Whitening
The Social Construction of Race
- Explain what sociologists mean by saying that race is socially constructed
- Understand race as a relationship of power among social groups
Different Ways to Be White
- Contrast different ways that groups have claimed whiteness
Whitening: From White-Ethnic to White
- Define whitening
- Define white privilege
Whitening: From Darker to Lighter
- Explain how one-drop ideology differentiated whitening in North America vs. Latin America
Nineteenth-century political cartoons expressed WASP perceptions of Irish Americans.[1] In the image above, a servant confronts her WASP mistress in a scene of domestic disorder. The caricature’s caption reads: “THE IRISH DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THAT WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.”
The two women appear in contrasting ways to highlight ironic subversion of middle- and upper-class values. The mistress should be reprimanding the servant for making a mess in the kitchen—note the blowing teapot, smoking oven, and dropped plate. Instead, she is begging for a return to order (or perhaps herself apologizing). The servant, taller and stronger than the mistress with an Irish clover design on her dress, raises her fist defiantly. She is portrayed as “masculine” rather than “feminine”: her body is larger than her mistress’, with bulging muscles and legs spread aggressively. The two faces contrast: whereas the mistress’ features (gazing upward) are conventionally “feminine,” the servant’s are “masculine” (or perhaps apelike) with buck teeth, large upper lip, and downward self-righteous gaze. Finally, the ironic title contrasts “WE” with “THE IRISH,” identifying the viewer as WASP. Overall, the cartoon mocks Irish American pretensions to dignity and autonomy by presenting these as ridiculous imitations of the “serious” American Declaration of Independence. Irish self-assertion can only create domestic (national) disturbance.
Unlike in the 1800s, Irish Americans today (like Irish in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain, and elsewhere) are perceived, and perceive themselves, as fully and unambiguously white, ticking this box on census forms. Irish no longer stand out from white Americans in religion, wealth, politics, or education. How did Irish Americans undergo a social process—not merely of assimilation—but of whitening, and over many decades become white?[2] How did racial assimilation work with other European groups such as Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Jews? How has whitening changed, or not changed, white perceptions of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics? What is whiteness, and how does it reflect social power?
Key Terms (in order of appearance in chapter)
whitening (two versions): (1) A social process of immigrant assimilation into an established white group. (2) A social process in which a darker-skinned group becomes lighter-skinned by intermarrying with the lighter-skinned.
the social construction of reality (SCR): different social groups experience the world in overlapping yet distinctive ways
legal whiteness: white categorization of a group in formal law
social whiteness: white categorization of a group in everyday, informal actions (especially by established whites such as WASPs)
whiteness by “inspection”: North American way of determining whiteness, based on the one-drop rule (your physical traits like skin color)
whiteness by “decency”: Latin American way of determining whiteness, based on your position in the community
white privilege: unearned social, economic, and political benefits accruing to whites but denied to nonwhites (for example, in Brazil, South Africa, and the U.S.)
The Social Construction of Race
As a phenomenon of the social world, not the natural world, race is a social construction that reflects differences of power among social groups. The social construction of reality (SCR) is one of the most important ideas in social science and philosophy of the past century. Part of its usefulness is its flexibility; sociologists have different versions. But they’d all agree with the following:
Ancient and medieval European philosophers claimed that the world was completely independent of human actions and ideas. God created the world as containing certain kinds of animals, minerals, places, and people. Although people spoke many different languages, all languages referred to the same animals, minerals, places, and people. There was one sacred language that God used to communicate with people (Latin, in the Middle Ages). Likewise, there was one way of learning about God’s creation, through study of sacred texts (Bible) and logical reasoning. The world was independent of what people did. Reality was simply there, not the outcome of any process other than God’s creative activity.
