Race has always been an essential sociological theme as evidenced through classical theoretical formulations to present suppositions. Race is an ubiquitous notion yet precarious, and for some people, the concept of race is simple enough, but there is more to the idea. Sociologists assert that race is a social construction rather than innate and immutable scientific facts. It is essential to note that individuals grapple with race as a social construction because it is easier to identify simple characteristics. For others race is even more suspicious as a social construction because they perceive it as a liberal ploy. Thus, this paper’s main objective is to unpack James Baldwin’s statement “I’d like to say that when I say ‘white,’ I’m not talking about the color of anybody’s skin. I’m not talking about race. It’s a curious country, a curious civilization that thinks of it as a race. I don’t believe any of that. White people are imagined. White people are white only because they want to be white’ (1980). I disagree that this is all a liberal ploy, I firmly assert that the construction of race only further augments inequality and concur with Baldwin.
Baldwin asserts that White is imagined because the various classes or races such as Black, White, and Latin among others are delineated according to culture, time and place. These categories have meanings and while those meanings change over time racial groups are placed in a hierarchical structure where fairer skin people are at the top while on the contrary Black and Indigenous humans are at the bottom of the hierarchy. The racial classification structure is used to reinforce this very belief, yet such characteristics cannot be measured reliably to draw this meaningful conclusion. Bonilla-Silva and David noted that “whites have developed powerful explanations—for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them from any responsibility for the status of people of color” (34). The racial classification structure groups individuals based on shared physical attributes and social qualities that are generally perceived as distinct by communities. The theory first grouped people by language, then national affiliations and also by phenotypic traits. It is essential to lay out the problem with this theory and by extension affirm Baldwin’s argument. Firstly, categories do not depict natural divisions, rather individuals construe them. A critical aspect is that traits do not vary to mean that is skin, hair and eye color are not genetically linked to each other and can be divergent. Another issue with this theory is that there is a loss in comprehending disparities present in human populations.
As well, there is a confusion that is obvious, there is an uncertainty with noteworthy versus distinct traits, and it is problematic deciding what features to base groupings. The question is then why these traits are not based on blood type, earlobe shape or toe length among other qualities. A further problem is if these traits are less significant than eye color or hair texture. As well, studies show that there are more variations within human races and races cannot be ranked or placed in hierarchies with some groups being superior to others. Most importantly, there lacks biological evidence of superior intelligence, ethics, and morals among races. Therefore, Baldwin’s argument shows that race is not a natural phenomenon. Instead, it is more cultural, only that biases distract from more pertinent human anomalies.
127 our experts are availableright now
