Unit 7
Racial and Ethnic Inequality

I. Introduction

Inequality can have many sources within the community. As we have seen in the preceding sections a major source of inequality is social class. Economic and social inequality can arise from other socially defined characteristics that result in different group within the community having different access to the goods and services of the community. Large societies such as the United States will contain within its boundaries many peoples of different qualities and characteristics. These qualities and characteristics will define the status of individuals within the nation. A most obvious characteristics is that of citizenship. Citizenship defines whether or not one can vote, what ones legal rights are and the kinds of access one has to the services provided by the nation. Related to these characteristics are those of skin color, race or national origin. Each of these can lead to differential treatment in a variety of situations and to degrees of inequality within any given community.

The web is a rich source of information about race relations. I have included links to a variety of sources at the end of this document.

A. Definitions of good and bad

Access to the resources and services within the community are ultimately based upon the power of the group within the community. Immigrants and non-citizens have very little power in the legal sense and so have a limited ability to define themselves within the community. Citizens and dominate groups often have a great deal of power within the community and so have the ability to define what is considered to be 'good' and 'bad' qualities. The definitions and their enforcement then result in defined access to community resources. For example, we carry around in our heads definitions of what constitutes 'beauty' or 'handsomeness.' As a northern European white male I tend to define beauty in terms of white, perhaps blond, slender and so forth. Some standards of good are not necessarily consciously set by the community but may be reflected in the advertising or media. Take a moment and consider what to you is a 'good looking' man or woman. I would guess that your perception is greatly influenced by film, magazines, advertising and so forth. Who do you regularly see in these kinds of images? What group is portrayed?

The good/bad qualities come to make up the ideal person. Often by omission other qualities (dark skin, tightly curled hair or light skin, straight lank hair) will be seen to be bad or to represent bad qualities. If I say 'welfare queen' or street tough what image comes to mind? Why do you think this is the image that you have? Is the group that is represented by that image the actual majority group in that category? This is the operation of the definition of good and bad within the community. We come to association certain physical or social qualities with these characteristics.

B. Racial or ethnic conflict

Conflict between groups of differing racial, ethnic or national origins are often based upon these social definitions of good and bad. In the early 1990s (or in 1995, when this is written) horrendous conflict is taking place in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia. These conflicts are taking place among people who were relatively content to live together ten years earlier. Then groups began to stress the differences and the qualities of 'good/bad' that erupted into genocide, rape, murder and torture of the groups despised. In 1990 Serbs drove the Croats out of an area called Krajina, in the summer of 1995 Croats turned about and drove the Serbs from the same area. Serbs fled in fear of what would happen to them, perhaps because of what they did to the Croats four years earlier.

Similar things happened in Africa (Rwanda is the most recent example). In the 1970s Lebanon was a blood bath as groups of differing national and religious origin fought with one another. Today the MidEast area continues to be torn apart. India has been wracked with ethic conflict as Sikhs battle Hindi. Sri Lanka experiences similar conflict. Central America is also wracked with ethnic conflicts as native battle the established European immigrants (Canadian Defense site on Guatemala). The history of the United States is full of such conflict and genocide.

As we shall see such conflict is often made worse when the resources are quite scarce and one group sees another as having access to more or better things. When times are good the conflict does not go away, but it is certainly reduced as the competition for the resources is reduced.

II. Concepts and definitions

A. Race

Race is technically an anthropological or biological term. It refers to genetically based, biological differences within a particular species. (Species is defined as a group of organisms who share physical, genetic qualities with one another and usually are unable to reproduce with any other species). Races in this sense often differ in some non-essential characteristics such as skin color (animals and humans), fur color, size, hair consistency and so. When we pick some quality, say skin color to define a racial group, we will find that other qualities or characteristics that define that group will be associated with quite a range of skin colors. Anthropologists recognize three major racial divisions among human beings: Caucasian (basically all whites); Mongolian (basically all Asian peoples, or those we define as having 'yellow' skin); and Negroid (those with dark skin, but from Africa). The problem with these definitions is that they are to some degree arbitrary. Notice that when I attempted to define 'Mongolian' that I resorted to a continental definition. The same is true with Negroid. Within the group we define as Caucasian we will find some very light skinned, blond people, but we will also find some peoples with very dark skin, as dark as that found among those we define as Negroid. We can describe hair, facial shape, eye shape, lip shape and so forth and always come to the realization that these do not define unique, clearly distinct groups of human beings. These biological differences are just that, variations on a theme.