In the 1600s and 1700s, leading European modern philosophers started to question this view. By the 1700s they were seeking to acknowledge and refute skeptical arguments that reason actually can’t tell us about reality in itself. Regardless of whether God exists or not, maybe we can’t know for certain what the world is like. So far this sounds like ancient skepticism doubting the trustworthiness of our seeing, hearing, tasting. But here’s the modern twist: the mind interposes itself like a screen between us (consciousness) and the world (reality). The screen doesn’t simply distort, but constructs (produces, generates) our awareness in terms of its own structures. Knowledge is an outcome of a process: the mind’s active processing of raw sensation. Thus, we can’t directly know reality because the mind has always already processed our sensory input (sights, sounds, smells) prior to our awareness. When you smell roses, you can’t smell the rose itself. You can only smell the rose as constructed (processed, produced) by your mind. The mind combines the raw smell (sensory data entering your nose) with its own processing structure. The result is your experience of smelling roses, or any other human experience—not unknowable reality “in itself.” Since all minds have identical structures, we all experience the same smell. By 1800, this argument had revolutionized philosophy.[3]
After 1900, philosophers developed reality construction ideas in several ways. Here’s the version relevant to sociology: People are not just minds constructing reality. Rather, mentality is embodied, a way of doing things in culturally appropriate ways.[4] Mind is visible in ordinary things our bodies do (grimace in pain) and say (announce an intention to eat chocolate) as we interact with each other. Healthy babies across the world have identical brain structures. But they are raised in different cultures with overlapping yet contrasting ways of doing things. Chinese and Italians both cook noodles; but they use chopsticks or forks to eat them. And the Mandarin Chinese and Italian languages refer to different types of noodles. Thus, against a background of human unity, different societies interpret reality in distinctive ways. Chinese experience is not identical to Italian experience. Modern French experience is not identical to medieval French experience.
Likewise, different groups within the same society (women vs. men, poor vs. rich, black vs. white, Los Angelenos vs. Kansans) make sense of the world in overlapping, yet distinctive ways.In the U.S., middle-class, urban white women—on the one hand—and working-class, rural Mexican men who are undocumented immigrants—on the other—likely have many cultural barriers to cross to understand each other. Now we can see why sociologists Berger and Luckmann described this view as “social” construction of reality (SCR).[5] Our overlapping yet contrasting social identities shape our shared experience of the world in distinctive ways. Studying diversity has a lot to do with learning about these distinctive experiences. Sociologists are especially interested in how SCR relates to social inequality. How do powerful groups (e.g., whites, men, the wealthy, heterosexuals) understand the world in ways that contrast with the experience of less powerful groups (e.g., people of color, women, the poor, lesbians)?
A common misunderstanding: Some philosophers historically argued that the mind “creates reality” in the sense that, without people, the world would disappear. This view (“philosophical idealism”) is not what sociologists claim. Sociologists hold that human experience is the outcome of how various kinds of people use everyday culture (ways of talking and doing things) to navigate their lives. All people, including scientists, always have a “view from somewhere”.[6]
Race as socially constructed. As a phenomenon of the social world, not the natural world, race is a social construction that reflects differences of power among social groups”.[7] We’ve seen that race has no important biological basis. There are no human sub-species: race is an illusion, not biologically real. But we treat it as real, and that’s crucial. Sociologically, race continues to matter in the twenty-first century as a key part of social identities and distinctions across world cultures.
Human beings (Homo sapiens) have always sought to distinguish their particular group from others: us vs. them.[8] “Our” way of life is better than “theirs”—as are our god(s), our mythical origins, our ceremonies, our food, our beauty, etc. In short, we are better than they. Using power and violence to enforce social distinction is a human universal. Perhaps especially since the prehistoric transition to agriculture (farming) and settled life, groups have distinguished themselves from others in numerous ways: by place of dwelling, housing, food, religion, gender, age, caste, class, etc.
Not, however, by race. It is a striking historical fact that race—in the modern (1800s) sense of a global hierarchy of peoples based on innate physical traits—did not begin to emerge until the 1400s, as a direct consequence of increasing European encounters with non-Europeans.[9] Not until the 1700s and especially 1800s did Europeans develop elaborate pseudo-scientific theories justifying white supremacy in terms of innate traits (white skin, brain size, bodily proportions).[10] Western Europeans invented race to explain and justify global colonization: first to themselves, then to colonized others.[11][12]. Thus, the very concept of race—e.g., as a way many nations today categorize citizens on census forms[13]—originated as the new and modern way Europeans (1500s) distinguished themselves from everyone else to claim their own innate superiority. Simply by taking race seriously we are already accepting assumptions made long ago by European colonialism.
