Lost in Transmission – Chapters 1 & 4

1. If race and ethnicity is understood to be socially constructed, what difference would it make in our social life?

- If race and ethnicity are finally recognized as social constructs, it would make a very large difference in our social life. The impacts would be greatly positive, but it seems too ideal to even consider such an illusion. I’m not being cynical or even pessimistic, but this is simply the reality of this hegemonic world. Solutions for discourse are vital in taking the first steps in requiring the entire globe to understand  race and ethnicity as mere social constructs . By comprehending the complexity of intersectionality, CQA simplifies the term by “exploring the multiple layers of social inequality and allows us to see how the layers playoff each other to complicate rather than simplify the complex nature of personal identity” (CQA). Ignorance must be disregarded to enter the premises of comprehension. This is where Critical Race Theorists (CRTs) are necessary to bring up because their “central task is to disrupt and debunk Eurocentric ideologies of meritocracy, neutrality, equal opportunity, and colour-blindness. It challenges the universality of white experience/ and judgement as the authoritative standard that binds people of colour … [they are] commited to a social justice agenda to eliminate all forms of subordination of people” (CQA). Understanding  is a very powerful term which will result to positivity in our social lives.

2. Explain the difference between assigning race and ethnicity and asserting it. How is that difference observable in our everyday lives?

- Assigning race and asserting it are clearly very different concepts; however, it both entails much negativity in terms of racism and unequal treatment. Assigning race begun prior to asserting it of course, and most often race was historically assigned through religious differences. Subsequent to religious boundaries, racial differences became assigned to display superiority over inferiority. Modernization has enabled the assertion of race where many external and internal factors have impacted the prolonging of assumed racial differences. In our everyday lives, race and ethnicity are being asserted rather than being assigned. Assigned race was the initial element of creating these boundaries, but now the media, governments, and other dominating influences are asserting physical differences to make us (civilians) as ‘ideological animals’ (CQA).

 

 

 

Chapter 3 & 4 – Cornell and Hartmann

  1. What differences does it make historically that there have been different theories on the evolution of race?

- The evolution of race has been supposedly justified in so many ways that people actually lose touch with reality and the truth of these social constructs. Historically speaking, thoughts of primordialism (fixed biological race) has attempted to provide scientific truth in regards to race and ethnicity. Specific differences are pronounced to provide the truth about the physical differences via theories of evolution. Social Darwinists see human behaviour as being deeply rooted in biology, and due to the theories given, race and ethnicity can be seen as biologically distinct entities. One absurd theory stems from the ‘survival of the fittest’ — those who overcame the struggles in society and possessed wealth and power were those who were genetically superior. Perhaps these assumptions may seem slightly valid, but the more educated each one of us gets we notice historical attempts to prove racial differences are in fact nonsense. Sociological perspectives are interpreted through rationality and logic, and one will inevitably begin to question such assumptions of fixed race and ethnicity. The point is, it seems that some are still attempting to justify some sort of scientific proof on the evolution of race; however, the only difference is that methods of analysis are changing throughout the years. Again, as modern thought has dominated most of the world, some still attain a sense of ignorance, but sociological perspective have swayed a more rational side in countering any theories of racial differences.

2. What are the social impacts of understanding race as biologically based or socially constructed?

3. What kinds of mistakes are made in understanding the differences in race and ethnicity? What are the social consequences of these kinds of mistakes?    –> Both questions are tied into the following answers.

-First off, there is a major difference between understanding race as biologically based or socially constructed. In differentiation, understanding race as biological and fixed creates very cynical outcomes in a society. We have seen it all through media outlets and perhaps first hand experiences in institutional settings (work and/or school). A very large impact in terms of understanding race as biological is most often violent whether it is collectively (people who share common interests and common dislikes) and/or individually (if one person attains prejudice thoughts about another person of a different culture). Marginalization, genocide, and civil wars are perhaps the worst impacts of understanding race as biological.