What we tend to do with these qualities however, is to give them social meanings. We will assume that certain kinds of behavioral qualities are associated with the physical characteristics. We will also define these behavior qualities as good or bad, as desirable or undesirable. Based upon our social definitions of these qualities we will then behave differently towards people who possess them, often denying them some important resources or access to the resources of the community. When we deny access to the resources this may affect their success and behavior resulting in a confirmation of our original definition of the group. The end result is inequality based upon physical characteristics.

B. Ethnicity (National Origin)

Groups of people differ in social characteristics as well as physical. I expect that one would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a Croat, a Serb and a Bosnian. In the East end of the Mediterranean one is hard pressed to tell the difference between an Israeli, a Palestinian or Jordanian. Yet these peoples feel themselves to be distinctly different. They do have differences, but these differences are mostly behavioral, linguistic, and cultural (though in the examples cited they all share some very strong cultural similarities, particularly to those of us not from that part of the world).

The differences of national origin or ethnicity also relate to speech patterns. An Australian has a speech pattern that is quite distinct from that of a Brit or an Irish or an American. Within a nation, especially one as large and diverse as the United States there are quite distinct regional differences in speech. These are differences that identify people and perhaps set them apart. We respond to these as 'good' or 'bad.' For example, as I grew up in Oregon I came to identify certain speech patterns with Okies and Arkies. These were not polite terms in that part of the country, they were derogatory, referring to someone who was often seen as being unsophisticated, lacking in intelligence, morality and so forth. (Now we have one as President!!)

As with racial qualities, it is not the behavior, language pattern, dress and so on that sets the people apart, but our definition of these characteristics and how we use them to assign people to places in relation to ourselves.

C. Nature of differences and minority status

The preceding paragraphs have laid out some the nature of differences. The key point is that the characteristics or qualities (be they racial or ethnic) do confer minority status on the individuals. It is the interpretation given them by the dominant group. This interpretation may limit the access that certain groups have to the resources of the community, where they can live, what kinds of schools they attend, what kinds of jobs they are permitted to take and so on. All of these add up to inequalities, to unfair treatment of groups of people based not upon their abilities and skills but upon irrelevant qualities and characteristics.

A definition of minority status (from Louis Wirth, "The Problems of minority groups," in Science of Man in the World Crisis edited by Ralph Linton. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945):

"We may define a minority group as a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from others in society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. The existence of a minority implies the existence of a corresponding dominant group with higher social status and greater privileges. Minority status carries with it the exclusion from full participation in the life of the society."

There is not much more that I can add to this. Do keep in mind that the key factor is that of discrimination. We will expand on that in following sections.

III. Dynamics of race ethnic relationships

A. Group identity

Every group of any size develops an identity. Often the identity sets them apart from others -- a secret handshake, code words and other symbolic things help to make their identity and convey it to other members. Obvious signs of identity are uniforms, styles of clothing. Some groups will take skin color, shape of the nose, lips or eyes, for example, and make them symbols. Sometimes these symbols are created by the dominate group to help to identify and treat differently peoples who are not considered on the same level (white South Africans often conducted lessons in the school that specified the shape of lips and nose as part of symbols of beauty and to differentiate themselves from black Africans).

In another context group identity serves to reinforce the group, to give it strength. 'Afros' sported by black Americans in the 60s were part of this identity, a part of the Black is Beautiful movement.

In this context we can bring up ethnocentrism. Consider for a moment what is meant by ethnocentrism and whether it is generally perceived as good or bad.

As part of the 'good' in ethnocentrism is the strength that it gives to the group, the fact that you or I believe that our group is the best in the Universe, World, United States or Denver serves to bring us together and to strongly identify with each other. We will defend our beliefs and our values against all comers because those beliefs are inherently right, justified and moral.

As part of the 'bad' in ethnocentrism is the tendency for our group to use these moral beliefs to put down or keep down others who do not look or believe as we do. From these 'bad' parts of the ethnocentrism we get the major conflicts such as those currently being experienced in the former Yugoslavia.

