Definitions of race

We've been talking a lot about different racial identities in class and I was curious about the currently accepted definitions of race. So I did a little research online and found a couple definitions. As might be expected, the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary's definition is very broad and not terribly enlightening. [1]

race: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
c: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

In 1998, the American Anthropological Association published a statement on race that they believe ``represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.'' They first describe scientific notions of race. The vast majority, about 94% of physical variation lies within commonly accepted racial groups. That is, geographic racial groups only genetically differ from one another by about 6%. This is because human beings have always interbred when they have come into contact with other groups. Because of interbreeding, physical variations occur gradually and are independent of each other. For example, skin color tends to vary according to whether a region is more tropical and sunnier or whether it is a more temperate region, but this is not necessarily tied to eye color or curly or straight hair.

Clearly, race has meanings far beyond physical characteristics. The AAA trace the concept of race to ancient hierarchies used to compare different individuals to God. These hierarchies were given more credibility by Europeans in order to rationalize their colonization of the rest of the world and at its most extreme to justify slavery of non-Europeans. They associated superior traits with Europeans and inferior traits to others. As ideas of evolution and natural selection became more developed, culminating in the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in 1859, many Europeans applied pseudo-scientific reasoning to justify their racism. They claimed that whites had evolved further from apes than Africans, and that Africans were therefore more primitive and more suited to manual labor.

Today, anthropologists accept that all humans can learn any cultural behavior, regardless of their genetic background. No one is born with any specific culture or language. Therefore disparities between "racial groups" has nothing to do with biological inheritance but is a product of "historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances." In light of these conclusions, it seems that are notions of race are based almost entirely on visual differences between individuals. As interracial marriages and children become more and more prevalent, will our traditional notions of race fade into obscurity because it will become more difficult for strangers to assign racial identity to others?


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race%5B3%5D
[2] http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

The Watts Towers and the militaristic architecture of LA

When I read the Schrank article one of the first things that struck me was Watts Towers’ stark contrast with other forms of architecture in Los Angeles. In my art history course last semester we read a chapter from Mike Davis’ City of Quartz entitled “Fortress L.A.” that discussed how the buildings and planning of Los Angeles create a militaristic and exclusionary environment. To illustrate this architectural “style” my professor focused primarily on the new Cathedral of Our Lady in the Bunker Hill neighborhood of LA. I think it’s really interesting how the Watts’ Towers both fits into Davis’ portrait of L.A. and compares to the antagonistic design of the Cathedral because it is within this framework that the Watts’ Towers developed its unique importance to the local and international communities.

In the chapter “Fortress L.A.” Davis explores the “architectural policing of social boundaries”(223) in Los Angeles. He argues that the chained link fences and video cameras that characterize downtown LA function as exclusionary symbols that frame underrepresented groups’ perceptions of the city but are unnoticeable to the upper/middle class. Coupled with an aggressive “containment” of the homeless policy and growing gentrification, the militaristic face of the city has directly influenced the continued fragmentation of LA. The destruction of public space, a familiar point in our class, is explained by Davis as a “universal and ineluctable consequence of this crusade to secure the city”(226). This point relates to Schrank’s article because the city’s attempt to demolish the towers to make space for a commercial housing project is another example of the eradication of public space in exchange for corporate defined redevelopment. The subsequent appropriation of the towers as a symbol of successful urban renewal mirrors LA’s fascination with “urban realist” architecture, as exemplified in the work of Frank Gehry (236-240).

The recently rebuilt Cathedral of Our Lady, designed by Spanish architect Rafael Moneo, similarly integrates security precautions into its post-modern design. Like Gehry’s works, the Cathedral’s tightly controlled exterior gives way to a luxurious interior complete with a 2.5 acre plaza, multiple gardens and a gift shop. Moneo wanted to restrict how people used the building, so the expansive 58,000 square foot cathedral has only one entrance, which is gated. The unwelcoming facade of the building also reflects the tensions of the Bunker Hill neighborhood that had previously been forcefully redeveloped by the city. In addition, the design of the Cathedral comments on the city’s historic past through the adobe color of its concrete exterior and location on the historic El Camino Real.

