Many minority groups are on average outperforming the "white" masses (to your link about the model minority myth - it's history is somewhat wrong - [Asians reached model minority status](https://www.nber.org/papers/w22748) before the Immigration Act of 1965 even had an effect -- highly disadvantaged and institutionally discriminated CA-born Asians were at income parity with whites by 1970) Finally, this process is hardly insidious. As an anecdote, I grew up in an environment where Asian Americans were the dominant group numerically and especially in advanced classes (and certainly sure shaping the cultural "norms"). Since I want to interact more with my highly academically achieving peers, I socialize more with Asians than say whites and consequently adopt some Asian cultural customs (and naturally adopt less "white" cultural customs since I'm simply socializing less with whites). I do not view this as "*surrendering*" with its loaded connotation of fighting an enemy -- it's just socialization and I'm perfectly happy with how I've turned out. So was a close Mexican friend of mine in a similar situation.


PortugueseRoamer

Ok both comments focus mainly on America and I'm not speaking about America as I don't live there and I mention that every society works differently. I'm in Portugal. Also in the second comment, all those things you mention are class based. Lower classes are affected by all that, by economic insecurity, individual and institutional descrimination, etc. Also the part which mentions visual markers, if you look at class here ot is absolutely noticeable and shaped by visual markers. Different classes dress differently and it has huge noticeable impacts, that's why I mentioned the gopnik VS the black guy in a suit thing. I just don't see it and can't understand applying concepts related to America and thinking they are universal. Most of those things you mention don't racially apply to Portugal at all.


Revenant_of_Null

In my second comment, I provided illustrations of how racism *and* classism can operate in tandem, and how it is both theoretically and empirically inappropriate to attempt to boil down discrimination and inequality to *just* class or *just* "race" or ethnicity (and I am not even getting into discrimination concerning sex and gender, sexual orientation, age, ...). To reiterate, per Garner: >**Nobody is ‘just’ an Asian, a white or a black person.** They are, for example, a middle-class professional Asian woman; a working-class white man; a lower middle-class black woman. **If we separate these identities out, ignore, underplay or overplay elements of them, we miss the messy combinations that make social identities and racism such complex phenomena.** To be frank, I fail to see how your argument about "different classes dressing differently" substantively addresses my reply. For instance, this observation does not contradict the fact that experiments without involving physical encounters show that people utilize cues concerning both ethnic membership *and* class membership to discriminate, that attitudes toward other ethnic groups shape attitudes about welfare, and so forth. To me, you are coming off as contrarian, rather than someone with whom I can entertain a constructive dialogue. --- >I just don't see it and can't understand applying concepts related to America and thinking they are universal. As a starting point, I would keep in mind that the ideology of racism neither began in, nor is exclusive to, the US. The legacies of racism are international, because of European colonialism and imperialism. Historically, "race" was invented in Europe (e.g. [see the history 'scientific racism'](https://apa.nyu.edu/hauntedfiles/about/timeline/)). During colonialism ([whether the invention of "race" can be placed prior to colonialism is an open question](https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/cord_whitaker_reviews_the_invention_of_race_in_the_european_middle_ages/)), European empires spread racist ideas wide-and-far with lasting effects. See for example Latin America. To quote Telles and Dixon (2017): >**Scholars focused on the Americas tend to trace the origins of colorism to European colonization and slavery. Under colonialism, whiteness and one’s proximity to it in terms of ideology, culture, ancestry, and phenotype afforded greater access to social and economic privileges and opportunities** [...] >**Despite notable differences, Latin American countries share with the United States a common history of European colonization, slavery, and racism.** An extensive body of literature traces the development of a hierarchy based on race and color throughout colonial Latin America (Andrews 2004, Knight 1990, Telles & PERLA 2014). **Spanish and Portuguese colonizers explicitly (through castas) or implicitly adopted a racial/color hierarchy that put indigenous and black populations at the bottom and European colonizers at the top.** I have recently discussed what this has meant [in the Brazilian context here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/nkgdr9/how_common_is_it_to_see_afro_brazilians_in_the_us/), and [Mexico here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/kp7p2o/it_seems_that_from_the_mexicos_point_of_view_you/). Again, there is research comparable to what I discussed earlier which shows that discrimination and inequality cannot be reduced to just "class." For example, [Telles explains](https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/racial-discrimination-and-miscegenation-experience-brazil): >**The sociological analysis of mobility reveals that black and brown Brazilians, whose fathers were employed in particular occupational or class groups, are far less likely to experience upward mobility than whites of the same occupational or class origins.** Also econometric analyses based on human capital models reveal that **brown, and especially black Brazilians, earn about 20 to 25 per cent less than whites with the same background, when age, work experience, educational level, sex, region, class origin and labour market characteristics are considered.** Yet another study shows that **siblings of different skin colours,** not an uncommon phenomenon in a country of miscegenation like Brazil, **have different levels of education, where darker siblings are more likely to drop out of school at earlier ages than their white brothers or sisters.** In that study, **all factors besides discriminatory treatment on the basis of race (by teachers, parents, etc.) are strictly taken into account.** The consistent findings on social mobility, the econometric analysis of income and the comparison of education levels in siblings of different skin colour **demonstrate persistent racial discrimination.** And [Zizumbo-Colunga and Martínez argue](https://theconversation.com/study-reveals-racial-inequality-in-mexico-disproving-its-race-blind-rhetoric-87661): >More often, though, racism is ignored or explained away. **Many Mexicans, for example, argue that dark-skinned Mexicans tend to belong to ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities and live in historically disadvantaged areas,** like the rural south and the heavily indigenous high mountains. >Since this is the case, **they reason, data that appears to show race-based inequality in Mexico is actually capturing class, ethnic and regional inequalities.** >**Although the premise of this argument holds true, the conclusion is incorrect.** Our study accounted for gender, age, region of residence and ethnic origin – and **still skin color emerged as a powerful determinant of wealth and education levels.** Also see Japan's history with racialism. Per Yamashiro (2013): >**John Dower has pointed out that ‘‘the half century or more during which the Japanese initially turned to the West for education coincided almost exactly with the period when scientific racism dominated the natural and social sciences in Europe and the United States’’** (Dower 1986, 204). >The construction of Japanese as a race developed within larger contexts of imperialism and nation-building in the late 19th century. **As Japan was modernizing in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was looking to western nations as models that were more highly industrialized and had more powerful militaries** [...] **So the construction of Japanese as a race in the 19th century** (and Japan’s eventual development of empire) **was within this larger context of their process of adopting western views associated with modernity** (Siddle 1996, 2011). Japan provides visible examples of embedded racism. See for example the concept of *[hāfu](https://blog.gaijinpot.com/live-hafu-japan/)*, the *[burakumin](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/02/16/national/social-issues/embracing-buraku-heritage-examining-changing-attitudes-toward-social-minority/)*, and the status of the [*Zainichi* Koreans](https://minorityrights.org/minorities/koreans/). The main point here is to highlight the fact that what I originally discussed is not exclusive to the USA, even though there can be idiosyncratic differences which can be understood through sociohistorical analysis. --- I would note that the query is "How do we know that a particular ethnic group's disadvantage when compared to the majority is caused by ethnic descrimination and not by class disparities/class descrimination?," without specifying a country. There are multiple reasons why I focused mainly on the US. First, the amount of research on the topic - especially in English - is not the same everywhere. There are differences in awareness, traditions, etc. To expand on my previous observations, and to illustrate my point here, see Quillian et al.'s analysis of 97 field experiments of discrimination in hiring (which found "significant discrimination against nonwhite natives in all countries in [their] analysis"). Their sample is limited to nine countries (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States), those in which *at least* three field experiments on hiring discrimination have been conducted. Concerning Portugal, my knowledge is mostly limited to critiques of the "[myth of Portuguese non racism](https://cesa.rc.iseg.ulisboa.pt/afroport/portuguese-non-racism-on-the-historicity-of-an-invented-tradition/)" and 'Lusotropicalismo.' According to Araújo (2010): >**In Portugal, contemporary research on racism is relatively scarce** and **it was only from the late 1990s that could be considered a field of academic enquiry**. And Marques (2012): >**Until the last decade, one of the central features of the social sciences produced in Portugal about immigration, ethnicity or national identity was the absence of references to racism, racial discrimination or racial issues.** This was **probably due to the colonial past of the nation** and **the heritage of the ideology called** ***lusotropicalismo*** and to **a national myth that I call "Portuguese non racism"** (Marques, 2007). >One could even formulate the hypothesis according to which, at first, on the research about immigration and ethnic minorities, the simple mention of racism would have constituted a kind of "taboo" for most Portuguese Social Scientists. I am not aware of a user around here who is intimately familiar with Portuguese research. There was a Brazilian sociologist who might be able to provide insight, but - regrettably - they seem to be currently inactive. If you seek insight on Portugal, I do not think this is the best place. (Ref. list in a separate comment, cannot fit it here.)