1. Voluntary segregation

Segregation is generally seen as being a negative thing, a way to control a group of people who are different, we will address that issue in the next section. Here I wish to emphasize how some forms of segregation can be beneficial, can help a group of people, even a minority.

Stark points out that when minorities are concentrated they build power by virtue of their strength in numbers. If they are allowed freedom within in their own community they will tend to develop their own leadership, professionals and perhaps a very strong middle class. Most immigrant groups have initially voluntarily segregated themselves (to a degree voluntarily). In these separate communities they developed business, professional, religious and political leaders that would eventually give them clout with the dominant, English immigrant community to which many aspired. This fact is recognized in reality and urban myth in the form of the little Sicily, China Town and other ethnic communities that formed in many urban centers. From these power bases the new immigrants would move into the broader dominant community, taking over the political machinery of the city, county and perhaps the state. Eventually the Irish used such a base to bring John Fitzgerald Kennedy to the attention of the nation and to get him elected President of the United States. Nearly every major city in the United States has now had a Black mayor elected by virtue of the concentration and middle class development of the black community.

Such communities are often the product of voluntary segregation on the part of the national or immigrant group. They choose to live together to defend themselves from the prejudices and discrimination of the dominant group. As they gain in economic standing within the community individuals move in increasing numbers to other parts of the city or community until they become virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the community. This has tended to happen with every minority ethnic group with few exceptions. The exceptions are notable: Chinese have tended to remain isolated and segregated (it is unclear if this is due to choice and continued desire to live in the segregated communities or to continued in-migration); and the Black or African American community in the urban North.

2. Involuntary segregation

Involuntary segregation occurs when a group has no choice in where they live and how they live. The South is often seen as the epitome of segregation. Certainly Blacks were kept out of certain parts of town, had reserved places in buses, public parks, schools and so forth. However, they were often residentially integrated. That is they often lived in the same neighborhoods as the white folk. This had to do with the manner in which they were used as domestic help in the household and the need to have them near their place of employment.

In the North is where we tend to find the most virulent residential segregation. Blacks found themselves segregated into communities with less than satisfactory services: schools, transportation, access to work, hospitals, police protection and so forth. Such segregation was not of their choosing nor was it within their control to change it, even though there were no formal laws of segregation in the North. The forces were far more subtle, but every bit as controlling. Blacks were not permitted to rent in white parts of the city. This kept them out of the middle class white schools for the most part. They were often treated badly or differently in businesses outside 'their' district or part of the city. Those who were brave enough to venture outside found quickly that the battles were not worth it. For an account of a white, middle class professional family that attempted to fight this kind of subtle discrimination you should all read Lois Stalvey's Education of Wasp. In Oregon many communities had what were known collectively as 'Sundown' laws, laws simply stating that Blacks had to be out of town by sundown.

Involuntary segregation inevitably is the result of discrimination -- the active differential treatment of a group based upon something such as skin color or religion. Discrimination is behavior that denies a group of people equal access to the goods and services of a community. It can be as overt as the decision to not spend money on schools in a black or minority neighborhood because they are not smart enough to use the education or as subtle as the very deliberate slow service in a business establishment. The net effect is that the individuals come to know that they are differently treated and are not wanted in the community or not allowed to participate fully in the activities of the community.

The critical point to keep in mind about discrimination and involuntary segregation is that the source of these actions is located in the behaviors of the dominant community individuals. I am a white male, yet I know that I harbor these kinds of attitudes and actions.

The problem is that they are very, very subtle in their manifestation. At the very beginning of this topic I asked you to consider some questions, questions relating to terms and images that we use every day. The acquittal of O.J. Simpson on charges of murdering his wife is instructive. A majority of the white population felt this was a miscarriage of justice, whereas a majority of the African American population felt that it reflects the reality of their experience with the justice system (that is, the evidence presented by the police is unreliable when it applies to African Americans since the police are as often as not out to get them).

I think that I can unequivocally state that every African American male has been accosted by police at some time in his life for nothing more than being an African American male going about his business. For example, an African American professor of sociology at the University of Oregon was routinely stopped by the Eugene police simply because he was Black and in an all white neighborhood.