- Throughout the years, most people are slowly coming to understand race as being a social construction. On a global level, if everyone were to understand this social construct as is, impacts would most likely be positive and societies would operate more equally. However, there are other inequities present in society other than the racial factors such as politics and economics that play a very large role in societal disparities as well. Overall, it is capitalism and globalization that influences mainstream cultures to conduct themselves in particular ways, so if these circumstances are ultimately disregarded and equality became the topic of discourse amongst everyone, the world will inevitably result to positive outcomes.

 

 

 

Cornell & Hartmann – Chapter 5

1. What is constructed primordiality and how did it manifest itself in South Africa?

- Constructed primordiality can be understood in very broad topics; however in relation to race and ethnicity, constructed primordiality can be broken down to the ideas of biological kinship. In some or even most cases, primordialism attempts to justify the means of hostile attitudes and hehaviour through the so-called validity of biological affiliation to shared interests and identities within a group. Most primordialists believe a group’s physical differentiations are biologically fixed, and these thoughts most often consume one’s overall perception of others. This paradigm ties into the ideas of “thickness” and “thinness”. Racial identities may be either ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ depending on the level of social organization and power that applies to it. Constructed primordialism clearly provides a linkage to the notions of thick racial identity, and unfortunately genocides and other types of hostile conflicts do in fact occur around the world. The best examples given in Cornell and Hartmann”s textbook is in South Africa and Rwanda where the perception of fixed biological differences are indeed the fact. Primordiality manifested itself in South Africa as its social organization was immensely  influenced by thoughts and beliefs of biological race. Of course ignorance plays a very large role in these issues; however, dominant groups who assert their power and privilege upon others who are thought to be subordinate to them are often conditioned to believe and follow in the footsteps of the powerful (colonizers). This is how social constructions become escalated and provoked. Cornell and Hartmann state that “race dominates layer after layer of social organization with a comprehensiveness and power unmatched by any other dimension of individual or collective identity”.  Also in Rwanda, kinship bonds were in fact quite significant before European colonization and the level of racial identity was extremely thin. In the late 20th century however, racial identities quickly became thick as ethnic differentiations began to be labeled and encouraged as the struggle for political power arose. An intergroup conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis escalated as supposed blood ties created ethnic boundaries.

2. Explain how race and ethnicity can both divide people from each other as well as bring them together?

- As I previously mention in my first answer, race and ethnicity can definitely divide people from each other, and at times bring them together.  Again, depending on the layers of thickness or thinness, it can play a very large part in dividing people from each other or ultimately bringing them together. Education definitely represents the importance in morality versus the ignorance and hostility that consumes others. Racial thinness and disregarding ideas of primordialism is thought to be ideal; however, it truly does exist, more so in the past than right now. As fourth year sociology students we can easily comprehend the differences between theories and facts, and biological race has been analyzed and concluded as just theories. This has been possible due to the education we have been gifted with; however, some people who simply choose to ignore the truth or are not educated enough tend to subordinate themselves in a life of blissful ignorance. As notions of fixed race are imbedded in people, division in most cases are inevitable. One key point is that “ethnic and racial actors may use their identities instrumentally in pursuit of their goals” (Cornell and Hartmann). They simply “exploit the identities that situations make available and useful” (Cornell and Hartmann).

3. Compare and contrast the identity constructed cases.

- In contrast, the identity constructed cases provided in the textbook entail differences amongst each culture and the society they are in. For example, some cases are not as severe as the violent conflicts in other parts of the world; however, in the U.S. one particular example of the Italian mass immigration mentioned its thickness in racial identity. Strong racial identity clearly plays a very large role in organizing social life, but overtime subsequent generations of Italian offspring became less prominent in following the traditional Italian lifestyle including speaking the language. “Third and fourth generation Italian Americans have mostly become part of the economic, political,, and cultural mainstream of U.S. society” (Cornell & Hartmann, Ch. 4).  In other cases such as Rwanda, strong racial identity subsequent to the nation’s colonization created a genocidal outcome where mass and systematic murder occurred with the intent to exempt the ‘other’.  In other examples that are provided, the divide occurs within the societal aspects of a nation (i.e. South Africa). Institutional racism (intentional) has this tendency to solidify and justify legitimacy in which higher paid jobs are solely available for elite and dominant classes. Racism would occur almost everywhere (ex. before the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S.) where there was a physical divide on buses, restaurants, and in school settings.

