Sociology Study on Race Titles for Native Americans and African Americans

In this paper I will study the use of race titles (words to describe or define race such as "black") for blacks and Indians. I will use other races to illustrate how different race titles are for them in comparison to other races. This study will look at America from the introduction of race words, such as Indian, till now to discover if race titles have any effects either negative or positive or these words are even important. Using participant observation on several levels to gain a scope of the level at which race titles operate.

Statement of Problem

These names are always changing usually because they are just liked more by the next generation or become popular. In the past this was not the case it was a hard fought battle to go from a negative name to a more favorable one. The names are changing, but does this have any affect on the people who call them selves such? If the names didn't have an effect in the first place then why ever change them; because there was a problem with the names of old and the people shackled under them finally cast them off.

The changes are not also cast in stone a new term can come into play with others going just as strong. They usually are interchangeable unless derogatory then are considered an insult. Of course this is also very much up to the person you are addressing. A ninety-six year old black man would not pause at being called colored yet if the man's twenty year old grandson were called that there could be a fight. The names mean different things to different people. This also means that the effects of the names mean different things to different people.

The names have to be important because if they are not then that means that race no longer matters. It would be a great day if that were true, but be assured it is not. The names matter because they define the race and define who people are because race is a large part of all of our lives.

In a capitalist society race can be used as a tool to keep a group in its place this all stems from Dahrendorf's views, reported by Zeitlin(1984),"...that power is legitimized into authority thus separating the ruled from the ruled" (Zeitlin p. 157). When this is done those who are ruled understand that if some win some lose and they are the losers. This is an example of the problem of titles being used in a negative manner, well unless you're the ruling class.

A positive use of race titles would either clearly define the race with any hit of elitism nor negative connotation or break elitism and negative connotations and raise the race to equal status of it's fellow humans. This could be different in the rest of the world, but in America race titles have been loaded weapons used to the ruling classes discretion.

Purpose of Study

This study is important because it's necessary to know if something you call yourself is really even correct. To expand on that it's just as important to know whether what you call other people is correct or if it could be taken in a negative manner. There are so many different race titles to define a set group of people. If you don't set back and look at what you say then anything you say could be invalid.

Literature Review

To have a basic understanding of race words and their origins is very important to understanding their role in modern society.

The Online Etymology Dictionary written by Harper states "Negro member of a black-skinned race of Africa, negro black, of unknown origin" (Harper Search Negro) Use with a capital N- became general early 20s. (e.g. 1930 in "New York Times" stylebook) in ref. to U.S. citizens of African descent, but because of its perceived association with white-imposed attitudes and roles the word was ousted late 1960s in this sense by Black.

The word started out fine a Greek root word used to describe black. These men and women look black so we might as well define them as such. This description of people by color not by place of origin or heritage would continue until this century. This supports my view that race titles play just as an important role as race it's self. In the quote with Washington above the matter would not be up for debate if it didn't matter.

Harper states "Colored in reference to "non-white skin" dates from 1611." (Harper search color)

Colored suggests that something extra is added like paint to a white canvas or crowns to a coloring book. So any one who was no white was against the norm or had something extra added to make them look that way. This a way in which a super-minority was made. Instead of each different group of people of color having a different minority status they were given an all encompassing one. So no matter what race you are your still colored compared to the white man and thus below him.

"Nigger 1786, earlier neger (1568, Scot. and northern England dialect), from Fr. nègre, from Sp. Negro (above). From the earliest usage it was "the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks" [cited in Gowers, 1965]. But as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in Eng.-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without insult. More sympathetic writers late 18c. and early 19c. seem to have used black (n.) and, after the American Civil War, colored person. Also applied by Eng. settlers to dark-skinned native peoples in India, Australia, Polynesia. The reclamation of the word as a neutral or positive term in black culture, often with a suggestion of "soul" or "style," is attested first in the Amer. South, later (1968) in the Northern, urban-based Black Power movement. Variant niggah, attested from 1925 (without the -h, from 1969), is found usually in situations where blacks use the word. Nigra (1944), on the other hand, reflects a pronunciation in certain circles of Negro, but meant to suggest nigger, and is thus deemed (according to a 1960 slang dictionary) "even more derog. than 'nigger.' " Slang phrase nigger in the woodpile attested by 1800; "A mode of accounting for the disappearance of fuel; an unsolved mystery" [R.H. Thornton, "American Glossary," 1912]. Nigger heaven, "the top gallery in a (segregated) theater" first attested 1878 in ref. to Troy, N.Y" (Harper Search Nigger).

The Greek root used in a negative fashion an example of a race title used to reinforce someone ascribed status. This is just simply an insult that became the generally used word to describe slaves and the descendants of slaves.