Another example relates to a possible reason for the differential success rates of African American (and other minority) pilots in the Air Force. Every pilot trainee is required to train with an instructor and to take risks while under this tutelage. The risk taking is necessary for the successful training. African Americans wash out of these programs at a much higher rate than do any other group. One possible explanation is that the trainees are not given the chance to take the risks necessary for the successful accomplishment of the training tasks. Because the instructors (who are all white) may have subtle views of a person's capabilities based upon race they intervene more quickly with the African American (or minority) pilot trainee preventing them from learning from the risk taking needed to become accomplished pilots.

We shall see how this works in education when we discuss educational success and achievement. The same very subtle differences in treatment has huge outcomes in the relative success of different groups of people. The key point is that their success turns out to hinge on something quite separate from their ability to perform.

These are the substance of discrimination and differential treatment of a group. Because of these deep seated 'understandings' of another people we will treat them quite differently, actually discriminating against them based on these understandings. The discrimination does not have to be conscious or deliberate.

B. defined social position

The key to minority status in the community is that a group is defined socially within the community and on the basis of that definition is denied access to the goods and services of the community simply because of the identity.

1. stereotypes

Stereotypes are short hand descriptions of categories of groups of people. 'Dumb Blond' is a stereotype, it associates behavioral or moral characteristics with a physical quality -- you all know of the rash of 'dumb blond' jokes that abound. They are put downs of blond women usually.

Stereotypes often have another quality that we should keep in mind -- they are often NON-DEFINITIONS. That is they tend to define a group in terms of what they are not, rather than in terms of what they are (e.g., lazy, immoral, dirty, criminal, unemployed and so forth). Look behind our use of these terms as we apply them to others -- note that we use them in a way to show that they are not like us, that they do not have our drive, adherence to the ethics of the community, our freshly starched clothes and so forth. Anthropologist xxxx developed this idea of non-definition when studying the Fox Indian tribe in Iowa and the manner in which White, European Iowans described the Indians.

In war time we often use such stereotypes to classify people and to permit us to treat them in non-human ways. We have just concluded the observation of the 50th anniversary of the ending of World War II. It is instructive to go back to the newspapers, magazines and movies of that day to see how we described the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians -- I am not referring to the use of terms such as Axis Powers, but to the vernacular terms we in the streets used to describe these national, racial groups. The same process was employed in our battle with the Koreans and Vietnamese. Since they are all 'non definitions' or tend to define the groups as non-human, we do not have to apply the normal rules of human conduct to our interactions with them. Note that Stark began this chapter with a brief description of an encounter of one Aborigine by another where they traced ancestry. The purpose was to define their relationship to one another so they knew how to behave toward one another.

A final note on this: the Japanese have tended to define all non-Japanese as not-people. Given this definition they did not feel it necessary to apply the normal rules of human conduct to the prisoners taken during World War II. I suspect that some of the same mental set was part of the Germans who worked in the Death camps of World War II. I would also suspect that these kinds of definitions currently apply in the former Yugoslavia in the treatment of Croats by Serbs, of Serbs by Croats, Bosnians by Serbs, Serbs by Bosnians. It certainly justified our treatment of Black slaves in the South prior to Civil War and the Native Americans during the great expansion westward following our Manifest Destiny.

2. discrimination

Discrimination is a fine word. Without our ability to discriminate we would all be dead or in serious trouble. Now before you go flying off in a rage consider what the word means: to make fine distinctions, to differentiate. Without that ability we would be unable to tell safe situations from unsafe ones.

The insidious nature of discrimination arises when we make the distinctions on the basis of prejudice. A prejudice is a belief about something that is not based in reality, often on very strong feelings. When we act on feelings and prejudice we deny groups and individuals their unique qualities and their place in the community.

Discrimination is an act, an act that differentiates or makes distinctions. Discrimination is a bad act when I make these distinctions about a person based upon the color of their skin, their national origin or their sex. If I then treat them differently solely based upon these criteria and not upon the reality of their being, of their abilities and skills, then I am treating them unfairly. It is this unfair treatment or denial of access to the classroom, to a place to live, to a job or to advancement on the job that constitutes the discriminatory behavior.