In forms of similarity, constructed identity do exist within the same aspects, but clearly with negative outcomes. Similarities are represented in terms of peoples’ attitudes — hostility and prejudices. I cannot specify any other similarities other than the broader sense of it in which attitudes of hostility create racial divides on a global scale. Media is another similarity where it strongly impacts mainstream perception of people who are labeled as the ‘other’ (i.e. minority groups). As people are categorized as the ‘other’, there is this natural process to exclude the ‘other’. In these cases, differentiations may not be intentional, but more so societies are created and organized upon these types of attitudes.  Presently, more than ever before similarities within this broad concept are in fact existent.

Sociological Imagination and Understanding Race & Ethnicity

- In respect to the assigned questions given, I would like to incorporate both questions into one explanation. Sociology understands the topic of race and ethnicity through a Sociological Imagination. Sociological Imagination refers to “an alertness, capacity, ability, and a quality of mind that allows an individual to understand and connect her or his life with the forces (the human interactions, social structures and events) that impact it” (CQA). Thinking within the framework of sociological concept, we must understand, differentiate, and determine the ‘how’ and ‘why’ in terms of social constructions. Possessing cultural relativism, historical knowledge, and knowing the process of how the world  formulates, progresses and/or transgresses (whichever way you see it – this is the premise of sociological imagination – constructing your opinions from an educated perspective, but seeing the world collectively). Our world in one way or another is “interdependent with other people” (CQA), and although we may ultimately see ourselves as having our own identity and perception; we in fact do not. Primary and secondary agents deeply impact our perception on immense aspects of society, but in reality most people do not see this as the case let alone have not even acknowledged the thought.  “Best research combines scientific rigor and past experience” (source unknown) exemplifies Sociological Imagination. Social scientists truly believe race and ethnicity can be examined quantitatively; although difficult to pin point precise elements, various methods have construed logical and rational conclusions in understanding both concepts. If we are able to understand “the intersection of social structure, history, and biography” (CQA), these types of knowledge could be advocated via discourse within a global manner. There could be large potential in comprehending the differences between race and ethnicity, and ideally speaking — as a whole — we can acquire the restructuring of a global society.

“Mapping the Terrain” – Cornell and Hartmann

1.  Is race socially constructed? Before you read the assigned article, did you believe that biological races are real? Did the article change your opinion about the biological basis of race?

- Race is 100% socially constructed. It is a just a word that has developed into such complexity throughout the years to justify the means of peoples’ physical and cultural differentiations. The social construct of ‘race’ has been an overpowering and dominant framework within governmental policies and human perception throughout the world. Physical characteristics have now become racial categories in differentiating group boundaries. “The categories become socially significant to the extent that we use them to organize and interpret experience, to form social relations, and to organize individual and collective action” (Cornell & Hartmann, 24).

Truthfully, prior to assessing the assigned readings I did believe that biological races were real. I was well aware of the climatic conditions which caused evolutionary physical differences, but I thought particular race genes existed as well. Overall, my lack of knowledge in regards to “biological races” did not hinder my thought process on the topic of equality versus inequality, I simply thought it existed. Subsequent to reading the assigned material, of course Cornell and Hartmann’s given data changed my opinion on the notion of biological races. I can now say that even biological races are just a term that has been expanding throughout the generations, “but have no inherent significance” (Cornell & Hartmann, 24).

2. If race is socially constructed, why do most people in the US believe it is biological and act accordingly?

- “Racial categories are historical products and are often contested” (Cornell & Hartmann, 25). Since the days of colonization in the U.S., specific ideologies have been ingrained in the dominant cultures through secondary (institutional) and primary (family) agents till present day. Keep in mind that free labour was the norm in the earlier days of colonization and the categories imposed upon Black populations in America played a key role in assigning differences among dominant and minority groups (“us” versus “them”). “Racial designation typically implies inferiority” (Cornell & Hartmann, 29). Progressively the disparities within the racial paradigm have stuck around, but much more subtly, and at times unintentionally. These are just a few factors as to why most people in the U.S. believe race is in fact biological. Generally speaking, ignorance is also key in elaborating the reasons to this particular mindset. Some people ultimately choose to disregard the facts and obey to the dominant ideologies which have plagued the nation for centuries. It is the overall norm to be subjected to social hegemony and having an innate sense of ‘wanting’ to feel slightly superior than the ‘other’.  “Ethnicity, like race, is often linked to power and wealth” (31), although dominant and elite groups in the West are characterized as ‘invisible’ because of their “unearned privilege” (CQA) as White people.