Like older “us-them” distinctions, race emerged as a relational concept.[14][15] Europeans (1500s) proposed a world hierarchy of peoples, with themselves at the top. Since then, race has always been a technique for whites to distinguish themselves from nonwhites. Centuries of European global colonization made racial whiteness synonymous with goodness (virtue), beauty, and truth; color became a sign of badness, ugliness, and falsity. As the color of power, whiteness marked the racial distinctions so necessary to European claims of natural superiority. For instance, the American binary opposition of “white or black” first arose in the British colonial era, with fateful consequences that still shape racial identity and race relations today. Between 1607 (Jamestown) and 1776, American whiteness acquired its modern meaning of “not-Indian” and “not-black”.[16]
This either-or, mutual exclusivity of race—the one-drop rule—was more rigid in North America than in most other regions of European global colonization. This descent rule forming the foundation of U.S. racial classification is relatively unique in the rigor of its ancestry principle for deciding who is and is not white.[17] One-drop ideology allowed American colonists to embrace overall homogeneity—“whiteness”—of a wide variety of northwestern European ethnicities and peoples—English, Scots, Scots Irish, Welsh, Dutch, German, French, Swedes—while rejecting any similarities with African or Native American ethnicities, even people of mixed European ancestry. The fact that these Europeans were almost all Protestants made white racialization (as WASP) easier. The question of Indians was less clear, with some prominent whites such as Thomas Jefferson opining that Indians were closer to whites than were blacks.[18] Thus, American racial hierarchy was well established by 1776: whites (WASPs) on top, Indians in the middle, and blacks below.
Different Ways to Be White
Being WASP was a first way for Americans to be white. By 1800—regardless of wealth, social reputation, European vs. American birthplace, or European ethnicity—if you were of purely northwestern European ancestry, you were white.
Pan-white-ethnic nativism served an important political function particularly between 1763 and 1776, fueling cross-colonial (“American”) solidarity against the British Empire.[19] This was crucial to the success of Independence, since British North America was one of the most socially diverse regions in the eighteenth-century world.[20] Though enslaved and free blacks, and Indians, also participated in rebellion, the white creole leadership (many of whom owned slaves) never contemplated civil and political equality with Negroes or Indians. The Founders envisioned the nation as white—as “not-Indian” and “not-black”. Indeed, following ratification of the Constitution, one of Congress’ first laws (1790) restricted naturalization to “free white persons”: only white immigrants could become citizens.[21][22]
U.S. revolutionaries had not needed nonwhite support nearly as much as did Latin American leaders (e.g., Mexico, South America) with much larger mestizo and indigenous populations.[23] Though the American Revolution depended on pan-white-ethnic unity, there was no political need for the Founders to develop a multiracial nationalist ideology, which moreover would threaten the slavery on which both southern and northern colonies profited. The most racially egalitarian of them (e.g., Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Jay, Hamilton) opposed slavery, but this group sympathized with proposals of black mass deportation to Africa—another version of white nationalism—rather than nonwhite full citizenship .[24]
True, Latin American ethnic nationalism “celebrates the unique: a particular historical experience, a particular culture”; whereas U.S. civic nationalism “tends to focus on a set of shared political ground rules and ideals”.[25] But the North American colonies had already long excluded (using the one-drop rule) nonwhites from the political, economic, and civil spheres; and this exclusion continued long after Independence. Starting in the 1770s, U.S. legislation grounded citizenship rights in male gender and whiteness.[26] In sum, the Founders blended civic nationalism with pan-white-ethnic nationalism (WASP nationalism excluding nonwhites). Race (whiteness) and nation were tightly interwoven from the very beginning in U.S. history[27], though in ways that contrasted with Latin American ethnic nationalism (1810-1825).
After 1830, large-scale immigration posed increasing challenges to WASP notions of whiteness.[28] Given WASP white nationalism, the new immigration simultaneously threatened their vision of American identity. Anti-Catholic nativists made explicit this WASP understanding that “white” also meant Protestant. Over the following century (1830-1920) of mass immigration, WASPs (old whites, established whites) displayed their power to accept or reject claims of whiteness by immigrants (new whites, white ethnics). The first Catholic presidential candidacy with a major party—Democratic New York Governor Alfred E. Smith in 1928, a second-generation Irish immigrant—only came many decades later, and his bid was hampered by ongoing anti-Catholic prejudice, especially in rural and southern regions.[29] Even in 1960 when Kennedy (likewise Irish Catholic) won the presidency, he aroused similar widespread WASP prejudice.