C. Conflict over scarce resources

Stark and others (Julius Wilson for example) argue that racial and national origin conflicts often have their roots in economic and status differences. Conflicts of status and economic sorts have their basis ultimately in the availability of resources in the community. When jobs are abundant, when openings in the schools are many and cheap, when housing is readily, cheaply available to all, then we tend not to care too much about who gets the job, the house or into what school. However, when these things become scarce or difficult to obtain and we are competing with one another for these limited resources, then it does indeed make a difference who gets them, especially if that someone is not of MY race or national origin group. The current battle in California over affirmative action programs and access by minorities has its roots in the high levels of unemployment, the limited numbers of spaces in the Universities of California and in the reduced tax base that must support the services to the community (welfare, health, schools). When California was booming few really cared about the influx of people from Mexico or Vietnam or from Oklahoma for that matter (recall that those who fled the Midwest during the Dust Bowl and Depression years were treated as badly as the Mexicans and Vietnamese are today).

I would argue that if we could find an equitable way to divide the pie among our different groups, these conflicts would dissipate -- they probably would not go away, but they certainly might decline.

IV. Processes or actions by the dominant group

Throughout human history, human communities have dealt with differences between them in a variety of ways. Some of the ways are quite humane and to a degree acceptable. Others are not since they often result in the annihilation or mistreatment of one group by another. As these processes are defined and briefly discussed below consider whether or not they have ever been a force in the history of the United States.

A. assimilation

When Stark presented the notions of Culture in the early chapters of the book he discussed this along with acculturation (the taking on the of the dominant cultural characteristics -- values, language, dress, behavior, etc.) Assimilation and acculturation are quite similar to one another with a striking distinction. When assimilation occurs the two groups that used to be distinct are no longer distinguishable from one another. This usually means that the groups have intermarried to such an extent that physical characteristics are quite alike as well as their social, linguistic and behavioral patterns. This is essentially what was meant when your high school teachers talked of the 'melting pot.' As an aside sociologists noted that in fact what had been seen as a single melting pot of Europeans was in fact a triple melting pot with Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Americans tending to remain relatively distinct. Notice also that this is an all White melting pot!!

Assimilation is complete when the groups are no longer able to be told apart. Our school system has been set up to make this possible by teaching a single language, a single history, and bringing people together so that there is a great tendency to inter marry. I am not sure this was an intended outcome of the educational process, but it is certainly a major one.

B. pluralism

Pluralism occurs when two or more racial, ethnic, national origin groups remain distinct from one another but live together in tolerance of the differences and in relative harmony. Take a moment and see if you can come up with any contemporary or historic examples of pluralism. Share them in the discussion topic.

Pluralism is often doomed to failure. Conflict within national groups where ethnic or religious differences are strong abound. The 'mini-wars' of the past twenty years in the Near East, the Balkans, in Sri Lanka and in India are living examples of this potential failure.

Although the outlook for pluralism is dim, it is from many points of view one of the most humane possibilities for dealing with differences among peoples. The central idea of this view is that the variety of human experiences and cultures are preserved, peoples differences are respected and tolerated.

C. relocation

Relocation is a simple and expedient way of treating differences among people. If we cannot tolerate one another, then the easiest thing to do is to move the differing groups into enclaves where they can be with their own kind.

When India gained its freedom from England this was the often preferred method for dealing with differences between Moslems and Hindi. The Moslem populations were moved off into Pakistan and Bangladesh. The White South Africans treated the problem in a similar fashion by creating 'homelands' for the Black African population they did not want in their communities. In the former Yugoslavia in 1994 and 1995 Moslem Bosnians have been forced out of areas conquered or held by Christian Serbs. The dislocations that occur as a consequence of these force movements often create deep seated and long lasting problems for the areas in which they occur.

What kinds of relocations have occurred in the United States? Share these in the discussion topic.

D. subjugation

Subjugation occurs when the dominant group places the subordinate group in slavery or near slavery. Such alternatives have occurred in many societies around the world. In Japan there is a group of Japanese called the Burakumin who are virtual slaves or perhaps more like a caste. They are severely limited in where they can live and in what kinds of work that they can do. Korean immigrants to Japan often are placed in similar positions. Subjugation generally means the groups have very limited rights and freedoms in the society of which they are a part. Often, as with the Burakumin, they perform very important roles in the well-being of the community.

Any obvious examples from the American experience?