3. Is there a race gene? Has science proven the biological components of race?

- As discussed in the first question, there is no such evidence that points to a so-called race gene. Overall, race is a socially constructed word that tends to justify this particular belief by adding science into the mix. Science has strongly attempted to prove biological elements that involve ‘race’, but individuals like Franz Boas have only elaborated and instigated theories. THEORIES! Not facts. Science has however proven an essential biological component that has nothing to do with race, but with climatic differences across vast regions of the world. Naturally, it is the long and slow process of evolution that most often affects biological components of the overall physical appearance. Particular ethnic/racial groups who dwell within the same region for generations tend to acquire similar biological traits, like, skin colour. ‘Race’ is not “predetermined by biological factors” (25). Although physical differences are more than visible to us as human beings, the ultimate fact is that most of us truly share the same genetic pattern than perhaps the people we look most similar to.

 

 

 

“The Puzzles of Ethnicity and Race” – Cornell & Hartmann

1. How are qualitative and quantitative research different? What different purposes do they serve and what is the value and limitations of each?

- Both quantitative and qualitative research stem from the sources of very particular studies. Quantitative research is based on the ontological paradigm and the first ‘World View’ which “adopts a positivistic, objective, and empiricist methodology in research and knowledge creation” (CQA). This type of research primarily became the initial method of constructing knowledge through the means of discovery. Positivists and empiricists strongly believe that the truth derives from knowledge that can be observed and experienced. Humans are not capable of constructing the truth, but we as humans are able to measure (quantify) the things we see and experience through our reliable senses. For example, there is ultimately no alternative to the truth, so indeed the sun solely goes down during the evening. It is the objects and people we are able to see that truly exist, which cannot be interpreted any other way. Sociologists till this day utilize quantitative studies in their data collection; however, there are a larger variety of research methods aside from quantitative methodology.

Qualitative research stems from an epistemological position. “What this means is that human beings create their own knowledge about the world” (CQA). Discoveries and alternate interpretations of the truth within this realm of study can be socially and culturally constructed. Qualitative research is based on the the epistemological paradigm which also falls under the second ‘World View’. Ultimately there are multiple truths that can be construed through interpretativist and constructivist perspectives in which the techniques of understanding is not restricted to merely one disposition. Knowledge that is understood is never fixed, it periodically alters with time.

Qualitative research methodology tends to be much more valuable in terms of comprehension on a broader spectrum of the world. Understanding things in just one way (quantitative) encourages bias perspectives, and it does not allow other opinions and alternative interpretations to contradict one’s argument. I strongly believe that without opposing beliefs, the presence of accuracy and reliability will be lacking. Quantitative methodology simply appears to be premature and/or a primitive version of the ever-expanding search for the truth, and of course it is a very large stepping stone in understanding the world. On the basis of globalization and hegemony, “dominant groups in society use their advantage of, and control over, knowledge to entrench their interests and values” (CQA). With certain types of knowledge that are embedded within the mainstream cultures around the world, hegemonic rule plays a very large role here. “Knowledge has power implications: it can be used to oppress or for resistance; maintaining the status quo or to challenge, subvert or overthrow the status quo” (CQA).