All European immigrant groups, as well as Mexicans and Asians, lobbied persistently for WASPs to accept them as fully white Americans.[30] Their arguments hinged on claims of being “not-black” and “not-Indian,” negative relationships with blackness and indigenousness revealing the pervasive influence of the one-drop rule (white “purity” values) in American society. Yet, even if groups attained legal whiteness, like Mexican Americans after 1848, social whiteness often remained elusive. For instance, in 1850s Texas, as in New Mexico, Mexicans were categorized legally as white. Though Texas state law banned white-black marriage, Mexican-black marriages were only rarely prosecuted. Mexicans may have been legally white, but social whiteness was restricted to Anglos (non-Mexican whites).[31] In U.S. history, egalitarian law has frequently proven insufficient to end racist social customs.[32] Legal, formal citizenship rights do not guarantee substantive, real-world citizenship rights.[33]
WASPs, in turn, evaluated immigrant groups’ claims of whiteness using criteria that strongly contrasted with how Latin American elites often viewed whiteness.[34] Although both views (North America, Latin America) of whiteness were racist by assuming whites to be superior to nonwhites, there were key differences. North Americans often decided whiteness by “inspection,” for example by observation of a person’s skin color and hair type. Racial categorization was premised on the one-drop assumption, meaning that white and black were mutually exclusive. Whiteness was all or nothing: a person was either purely white or not white at all.
By contrast, Latin Americans often decided whiteness by “decency.” This view rejected the one-drop assumption. A person didn’t necessarily need to be of “pure” white race to be considered white by local elites. It could be sufficient to have some white ancestors, to come from gente decente (decent people: a worthy, honorable family), and to have done nothing to stain your family’s reputation.[35] Whiteness was a personalized, social category having much to do with one’s family, wealth, and place in the community.
Two ways of judging whiteness: inspection vs. decency
Process | Focus | Region | Description |
Whiteness determined by “inspection” |
Individual focus | North America | Whiteness is an impersonal, visual, inspectable characteristic, based on “purity” of ancestry.
You know it when you see it. Anyone not white is “of color” (everyone else: a residual category). People are born white or nonwhite; no matter what you do in life, you can’t change racial status. Whiteness has rigid boundaries.
|
Whiteness determined by “decency” | Community focus
|
Latin America | Whiteness is a personalized, social characteristic, based on membership in a “decent” family. You often know it when you see it, but it also greatly depends on contextual factors of wealth, social reputation, and education (is less knowable at first glance than in U.S.). People are born into racial categories, but what you do in life can strongly influence how you are racially perceived.
|
Sources: Adapted from Briggs 2002:61-62; Telles 2004:219.
The table’s categories express something fundamentally contrastive, rooted in distinctive colonial histories, about the social construction of race in North America versus Latin America.[36] Nevertheless, in Latin America there has been much judgment of whiteness by “inspection”—and in North America much judgment of whiteness by “decency” (and nonwhiteness by “indecency”).[37]
The white-skinned Irish exemplify this complexity. Like the cartoon image opening this chapter, many nineteenth-century images and descriptions portray the Irish as beyond the pale of civilization: a “race” mired in barbarism.[38] Indeed, the very phrase “beyond the pale” originally referred to the wooden defenses (“pale,” “palisade”) separating “civilized” 1500s English Dublin from the “wild Irish” beyond.[39] Many nineteenth-century British and American WASP observers drew detailed comparisons between Irish and blacks. For example, in 1849 Scottish author Thomas Carlyle—writing disparagingly about Afro-Jamaicans—claimed that
“‘[b]lackness’ was not simply a matter of biological endowment…but both consequence and manifestation of culture and labor. Indeed, the whiteness of the Irish was incidental and even something of an inconvenience, because ‘having a white skin and European features, [they] cannot be prevented from circulating among us [British] at discretion’”.[40]
Carlyle wasn’t judging the Irish as nonwhite by inspection, but by decency—or rather their “black” indecency (alleged lack of culture and laziness). The passage also shows how WASPs saw people of African ancestry as the lowest common denominator of humanity. As we’ve seen, whiteness is a relational concept: groups became “whiter” the higher they stood on the European racial hierarchy, with blacks at the bottom and the white-skinned but indecent Irish not far above.