E. extermination

The ultimate solution to group differences is annihilation of the offending group. One of the greatest in the history of Western Civilization is the Holocaust of World War II in which Nazi Germany deliberately destroyed (killed) approximately 6 million European Jews. Other examples are to be found in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin in which many ethnic groups simply disappeared from their home territories. Once again a certain degree of this kind of action has taken place in the former Yugoslavia where Bosnians are slain in large numbers by conquering Serbs and vice versa when the fortunes of war turn and the Bosnians are victorious.

Extermination has been a frequently used device in dealing with groups that are different from oneself. Sometimes the action is deliberate, sometimes it is unintended as when new diseases were introduced to the New World and the native populations were decimated by them.

V. Summary

The history of intergroup relations has been the history of conflict and exploitation. The processes described above occur throughout history and in nearly every social group. Our response to these processes today is generally one of revulsion, yet they continue to be practiced although perhaps not as openly or barbarically as in the past. For example in the 1994 a book was published by Murray and Herrnstein (The Bell Curve) in which they attempt to show that the differences between African Americans and White Europeans is based in the genetic makeup of the two groups. These differences then are seen to be immutable and no amount of welfare or preference will overcome the genetic bases of the differences. Leaving aside the truth or falsity of the claims, the net result of such efforts will be the further separation and differential treatment of the groups. Such 'research' can be used to justify denial of access to higher education, to more skilled jobs simply on the basis of race. What did Stark and Thomas Sowell have to say about these purported differences between African Americans and European Americans? How did they account for the differences in performance on standardized tests?

Physical differences do occur among human beings, that is a part of the rich variety of people. This variety both physical and social contributes to the dynamism of American culture or more broadly the human experience. Our culture is made up of elements from all over the world, of insights brought by people from very different backgrounds and life styles. When we take time to listen, to understand and to share these differences we are all strengthened. (That is the preacher coming out that is hidden in every social scientist. These are my own personal views and values and I hold them to be central to our success as a nation and a society.)

Gender Inequality

Introduction

In the previous topics we have examined inequality and the structures that inequality creates. Today social class is based in the economy and in the status achieved within that realm. In the past social class rested in part on achieved status in the economic activities of the society, but also in great part on the ascriptive status of the family. That is one could earn position in the class system but family status helped gain and maintain that position. We also examined how ethnic and racial status affects ones position in the economy, how these ascriptive characteristics are used to assign position and worth in the society. In this topic we turn to the way in which gender, as defined by the society serves to assign position and worth in the society.

We should note that this assignment based upon gender (sex) varies across time and across societies, just as has the assignment of position and worth by family, race or ethnicity. Social scientists express concern with any method of assignment of place that tends to keep people as members of a category or class from realizing their full potential. Our present use of gender for the assignment of adult roles in the society is often seen as wasting the potential of half the population. Since women are often defined as of less worth and less worthy, they are prevented from participating to the fullest in the activities of the community. Of course, the situation is far better now that in the past, but women are still denied full and equal participation in many aspects of the society. We have just recently seen this in the discussion of the ability of women to participate in combat in the military. Such denial of participation means that they will never be able to rise as far in the ranks as will men, since promotion beyond a certain level is dependent upon combat experience.

Inequality based on gender does exist within our society and we will expand this topic in the following sections. We will begin with a full description of the ascriptive and achieved status of women, then turn to an examination of the relative power of men and women. We will look at some of the explanations that have been put forth in the past as to why women choose to pursue a career and finally we will look at the differences in rewards given to men and women once they are in the work force.

Ascriptive and achieved status

(women seen as weaker, less able than men)

Power of women

(changes in the U.S. through time)

Women who pursue a career

(Explanations of this behavior -- from my thesis)

Women in the work force

(Equal pay for equal work? The statistical tables)

The following links will take you to the Bureau of Census tables reporting income for persons from 1991 - 1993. Please note these tables may appear jumbled if you read them with Lynx. I have provided links to two tables:

(A note about the above tables. If you wish to print them, you will find that a landscape orientation will capture the entire table best. That is, you want to print the table the across the length of the paper rather than the width.)

For those of you interested in exploring income information you may want to look at the entire listing of tables. The location for these is:

Historical Income Tables -- Persons

Once you have looked at these tables, you may comment on them in the discussion group.

Web sources:

African American:

Asian American:

Native American:

Latino / Chicano Studies

Other Ethnicity Sources