When I first learned of the Watts’ Towers, I immediately thought back to the new Cathedral of Our Lady because of the evident disparities between two of the most iconic examples of Los Angeles architecture. Although both works dominate the surrounding landscape because of their relative height, the face of the Cathedral is heavily guarded with few windows and high walls whereas the Towers are completely exposed and open. Both reflect the militaristic nature of the city that Davis articulately described in “Fortress LA” but they do it in very different ways- the Cathedral by internalizing drastic security features and displaying an exclusionary exterior; the Towers by embodying the raw and “brutalizing physicality of the modern urban experience” (Schrank 277).

Link to Compton article in Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190655

Radical Thought and Academia--A Bit of a Ramble

American Studies Blog Post #2:

After class today I began thinking about radical thought within Academia, and the broader historical trends that have taken place within American political discourse. A question popped into my mind: How does the increased formalization and legitimization of critical and radical thought within academia relate to, if at all, the deradicalization of American political discourse and culture and the pacification of students?

On the one hand, since the “Power Movements” many disciplines have been legitimized and secured—after decades of fighting—that welcome critical, oppositional and radical analyses of society. Ethnic studies, American studies, women’s studies, queer studies, cultural studies and probably a host of others build off of canonical texts that articulate endemic, intractable, fundamental problems with society, and often pose revolutionary or liberatory ways of moving forward. Capitalism, patriarchy, racism, white supremacy, heteronormativity, and other dominant ideological and structural forces are interrogated, unpacked, and intellectually dismantled. Perverse contradictions, inequalities and hierarchies are de-naturalized and wrestled with in all of these disciplines.

Yet that being said, I cannot help but notice that the growing legitimization and normalization of radical thought within academia has also taken place alongside two other problematic (according to my own subjective values) trends: the conservatization of American mainstream political culture and discourse, and the rise of a less active and less critical generation of students (of which I am a part). Within our country capitalism and unfettered markets seem less questioned and more immutable than ever (this is changing in slight ways as evidenced by Obama’s election and mild economic interventionism). Racial inequality and discrimination, though less blatant and no longer legal, still characterize American society. And yet, few imaginative alternatives to the current social and economic order have any serious currency within American political discourse. Only mild tinkering with the market economy is considered, and bolstering public goods and services will be a battle for the Obama administration. Inequality and poverty seem to be relatively low-profile political issues in America, and racial inequality (in terms of outcomes and substantive opportunity) is practically taboo to speak about.

As academia has become incredibly diverse ideologically, it seems American political discourse has narrowed and become more conservative. Are these trends related? On the one hand, it seems that academia has become a haven of sorts for radical thought during an era in which conservatism and reformism have reigned. It makes sense that an institution with at least a degree of autonomy (from business and government) has become the repository for radical thinking even when such thinking holds no wider political viability. That being said, I wonder if the legitimization of radical thinking in academia has in any way hindered the Left’s growth since the Reagan Revolution. For one, radical thought in academia often seems to be depoliticized and decontextualized (crazy ideas from the past that are severed from the actual people and struggles that precipitated such thinking). Also, as academia has become the main repository for radical thinking and radical intellectuals, it seems that a geographical gulf has formed between communities that disproportionately bear the brunt of structures of domination (be they social or economic) and ideas from the Leftist tradition. More privileged members of society attending four-year institutions are exposed to revolutionary ways of thinking, yet such thinking may often be merely consumed like candy--taken as ideas that are to be wrestled with for the sake of one’s own intellectual development, not because they are to influence praxis.

In this way, I wonder if those most capable of revolutionizing society (those with the lived experiences that inspire action) are most distanced from the ideas that could be empowering, and those least capable of revolutionizing society (those with the greatest stake, materially speaking, in the status quo) are exposed to radical thought, yet often consume it as part of an intellectual feast en-route to a comfortable, professional existence.