Revenant_of_Null

Araújo, M. (2019). Social sciences and the study of racism in Portugal. TOLERACE Working Paper, 1, Coimbra: CES, 2010. Disponível em:. Acessado em: 19/02. Dixon, A. R., & Telles, E. E. (2017). Skin color and colorism: Global research, concepts, and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 405-424. Marques, J. F. (2012). Racism in Portugal; the recent research. In International Conference Europe in crisis–migrations, racisms and belongings in the new economic order Proceedings Book (pp. 148-153). European Society for the Education of Adults. Quillian, L., Heath, A., Pager, D., Midtbøen, A. H., Fleischmann, F., & Hexel, O. (2019). Do some countries discriminate more than others? Evidence from 97 field experiments of racial discrimination in hiring. Sociological Science, 6, 467-496. Yamashiro, J. H. (2013). The social construction of race and minorities in Japan. Sociology Compass, 7(2), 147-161.


PortugueseRoamer

Well you made some great points which shut me up, maybe I am indeed falling into Lusotropicalismo. Never thought I'd be actively defending Lusotropicalismo without realizing it. You changed my mind, there are still some stuff I'm hesitant towards, specially as even though we might have fabricated racism it is not present in the same way as it was originally and it is definitely more present in the US than here but I think you pointed me in the right direction in terms of readings and understanding.


Revenant_of_Null

Glad to hear that. You're welcome :)


Stg_885rk

To be fair, you didn’t clarify in your OP which country you were referring to so it’s fair to assume you were talking about race issues specific to the United States (most redditors are American). I’m not familiar with Portugal’s race issues compared to the U.S., but this new context will help people better answer your questions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*