2. Why are we using qualitative research to study race and ethnicity?

- Qualitative research in a broader retrospect seems to be the offspring to quantitative methodologies. Although sociologists rely on various types of research, it appears that qualitative research has been the most popular amongst these social scientists. Qualitative studies as mentioned above “is not [based on] one single, knowable truth in the world … but rather multiple truths” (CQA). Qualitatively, knowledge is constructed by humans, and so are the terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’. From a rational perspective, social constructions do not have a set, precise, or definite meaning — this includes the terms ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’. Qualitative research is overall based on multiple understandings and truths, so in the case of examining these 2 terms, relevancy is sought through the theories that make the most sense to an individual. Quantitative studies is completely exempted from studying social constructions like the words ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ because ultimately there is no quantifiable attributes to measure the precision of such terms. This is the reason qualitative research methodologies are much more utilized in the examinations of socially constructed words.

 

 

Who Are the Dalits and What is “Untouchability”?

1. What are the differences between immigration and emigration? What are the everyday life experiences of those who migrate?

- Although immigration and emigration are pronounced almost the same way, they both contradict each other in terms of their definition. Immigration refers to individuals who enter a new region of the world; whether it be within the same country (rural to urban or vice-versa), or a completely different one. Immigrants is a label used to ascribe people who are ultimately new to a country, and who have not fully assimilated to the customs and ideologies of the hosting nation. Immigration policies have been imposed in the past to generally limit and restrict increasing numbers of foreign immigrants due to the prejudices that had risen by dominant society members. In 1924, the Immigration Act had “made it virtually impossible to bring relatives into the country, and the latter legislation ended Chinese immigration altogether” (Cornell & Hartmann, 219). Immigration has ultimately mounted in the more recent years, especially in countries like the U.S., Canada, Australia, and several nations in Europe where immigrants are permitted to enter a new country for work and educational opportunities. These circumstances ultimately come down to the hosting nation’s own special interests, and who in particular they are willing to allow into their country.

Emigration is another term which is used to apply to individuals exiting their home country. Emigration usually takes place subsequent to outcomes within one’s homeland. The list varies from a lack of employment and educational opportunities, the hindering of upward social mobility, racial and/or ethnic segregation, political instability, and so forth. Emigration and immighttps://alisharahiman.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.phpration are terms that are much more complex than the basic definitions which are usually given; however, the differences are clearer once the aspects of each term are closely analyzed and studied. Individuals who emigrateare attributed as immigrants.

Everyday experiences of those who migrate vary as well. Most often immigrants deal with the struggles of assimilation and a sense of belonging in a hosting nation. Services are not always advocated and provided for immigrants facing ordeals of marginalization, discrimination (institutional), and poverty. They are simply shunned or excluded and left to fend for themselves in a society in which they presumed to be filled with hope and optimism. However, Diasporas have emerged long ago, and now it much more obvious as recent immigration has been drastically on the rise. Particularly in British Columbia, but of course everywhere else in the world has been this increasing presence of community. On a positive note, as opposed to immigration acts from the past, additional family members are progressively permitted to enter a hosting nation where other relatives have successfully settled. A sense of belonging has been transcending in the recent decades where now established and growing Diasporas provide betterment for new immigrants.

2. Think about your ethnic heritage. What stories have you heard about when your ancestors immigrated to the U.S? How are they different or the same than the stories of other migrants?

- Migration is an expanding process altogether within the global context; however, since the 1960s and 70s the process has been immensely acknowledged by first and second generation Canadians like myself (perhaps due to the approximation of recent time as well). Listening to the stories that our grandparents have provided us simply gives us a sense of appreciation and knowledge of the struggles and eventually the success that came their way. It is more than evident that the experiences that emerged within the era of my grandparents’ arrival here in Canada, and the stories told by other migrants are in fact quite similar. Especially during the 1960s. Most often migrants possess a desire to leave their homeland for the betterment of their lives and their children. Realistically, like my grandparents in the 60s struggled financially to provide a better life for their children (my father and his brothers). Work was obviously scarce for immigrant workers who at most times did not possess the appropriate skills for an ideal job, but labour work was and is in demand because locals who did possess necessary skills for service and government sectors clearly avoided labour employment. This ultimately left immigrants to attain these particular types of jobs. People enter a new country as opportunists (in most cases), and whatever work that entered their path was taken like a ‘grain of salt’ and sufficed. Just like my grandparents, success was also in their path, but with everyone’s story always came initial struggle. Thankfully, discrimination did not ensue my family, and as mentioned the 60s and 70s permitted increasing immigration which truly brought a sense of community to people here in Canada. Discrimination occurs on a 360 degree level (globally), and it is an inevitable process which usually takes a firm hold on vulnerable immigrants. In those cases, other peoples’ stories may be slightly different than my grandparents’, but on a larger scale societal struggles are evident.