Harper continues with "Africanas "Africans" was in O.E. There are isolated instances of African-American from at least 1863 (Afro-American is attested from 1853), but the modern use is a re-invention first attested 1969 (in reference to the African-American Teachers Association) which became the preferred term in some circles for "U.S. black" (n. or adj.) by the late 1980s" (Harper search Africa).Instead of focusing on skin color this focuses on place of origin. This in its self

brings a problem though by added a word in front of American you change your American status. Blacks have been in American just as long as whites they can under different circumstances, but the time spend is almost the same. By adding Afro or African you say you're a different kind of American thus giving the full title of American to whites. This becomes popular with all races because it doesn't focus on color, but it makes them all sub-class Americans. Black and whites spend the same amount of time in the same place and blacks, lets not kid ourselves, built the place yet whites get the title of American.

The only real American are the Indians, but the name was just taken from them once Europeans felt they had gained control of the Americas. This illustrates the power of misinformation can have on people. If you were to say I am an American people would say yeah, if you had a skin tone anything other than white they would ask what kind.

Harper has an entry for black, but it relates more to the lack of color than anything. Black is really just in reference to skin tone as is colored (Harper search black).

Harper again with American "The noun American originally meant what are now called Native Americans; the sense of "resident of America of European descent" is first recorded 1765" (Harper search America).

It changed from the real Americans to the people who were coming her from Europe just because Indians called themselves by their tribal name because they were very different. Sure we group them all together now because that is what we are thought to do. I bet you can name almost all the countries in Europe though. The Europeans were the ones in power and the ones writing the history so of course they would become the Americans.

Harper with Afro ""full, bushy hairstyle as worn by some blacks," 1938, from Afro-, comb. form of African. As a general adj. for black styles of clothing, music, etc., it is attested from 1966" (Harper search Afro).

Webster lists Indian as it pertains to American as, "from the belief held by Columbus that the lands he discovered were part of Asia" (Webster search Indian).

This is an understandable name or title to change because it's based on a mistake. If you call someone by the wrong name once you learn the correct one you call them by it. Only problem was Europeans as a whole considered these one group of people when in reality they differed just as much as the peoples of Europe. So they continued to call them Indians for lack of a better term.

When you search for Native American in Webster you are told to see American Indian which just states the original peoples in North America (Webster Search Native American).

So even in Webster the name Indian still sticks even though it is a very incorrect one. Slapping native in front of it does nothing to change the fact that it is wrong. It's like saying native mistake.

Healey argues that "membership in a minority group is an ascribed status, one acquired at birth. One identified as a member of that group you remain that way for life" (Healey p. 5).

Once you are in a group you also have the title of the group. So when people see you no matter what you are they see the visual clues and then turn them into a race title or if there is already a standing race title whether it's based on appearance or not they will use it because they are taught to do so.

Oommen states "There is a tendency to subsume race into ethnicity. Authors absorb not only race but several other identities into ethnicity, thereby making the concept very vague. To abandon a stigmatizing label like race in favor of ethnicity will not do away with racism; it may in effect camouflage it to the advantage of the privileged group" (Oommen p. 24-25).

Here race titles can again be seen as a tool of the ruling class aimed at keeping the lower classes in check. By pretending to help or remove an unjust titles or name they are pandering to the lower classes, by lower class I mean those not in power, and serving their own interests by keeping the status quo. A great example of this is the switch from slavery to share cropping. It looked the same, felt the same, just had a different name.

McAll sees ethnicity as a smoke screen used by the ruling class to prevent people from seeing class and acting on it. "...Social relations can only too easily degenerate into "ethnic" conflict, particulary when fulled by racist propaganda. For some, therefore, ethnicity is the mask that conceals class and prevents people from acting in the name of it" (McAll p. vii).

Race titles on aide this by making the groups objects instead of people. Giving a name to a group of people beyond person or human makes it easier not to view them as such. Race titles only illustrate that there are boundaries made between the races removing them would not solve the problem, but had they never been implemented in the first place we would not have race titles because we would have no need for them. Only when a need is created to we invent such things.

Hare makes a wonder comment is support of my idea, "...reminding us that the so-called "white" is actually more accurately described as European American with a racialized identity" (Hare p. 8-9).

All people of fair skin came together as a group although different because it is far easier to point out those of a much darker completion.

Bock points out the tricky idea of progress, "...progress lies in the part it plays in shaping procedures still followed in attempts to arrive at statements of social or cultural process...progress is the conviction that man and society have been growing better and better and will continue to do so" (Bock p.62-65).

Challenges

This study, which focuses primarily on the interracial exchange of titles and labels imposed on the minorities of the united states upon arrival until now, has the problem of different titles affecting people in different ways. To the Indians or original Americans it brought them all together and made them one group whether this is the case or not isn't important because in the eyes of the majority they are. Since they are such a small group now this makes any action on behalf of just one group very hard so they must work together even if they are very different because in the eyes of the majority they are the same.