These are very rough ideas, though I am simply entertaining the thought that the legitimization of radical thought within academia, and the fact that academia has become somewhat of a haven for radical thinking during a conservative era, may have had some serious ramifications: namely, the fact that privileged people have complete access to critical theory and the theoretical products of the Leftist tradition, while working class and underprivileged people are completely distanced from these narratives and traditions—both spatially and otherwise. Moreover, I wonder whether the access disparities have hampered the Left’s reemergence.

South Central Farms

When the South Central Farmers spoke to our class about their struggle I was reminded of a class I took last year where we discussed an unfamiliar form of injustice (as least to me), environmental racism. The act of inflicting toxins on to a voiceless subordinated group of people.

Last year in my International Studies class we discussed the immensely understated occurrences of environmental racism throughout the world. We talked about the discrepancy in water quality in Chicago. The south side of Chicago had a toxic level of lead in its tap water as opposed to the wealthier, whiter north side that had safe drinkable water. We noted that this was no coincidence and perhaps it was a way to slowly get rid of the minorities. Despite the shocking level of lead in the water, the overt environmental racism was never nationally recognized. Most commercial environmental activist groups tend to be run by middle white people who do not experience the environmental injustices caused by racism. Commercial environmental groups were more focused on animals and trees, not on humans. With this fact, grassroots environmentalism has become more and more prevalent.

The South Central Farmers brought to light that there are no health food stores let alone a few grocery stores. South Central residents have very little ways to obtain healthy organic foods because the liquor stores out number the grocery stores. The young female South Central resident said we need healthy options, but we are only given essentially poisonous foods. This is exactly why the South Central Farm was so important, it finally allowed low income people to have healthy options. She also talked about how the South Central Farm taught people to think about what they are eating and stressed the importance of organic produce. Unfortunately, it is no coincidence that healthy options are not available in South Central. This is a prime example of environmental racism. It puts the South Central residents at a disadvantage in life because they are not given the same healthy choices. The South Central Farm was that healthy option for many low income people and it was taken away without much understanding of the importance of organic farming for these families. Thus, the grassroots movement began.

As the farmers voiced their concerns they caught the attention of celebrities and politicians. Although, the politicians proved to be of know help, they did grab the public's attention. The land where the farm once was is still vacant an unused, they were able to find a plot of land in Bakersfield. The grassroots movement is still going strong without the help of the Mayor and exemplifies the injustice inflicted on the subordinated. Their voices individually were silenced, but as a group they are subtly making progress as most grassroots movements do.

Desperate Housewives and the Chicano Identity

This past weekend I also watched the episode of “Desperate Housewives” that Jane talks about in her blog post with the scene of Lucy assuming that two girls playing in her office were the children of the cleaning lady when they were actually the daughters of her boss. In addition to Jane’s discussion of common sense racism, I related this scene Haney Lopez’s discussion of “Inventing Chicanos” in chapter 9 of Racism on Trial.

I was really interested in Haney Lopez’s descriptions of the reasons why Mexican Americans involved in the Chicano movement sought to change their identity by primarily changing their racial title. Haney Lopez explains that “the Chicano movement worked constantly, creatively, and self-consciously to fashion a new racial identity” (205) that was a “positive identity” with a lot of meaning behind it. He says that “Mexican Americans understood race to have relatively little power to determine identity” (206) while Chicanos felt that the color of their skin went hand in hand with the often negative or degrading societal images associated with the Mexican culture. The Chicano movement fought to change their title to therefore separate themselves from the white identity and create an identity that could differ from the stereotypes around them. This new identity would be positive in the sense that their efforts went towards representing the positive aspects of their culture and who they were collectively, which provided depth and meaning by emphasizing the many dimensions to their racial and ethnic community.

Haney Lopez breaks this racial identity into three “lines:” characteristics as the traits of groups; categories as the racial group itself; and properties as the cultural conceptions of the racial group, or the “supposed attributes of race.” (205) By creating a new category (Chicanos), the Chicano movement distinguished their characteristics from those of the white category that Mexican Americans were associated with, in attempt of developing the properties of their identity into positive conceptions that would positively develop the Chicano’s place in society.