3. Who are the Dalits? Why have they been discriminated against? What kinds of social movements have begun to redress their political and social grievances?

- In India, the class system is typically considered irrelevant; however, it is the caste system that plays a very significant and larger role within the nation. Status has permeated social reproduction all throughout South Asia, and people who simply do not belong within the societal constructions of a country suffer severe discrimination and are ultimately ‘outcasted’ from the mainstream populations. Oppression amongst the Dalits has hindered their ability to move up within the ranking system of India, and it is truly unfortunate and saddening to discover that even the children possess the complete opposite of ‘unearned privilege’ (CQA). The story of the Dalits takes us back to the decades before the Civil Rights Movement emerged in the United States where systemic methods of segregation and massive discrimination were present. The Dalits are “those previously known as ‘Untouchables’, Depressed Classes, and Harijans … it applies to members of those menial castes which have born the stigma of ‘untouchability’ because of the extreme impurity and pollution connected with their traditional occupations” (Portal).

India’s governmental rules and regulations have set a ban on the discrimination against the Dalits; however, it is those social ideologies that are embedded in the mainstream beliefs which propagate long-term prejudices, stereotypes, and intentional racism toward people who physically belong to the country, but socially do not. A significant social movement which has begun to redress their issues as discriminated peoples is the renaming of their caste, the Dalits. As mentioned above, the circumstances are unfortunately similar to the issues in the U.S. prior to the Civil Rights Movement; but on a positive note, the renaming of ‘Blacks’ or ‘Negroes’ to ‘African-Americans’ has shed an optimistic light on the situation of prejudices and racism. No longer are the labels instigated by such cynicism and hatred, it is now a movement for change, betterment, and equality which happens to encourage people to stand up for their basic human rights. Also, to counter the pessimistic views and perspectives on the ‘Untouchable’ populations, an increasing number of individuals have been attempting to steer away from their habitually poverty-stricken lifestyle into the urban areas of the country to seek work other than the traditional occupations which have plagued them and their ancestors. These social movements are slowly being acknowledged and clearly these are the initial stepping stones in the attempt to divert the powerful negative perception into progressive betterment.

Lost In Transmission – Chapters 1 & 4

1. Define prejudice, discrimination, and institutionalized inequality and give good examples from your everyday life of each.

- Generally speaking from a sociological perspective, an immense amount of vocabulary have inevitably become complex social constructs that stem from the root causes of ideological beliefs. People argue that the basis of social constructions most often originate from hegemonic ideologies proposed by dominant groups and ruling elites of the West. It is naive to presume that certain terms or labels are recent additions to the dictionary, because it simply is not. Social constructions are rooted from a lack of knowledge, intolerance, and ignorance.

The term “prejudice” is clearly just a term; however, there is a presence of complexity behind it in which sociologists have come to define the word as a “symptom” (CQA). As previously mentioned, labels are preconceived notions that do not source from historical knowledge, it usually comes from much cynicism about a particular group of people who possess biological differentiations than the mainstream or dominant group. Prejudice is ultimately an irrational and negative attitude towards characteristics of a particular ethnicity, nationality, racial group, gender, or sexual orientation. Situations of prejudice arise on a global scale; however, a key example here in Vancouver is the irrational judgements made towards almost all South Asian males. Given the negative media portrayals of South Asian males as “thugs”, “gangsters”, “dangerous”, and so forth is just one of the consequences of prejudice given by the media and the dominant class who have ignorantly chosen not to educate themselves about South Asians in general. Intellectually speaking, expanding discourse and the depletion of these social constructs (not the word, but the circumstances) can be a very large stepping stone in preventing these types of overgeneralizations. 