Race titles can never be truly good or bad yes they are a part of the capitalist system and can impose status and situations that are unfavorable, but people feel the need to belong to an identity. It's a scope of reference for an individual, but it's important to keep in mind who creates the reference. Another problem is just simple word association black means dirty or nasty, white means pure, and Indian can mean brave or honorable. If we didn't give people as much credit as we do the argument could be made that learning the words like this as a child could has a long lasting effect on how we view race.

Hypothesis

Lets say you make a friend if you left out race when they, your friends, meet this person they would assume a white person. If this person was not white they would be surprised. This has happened to me several times because I forget to divulge race because it slips my mind in the company of my friends.

This example illustrates the painful fact that everyone has a race hang up or are unconsciously thinking about race whether they know it or not. Another example is the way people talk, this ties in race titles. "Ask those people over there." This is how you would refer to a group of white males, but if the people were black, "Ask those black people." What is honestly the difference they are both men standing someplace with a possible answer to your question, yet we feel the need to add the race of the minority group. Without race or racism there would be no titles so I would only be able to use the first quote.

In the United States titles are evolving from skin to heritage or place of origin. Some groups are taking in upon themselves to create their own names as a source of empowerment such as Afro-American, "Afro" had a very areocentric ring 100 years ago and was a bold position to take. Now though the name is out for no other reason than the use of African-American. If this trend continues we could maybe see more vague terms used without conjunction of race titles. An example is American, America is just a place filled with many races. Just using American is hard to do without adding Irish, black, etc, but in the future this could work. Because we all come from the same place and if the shift to heritage continues this is possible to happen. This does not take into account any other factors like public perception, outside influences, etc only looks at the trend of heritage over skin tone.

Looking at current society if feel that it's easy to see that race titles do not help those they are used on nor do they have any vale beyond separating the races. Since there is a historical and social divide between the races the names will remain a vital part of our way of life something that few people will ever think of.

Methods

This study will implement qualitative methods form data collected from the two groups. To attain the answers to the questions asked in this paper the research team will be hard pressed to collect and organize large amounts of data into something tangible. It would be hard to use quantitative methods as if this were a science experiment, but it's far to broad a topic to do that.

Data Source

Interviews will be conducted on each participant before the participant observations are conducted. The interviews should help to determine the persons stance and use of race titles. This will make the teams job far easier so they will already have a grasp of the subjects natural use. That way nothing should come as a surprise observe the person. Self titling is important just as important as titling others.

Participant observations will be used to study 30 Indians, 30 black, and 30 whites. Of those 30 for each group every 10 will be from a different economic class. This should give us the ability to get a clear cross section of each group. While studying the subjects the researchers will be looking at word use, or lack of word use, how the words are stressed or implied, amount of word use, how the words are used in the presence of other groups, how words are used in the presence of ones own race, and how pc (politically correct) are people really.

Context analysis should be preformed on a major scale, but that could take decades so the research team will only look at popular literature, culture, and the first appearance of race words throughout the last 100 years.

Data Measurement

The massive data collected will then be put into SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, which is able to produce the best or most probable. Out of the randomness of the collect data will come hard fact about whether or not race titles have a negative effect on any one.

This is where the team could hit a snag due to the perceptive nature of negative or positive. It will be up to the team to decide from the data what is negative for a group vs. positive. This task which sounds simple is really not because such information is subjective to the viewer.

Data Resources

A research team of 100 or so should be enough to manage the job. The technical aspects recording conversations the subjects have, data input, and any other technological problems that arise should be a team of 30. The people doing the observation will work is shifts so as not to become attached or to screen out any natural biased. This will still take a great deal of work working with and interviewing the subjects. The other 70 members of the team will be set on the different tasks of interviewing and observing.

Conclusion

In conclusion race titles are just races in a verbal or written form and carry all the social attachments. If races was not a social construct then we wouldn't have race titles based off of skin color, but place of origin. In an ideal world we wouldn't have them at all because they only act as another boundary between the races. As time progresses it could become regional where as no matter your races if you live in the US you are an American with no attachments. The effects of race titles should be apparent if you just watch how and what you say when in regards to race.

Bibliography

Zeitlin, I. (1984). The Social Condition of Humanity: An Introduction to Sociology. New York: Oxford.

Harper, D. (2001). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved November 01, 2004, from http://www.etymonline.com

Merriam-Webster. (2004) Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved November 01, 2004, from http://www.m-w.com

Healey, J. (1997). Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the United States: Inequality, Group Conflict, and Power. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Article One.

Oommen, T.K. (Ed.). (1997).Citizenship and National Identity: From Colonialism to Globalism. California: Sage Publications.

McAll, C. (1990). Class, Ethnicity, and Social Inequality. Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Bock, K. E. (1956) The Acceptance of Histories: Towards a Perspective for Social Science. California: University of California Press.

Hare, B. (2001) Race Odyssey: African Americans and Sociology. New York: Syracuse University Press.