Whitening: From White-Ethnic to White
After the first way to be white American (by being WASP), a new way emerged during mass immigration (1830-1920): whitening. As a form of European immigrant assimilation, whitening was the social process of established whites increasingly accepting a racialized group as “white” (or “American”). Such groups included Jews, Germans, Irish, Italians, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Russians, etc.
During the 1800s-1900s, WASPs acted as racial gatekeepers with the power to accept or reject claims of whiteness: “the privilege to confer whiteness”.[41] In the twentieth century, whitening increasingly allowed Irish Americans and descendants of southern and eastern European immigrants to join WASPs as white Americans, an achievement of Americanization assumed to promote “progress” and “civilization.” Immigrants and their descendants wanted this because being perceived as white offered white privilege: unearned social, economic, and political benefits accruing to whites but denied to nonwhites, especially blacks.[42]
Whitening could also apply to Native Americans, though with much historical variation. For example, in 1924 the Snyder Act extended citizenship to all Native Americans not already citizens.[43] Such overnight changes in political status could influence WASP perceptions of whiteness but by no means guaranteed social or economic inclusion.
Whitening: From Darker to Lighter
For Americans of African ancestry, WASP racial purity ideology (determining whiteness by inspection) had always made being white impossible. No matter how light-skinned, one was always “Negro” (or “black” or “African American”)—both to bureaucratic categorizers in schools, workplace, and government, and to whites in everyday life. The very category of white originated (1400s-1500s) as the European racial binary opposite of non-Europeans, especially black Africans. Whiteness was flexible and could mean many things—by 1945 even being Irish, Jewish, or Mexican—but it couldn’t mean being black.
After 1945, the whitening of white ethnics didn’t diminish the power of the “white or black” one-drop rule. Rather, it simply added more groups to the expanded white category. Once whitened, descendants of white ethnics could themselves exercise white privilege over African Americans, Asian Americans, and Mexican Americans.[44] Today, U.S. racial commonsense—among whites as well as people of color—often continues to assume black-white mutual exclusivity (whiteness by inspection). For example, Barack Obama’s emergence on the national political scene in the early 2000s generated much debate on how “African American” he was, given his Kansan white mother and Kenyan black father. Nevertheless, he was almost universally perceived as nonwhite (“our first black president”).
By contrast, Latin American racial categorization of Africa-descended groups worked differently, absent the North American one-drop rule.[45] In both regions, white supremacy made whiteness socially valued, but Latin American color lines were often more permeable than the U.S. color line, especially where large mestizo populations lived. For centuries, dark-skinned Brazilians, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Cubans, Dominicans, etc. had sought increased social acceptance for themselves and their children by marrying “up” with lighter-skinned partners.[46][47] (U.S. blacks did too, but in the context of one-drop ideology.) Social status was strongly influenced by shades of skin color.[48] Between 1880-1940, the whitening of mestizo populations was a major national project for many Latin American countries—especially Brazil, with its large nonwhite population.[49] In a neocolonial age of ascendant white supremacy and scientific racism, elites introduced immigration policies promoting white European immigration, with the explicit goal of “lightening” the national complexion to “improve” the national racial type.[50] According to such leaders—influenced and pressured by Europe and the U.S.—moving from darker to lighter was a form of national “progress.”
In sum, contrasting forms of white supremacy produced different versions of whitening in Latin and North America.[51] Today, whitening through intermarriage continues as an important route to upward social mobility for nonwhite Brazilians, with lighter skin color continuing to mark higher social status.[52] Throughout Latin America, race and class remain strongly linked: wealthier people tend to have lighter skin (more European and less African or Indigenous ancestry), and poorer people tend to be darker with more non-European ancestry.[53]
Likewise, in the U.S., patterns of political, economic, and social power continue to correlate with degrees of European ancestry and shades of skin color.
Chapter Summary
This chapter introduced the social process of whitening. It explained one of the most important concepts in social science, history, and philosophy: the social construction of reality. The section discussed what sociologists mean by saying that race is socially constructed.