Discrimination is present all over the world. The term is defined as the unequal treatment of a particular group of people who possess attributes that differentiate from the mainstream or dominant populations in a specific region. Discrimination has taken place during the earlier phases of hierarchical construction (e.g. colonization), and has been an ongoing problem until modern day. An interesting example took place here in Canada during the second world war when Japanese-Canadians were segregated and marginalized from the mainstream populations, and then placed in concentration camps in the rural parts of country. The reasons are apparent, and there is no point of elaborating any further, but discrimination is clearly a factor. Today, discrimination also occurs; however, from a sociological perspective, we can now see a more subtle form of it. This becomes increasingly complex because there are different forms of discrimination that does not solely focus on the colour of one’s skin, but at times it deals with gender, religion, and so forth. Within the present work force here in Canada, it is statistically evident that males in higher paying and higher positioned jobs is paramount — more than women in the working sectors. This clearly exemplifies a faction of unequal treatment in the modern era.

Institutionalized inequality seems to be a broader term that represents institutionalized oppression, discrimination and racism. This particular term usually takes place in governmental policies, working environments, educational institutions, and so forth. Institutionalized inequality creates marginalization and subordination amongst members of minority populations. At times, certain restrictions may come from the basis of gender, height, and weight factors; but, more complexity arises when these types of restrictions are in fact unintentional. Intentionality however is very existent in institutionalized inequality, especially within the setting of educational institutions. Hegemony plays a significant role, even more when gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth are involved. There is an immense presence of exclusion within school atmospheres here in British Columbia where youth who are homosexual or bisexual tend to be naturally marginalized (especially in high schools) amongst the rest of the students. Teachers are unintentionally involved as well in these circumstances, simply because they are most often obliged as their duty to embed hegemonic ideologies to their students. A major example which took place in my high school several years back was where a student had bluntly used the word “fag” in the classroom. Instead of elaborating on the meaning and connotation of the word used, the teacher had simply explained it to be a “bad word”.

2. Are positive stereotypes, like all Asians are good at math, all blacks can jump, ever be negative? Why or why not?

- Are stereotypes ever positive? Just because an overall description about the appearance or characteristic of a specific group of people imply a positive statement does not mean it is necessarily positive. It simply provokes  the generalizations of members from a particular racial group and encourages the ongoing fluidity of ignorance — in my opinion this is certainly not positive. Stereotypes is somewhat contradictory to the word prejudice, because stereotyping does not always come from negative attitudes. It only appears to ‘normalize’ one’s belief without any knowledge of an overall population.

3. Does prejudice exist in every racial grouping? Why or why not?

- Through years of accumulating knowledge within the realms of inequality on a global level, I truly believe it is safe to say that prejudice does exist in every racial grouping. Even amongst white populations, religion, sexual orientation and even gender more or less play a significant role in almost all racial groupings. Borders are evidently a social construct that have created inevitable disparities amongst populations who ultimately share common interests (including biological genome); whether it be rural versus urban. In Rwanda, the Hutu and Tutsi population construe a definite presence of prejudice between each other. It is ultimately this ongoing struggle amongst groups over economic, political, and social resources that create problems. This creates a  so-called “tug-of-war” (CQA) between racial groups even if physical attributes are no longer relevant in the matter, but only used as an excuse to justify irrationality.

4. Does every racial group discriminate? Why or why not?

- Sociologically speaking, we cannot denote racial groups discriminating; however, it all comes down to individual perspectives. Cohesiveness becomes important as a group of people may discriminate towards another group of people, only if they share a similar perception or have experienced a particular circumstance with a different racialized group. However, if individuality is most important to one, a collective perception of negative judgements and labels will most often be disregarded. Elements of ignorance or lack there of, and elements of cultural relativism and knowledge play an immense role; realistically, it may be existent that every racial group discriminates.

5. When are racial groups racist?

- Racism is obviously a re-occurring theme that takes place during events that represent immense cynicism. Also, racial groups tend to be racist subsequent to a particular event which then justifies the unequal treatment of others. The best example would be World War II, as previously mentioned that Japanese-Canadians were locked away in concentration camps due to their nationality and the outcome of prejudice. These actions seemed to justify the displacement of Japanese-Canadian populations in Canada.