The scene from “Desperate Housewives” symbolizes the reason why Chicanos did not want to be considered part of the white racial category because they were not treated as white and were associated with disrespectful, careless, and generally poor behavior. Lucy exaggerated the situation because of the color of the girls’ skin, and her association of the behavior of the girls with lower class minorities. These assumptions and properties are what the Chicano movement fought to change by creating their new identity.

Additionally, this scene was an example of the “whitened Mexicans” Haney Lopez discusses. “According to Chicanos, ‘whitened’ Mexicans identified with and aspired to the status of whites. They were also those who, because of physical features, wealth, profession, education, or business position, possessed characteristics associated with whites.” (207) Carlos, the father of the two girls, is an example of a whitened Mexican because even though his skin color is the same as the skin of the Chicanos, he has been successful, represented by his high business position and apparent wealth. Although the show does not characterize Carlos with “possessed characteristics associated with whites,” it is clear that Lucy treats him as she would a white man because of his status. Lucy’s behavior represents the behavior of many people in society who today only treat minorities as equals when they have achieved the power and status of what people like Lucy consider to be properties of the white racial group.

Uniting a Community

Reading about Latino unity in Racism on Trial: The Fight for Chicano Justice made me reflect on a separate event in Los Angeles that I felt strongly showed Latino unity in East Los Angeles. While reading the descriptions of the walkouts and watching the clips of the film Walkout, I couldn’t help but think of the event. It isn’t as revolutionary as high school walkouts or definitely not life altering but I still felt that it somehow showed a strong sense of unity within the Latino community. 

            Every year during high school football season, two long-time rivals, the Roosevelt High School Rough Riders and the Garfield High School Bulldogs- two schools involved in the 1968 walkouts- play against each other in what is known as the “East L.A. Classic.” Both of the school’s populations, along with the alumni, are predominantly Latino. This particular football game brings in alumni from all over Los Angeles and alumni ranging from various years. Usually, the game gets so much attendance by alumni and fans that the game is usually held at a local college instead of at one of the high school’s football fields and for a few years even had to be held at the Los Angeles Coliseum, a stadium used for the 1984 Summer Olympics and is now used for USC football games. The reason it reminds me of Latino unity is because I’ve witnessed this traditional event for many years and seen how united the Latino community of Los Angeles can become.

When I initially started the reading, my mind went to this game because the two schools, who I thought were rivals, had joined together and took part in the 1968 walkouts. It surprised me to realize that at one point in history these two schools were once allies and helped bring the Chicano community together in the fight for Chicano justice. I’d only ever seen them under the conditions of the game- going head to head. I wondered why it was they went back to being rivals if they had already become allies. However, I realized that despite the fact they were now rivals and weren’t walking out together, they both still brought the Chicano community together except under different circumstances.

As a result of having two parents, one from each rival school, our family has taken part in this tradition for years. Every year, our family alternates which school we’re going to sit and root for and every year, on whatever school I sit and root for, I always notice how despite the tense rivalry between the two schools, their fans, and their alumni, the people are always just happy to take part in the tradition. During the game, insults are thrown, the crowd tries to out-cheer each other and emotions run high but it really doesn’t matter which school you support in the end, because the fact that people are actually there cheering on one of the schools on a Friday night is enough to unite the community. It becomes a celebration of loyalty and pride to be part of this long-time tradition and community for fans ranging from senior citizens (one man I recall wore his class of ’39 letterman jacket) to the newest generation of Bulldogs and Rough Riders.

Even during the year, be it summer, spring, winter, if people come across fellow “Rough Riders” or “Bulldogs,” the game comes to mind and immediately turns strangers into friends. Countless times have I heard my dad come across a fellow Garfield High alumnus and ask, “Hey you went to Garfield? Another Bulldog! What year did you graduate?” or sometimes have a run-in with a rival and tease, “You went to Roosevelt? How embarrassing. We’ll see who wins this year at the Classic!” Just the recognition of attending these schools immediately unites people under this one commonality of taking part in the rivalry. It may not be a fight for justice but the result is still the same- a community, even if only on one cold autumn night under stadium lights, unites to support each other.