It discussed different ways to be white. It contrasted different ways by which racial-ethnic groups have claimed whiteness. The contrasts center on Latin America versus North America.
It presented a form of whitening, defining it as European white-ethnic immigrant assimilation. The section also defined white privilege as unearned social, economic, and political benefits accruing to whites and whitened groups, but denied to nonwhites.
It presented another form of whitening. For centuries, New World groups of African ancestry sought access to the social privileges of whiteness by intermarrying with lighter-skinned people. Whitening, as a transition from darker to lighter skin across generations, worked in contrasting ways in Latin America versus North America. This was due to one-drop racial ideology in North America, and its absence in much of Latin America.
Overall, this chapter presented the historical relationship between whiteness and power. It illustrated this connection with historical overviews: of European global colonization, U.S. slavery in the colonial and national periods, U.S. immigration and nativism between 1830 and 1929, and whitening processes in the 1800s and 1900s.
1. What does it mean for race to be socially constructed, and how does this understanding challenge biological notions of race?
2. How does race function as a relationship of power among social groups, and what are some examples of how this power dynamic manifests in society?
3. How do different groups claim whiteness, and what are some factors that influence these claims?
4. What are the distinctions between white-ethnic identity and the broader concept of whiteness?
5. Define whitening and discuss how it operates within societies.
6. What is white privilege, and how does it intersect with the process of whitening?
7. Explain the concept of one-drop ideology and its role in differentiating whitening processes in North America versus Latin America.
8. How does one-drop ideology influence perceptions of race and skin color in different cultural contexts?
Racial and Ethnic Diversity: A Sociological Introduction by Matthew M. Hollander is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Some modifications were made to this copy.
- (Bad) Luck of the Irish in Political Cartoons | Historical Society of Pennsylvania. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://hsp.org/blogs/fondly-pennsylvania/bad-luck-of-the-irish-in-political-cartoons ↵
- Ignatiev, N. (2012). How the Irish Became White. Routledge. ↵
- Gardner, H. E. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences For The 21st Century. Basic Books. ↵
- Central Works of Philosophy v4: Twentieth Century: Moore to Popper. (n.d.). Routledge & CRC Press. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://www.routledge.com/Central-Works-of-Philosophy-v4-Twentieth-Century-Moore-to-Popper/Shand/p/book/9781844650194 ↵
- Berger, P. L. (1966). The social construction of reality; a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday. http://archive.org/details/socialconstructi0000berg ↵
- Richard Rorty (1931-2007): The View From Somewhere. (2007, June 29). The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/richard-rorty-1931-2007-the-view-from-somewhere/ ↵
- Gannon,LiveScience, M. (n.d.). Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue. Scientific American. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ ↵
- Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press. ↵
- Emirbayer, M., & Desmond, M. (2015). The Racial Order. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo20069291.html ↵
- Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. https://web.archive.org/web/20151129135810/http://selfdefinition.org/science/25-greatest-science-books-of-all-time/17.%20Stephen%20Jay%20Gould%20-%20The%20Mismeasure%20of%20Man%20(1981)%20-%20Revised%20edition%20-%20missing%20last%20page.pdf ↵
- Allen, T. W., & Perry, J. B. (2012). The Invention of the White Race, Volume 1: Racial Oppression and Social Control (p. 372). Verso Books. ↵
- Warman, Arturo. 2003. Los indios mexicanos en el umbral del milenio. Fondo de Cultura Económica. ↵
- Loveman, Mara. 2014. National Colors: Racial Classification and the State in Latin America. Oxford University Press, USA. ↵
- Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” Pacific Sociological Review 1, no. 1: 3-7. ↵
- Desmond, Matthew, and Mustafa Emirbayer. 2010. Racial Domination, Racial Progress: The Sociology of Race in America. McGraw Hill ↵
- Harvey, Jennifer. 2007. Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice Through Reparations and Sovereignty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan ↵
- Fredrickson, George M. 1981. White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History. Oxford UP ↵
- Klinkner Philip A. and Rogers M. Smith. 1999. The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America. University of Chicago Press ↵
- Chasteen, John Charles. 2001. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. WW Norton & Company ↵
- APAN I. 2015. Norton, Mary Beth, Jane Kamensky, Carol Sheriff, David W. Blight, Howard P. Chudacoff, Fredrik Logevall, and Beth Bailey. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, Volume I: to 1877. 10th edition. Cengage Learning ↵
- Fredrickson, George M. 1981. White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History. Oxford UP ↵
- Gómez, Laura E. 2018 [2007]. Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race. Second Ed. NYU Press ↵
- Chasteen, John Charles. 2001. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. WW Norton & Company ↵
- Fredrickson, George M. 1981. White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History. Oxford UP ↵
- Chasteen, John Charles. 2001. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. WW Norton & Company ↵
- APAN I. 2015. Norton, Mary Beth, Jane Kamensky, Carol Sheriff, David W. Blight, Howard P. Chudacoff, Fredrik Logevall, and Beth Bailey. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, Volume I: to 1877. 10th edition. Cengage Learning ↵
- Harvey, Jennifer. 2007. Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice Through Reparations and Sovereignty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan ↵
- Jacobson, Matthew Frye. 1998. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Harvard University Press ↵
- APAN II. 2015. Norton, Mary Beth, Jane Kamensky, Carol Sheriff, David W. Blight, Howard P. Chudacoff, Fredrik Logevall, and Beth Bailey. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, Volume II: Since 1865. 10th edition. Cengage Learning ↵
- Telles, Edward Eric. 2004. Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton University Press ↵
- Gómez, Laura E. 2018 [2007]. Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race. Second Ed. NYU Press ↵
- Klinkner Philip A. and Rogers M. Smith. 1999. The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America. University of Chicago Press ↵
- Hohle, Randolph. 2018. Racism in the Neoliberal Era: A Meta History of Elite White Power. New York: Routledge ↵
- Briggs, Laura. 2002. Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico. University of California Press ↵
- Yashar, Deborah J. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. Cambridge University Press ↵
- Telles, Edward Eric. 2004. Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton University Press ↵
- Gómez, Laura E., and Nancy López, eds. 2019 [2013]. Mapping “Race”: Critical Approaches to Health Disparities Research. Rutgers University Press ↵
- Ignatiev, Noel. 2009 [1995]. How the Irish Became White. Routledge ↵
- Fredrickson, George M. 1981. White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History. Oxford UP ↵
- Holt, Thomas C. 1992. The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain, 1832-1938. Johns Hopkins UP ↵
- Moore, Wendy Leo. 2008. Reproducing Racism: White Space, Elite Law Schools, and Racial Inequality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield ↵
- Desmond, Matthew, and Mustafa Emirbayer. 2010. Racial Domination, Racial Progress: The Sociology of Race in America. McGraw Hill ↵
- APAN II. 2015. Norton, Mary Beth, Jane Kamensky, Carol Sheriff, David W. Blight, Howard P. Chudacoff, Fredrik Logevall, and Beth Bailey. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, Volume II: Since 1865. 10th edition. Cengage Learning ↵
- APAN II. 2015. Norton, Mary Beth, Jane Kamensky, Carol Sheriff, David W. Blight, Howard P. Chudacoff, Fredrik Logevall, and Beth Bailey. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, Volume II: Since 1865. 10th edition. Cengage Learning ↵
- Loveman, Mara. 2014. National Colors: Racial Classification and the State in Latin America. Oxford University Press, USA ↵
- Chasteen, John Charles. 2001. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. WW Norton & Company ↵
- Marx, Anthony W. 1997. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. Cambridge University Press ↵
- Lamming, George. 1991 [1953]. In the Castle of My Skin. The University of Michigan Press ↵
- Telles, Edward Eric. 2004. Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton University Press ↵
- Chasteen, John Charles. 2001. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. WW Norton & Company ↵
- Chasteen, John Charles. 2001. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. WW Norton & Company ↵
- Telles, Edward Eric. 2004. Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton University Press ↵
- Chasteen, John Charles. 2001. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. WW Norton & Company. Castellanos, Rosario. 2003 [1960]. Ciudad Real. Punto de lectura. Volpi, Jorge. 2018 [2004]. La guerra y las palabras: Una historia intellectual de 1994. Era. Warman, Arturo. 1979 [1972]. Los campesinos: Hijos predilectos del regimen. Editorial Nuestro Tiempo ↵
The one-drop rule is a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood") is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms)