Racial hierarchy

A racial hierarchy is a system of stratification that focuses on the belief that some racial groups are either superior or inferior to
other racial groups.[1] The groups perceived to have the most (soft or hard) power, intellect and de facto authority are at the top of the
racial hierarchy, while the groups perceived to be inferior are at the bottom.

Contents
United States
Southern United States
Cognitive racial hierarchies
Racial inequality stemming from racial hierarchies
Stratification model
White supremacy
References
Further reading

United States
As it pertains to the United States,racial hierarchy refers to ranking of different races/ethnic groups, based on physical and perceived
characteristics that have been perpetuated through legal and political policy, providing unfair advantages for some races and/or
hindering the advancement of others.

Southern United States

Before the American Civil War, the racial ideology that was established throughout the United States was thought to have been
established because of biological, political, or even cultural differences among people. This was one of the most important aspects of
forming the racial hierarchies in the United States.[2]:14–15 Other experts and leading abolitionists like W. E. B. Du Bois began
viewing race as a social construction. Their thoughts began to raise questions and challenge previous existing thoughts about race and
why it was divided the way it was.[2]:13–21

In order to maintain and defend slavery, pro-slavery writers organized a "planter liberalism" by combining paternalist and liberal
views into an ideology that could be understood by both slave-holding and non-slave-holding citizens. Their ideology was based on
familiar domestic relationships. These views later paved the way for white Southern planters to keep racial conditions as close to
ar during the Reconstruction era.[2]:22
slavery as legally possible after the Civil W

The entire planter liberalist view was rooted in the idea of servitude and dependence which was based on defined obligations to each
one another.[2]:27 This view forced the subordinates of these relationships to lose their freedoms under complex definitions and other
legal circumstances. Slaves were defined to have no "legal personalities" which meant that they had no freedom.[2]:26They were
given legal rights that were similar to children or women. These ideas of slaves being considered legal things or property had
[2]:26–28
significant influences on cases like the Dred Scott Case.

As some of these liberalist views began to fall apart, slave inferiority was then reinforced by ideas of blacks being savage-like beings
that needed to be tamed or civilized through slavery.[2]:32–34 Other defenses of slavery were based on blacks being suited for tasks
that were not meant for white people to do.[2]:34 After, the Civil War, some laws were based on "slave codes" that established that
slaves were social dangers; therefore, their educations was to be limited so that they could not learn to read and write.[2]:35 Black
people were not the only race subject to inferiority under the racial hierarchy. Mulatto and poor white people were also subject to
being classed under the independent white people in some cases. So long as a group of people was dependent on an independent
group, they, too, could be classed as a group that was inferior and incapable.[2]:44–50 Even after slavery, whites continued to exercise
mastery over blacks and other dependent groups.

As policies in the United States changed after the Reconstruction period, different establishments of racial hierarchies tried to
continue their mastery of the races they deemed inferior. Laws enacted after the 1880s prevented certain groups and their levels of
racial hierarchies, like Southern planters, from continuing to affirm their mastery as black and white people became more legally
equal. Southern Darwinian liberals wanted to provide little civil and political rights to blacks as a part of their mission to maintain
white supremacy.[2]:104

Cognitive racial hierarchies

Books like The Bell Curve analyze highly predictive cognitive characteristics like IQ, and one of the book's most discussed sections
is its analysis of mean IQ scores across different races. They measure that the mean IQ of African Americans is less than the mean IQ
of white Americans, and both of the mean IQs of white Americans and African Americans are less than the mean IQ of Asian
Americans. When discussing IQ, other researchers establish that IQ is largely genetically determined and supplementary education
would not noticeably change an individual's IQ scores. Others hypothesize that as the U.S. becomes more cognitively stratified, a
large part of African Americans will remain in lower socioeconomic strata, insofar as life outcomes correlate with IQ. Others suspect
that it could be wasteful to expend additional educational resources to increase IQ because IQ appears not to appreciably increase
when changing these environmental factors.[3]

Racial inequality stemming from racial hierarchies

There is evidence that shows that racial inequalities affect various economic aspects of people's lives. In a study conducted by the
Urban Institute, "black homebuyers encountered discrimination in 22 percent of their searches for rental units and 17 percent in their
efforts to purchase homes. For Hispanics, the figures were 26 and 20 percent."[4]:10 African Americans and Hispanic people receive
[4]:11 This is why a study conducted in 1995,
"inferior health care" compared to Caucasians when dealing with major health problems.
showed that the infant mortality rate was higher for black babies than it was for white babies. The black rate was 14.3 for every 1000
babies as opposed to the 6.3 for every 1000 white babies.[4]:11 Some research has shown that it is easier for white people to find
.[4]:13
employment than black people despite the white person having a felony

Stratification model
This model explains that there is a hierarchical system in place that separates groups in society. In this model, the higher level groups
use their superior resources and influence to put distance between the lower level groups and themselves. Their actions include all
kinds of discrimination that prevent the lower groups from attaining similar statuses. In summary, they can manipulate the housing
[4]:29
options for minorities causing them a chain reaction of economic lifelong problems.

White supremacy
Some experts believe that the material basis for white supremacy does not come from an idea of European superiority. They believe
that the actual basis of white supremacy is "in a system of white-skin privileges, a system of preferences for white labor and other
white people in employment, land usage and ownership, housing immigration, and society generally."[5]:143 Other experts believe
that there are three pillars of white supremacy. The first pillar is "slaveability/anti-Black racism, which is all based on the idea that
Black people were made to be slaves and that they are property.[6]:68 One theory explains that in a capitalist system, workers become
commodities. In this theory, a racial hierarchy is used to give non-black races a chance to avoid being commodified in the capitalist
system. Black people are at the bottom of this hierarchy and other races are relieved that they are not at the bottom.[6]:68–69 The
second pillar is genocide. This pillar states that non-indigenous people should eliminate the indigenous race in order to stake claim to
[6]:69 The last pillar's focus is on orientalism, which establishes
the indigenous people's land. This pillar is an example of colonization.
that certain groups of "foreign people" are menaces to a society or empire.[6]:69 These pillars not only victimize minorities but also
makes them become part of the supremacy as each of the pillars explained singles out one particular group. In this way, all other
groups can share in the fact that they are not part of the specific group being discriminated against.[6]:69–70 White supremacy
functions through all three of these pillars or logics. Binaries like the Black-White binary and the indigenous-settler binary also play a
significant part in white supremacy as any race can find themselves closer to one of the sides of the binary and possibly get
discriminated against or avoid discrimination altogether.[6]:74–75 For example, if a Native American had a lighter skin complexion,
the fact that he/she is closer to the white side of the Black-White binary makes it possible for them to avoid discrimination because
they are closer to being white than black.

Some theorists believe that since race is a social construction, the entire idea of the white race was a means for people to control each
other in a system based on skin color. Along with this idea is the belief that because all races are social constructions, the very idea of
[5]:43–47
the white race and its supremacy can also be deconstructed.

References
1. "Racial Hierarchy" (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433
124_ss1-11). Blackwell Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405124331.2007.x(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fb.9781
405124331.2007.x).
2. Steedman, Marek (2012).Jim Crow Citizenship: Liberalism and the Southern Defense of Racial Hierarchy
. New
York: Routledge.
3. Fish, Jefferson (2002). Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth
. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. pp. 180–181.
4. Squires, Gregory; Kubrin, Charis (2006).Privileged Places: Race, Residence, and the Structure of Opportunity
.
Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
5. Smith, Chip; Foy, Michelle (2007). The Cost of Privilege: Taking On the System of White Supremacy and Racism.
Fayette, North Carolina: Camino Press.
6. HoSang, Daniel; LaBennett, Oneka; Pulido, Laura (2012).Racial Formation in the Twenty-first Century. Los Angeles,
California: University of California Press.

The War Relocation Authority and The Incarceration of Japanese-American During World War II: 1942, Harry S.
Truman Library & Museum.
Gordon, Linda, and Gary Okihiro.Persons of Japanese Ancestry. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
The Handbook of Texas Online. Accessed 2009-05-29.
Herbert J. Gans. "The Possibility of a New Racial Hierarchy in the wenty-first-century
T United States," inthe Cultural
Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries, edited by Michele Lamont, pp. 371–79, 386-90. Copyright 1999 by
the University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Allan G.. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: A User's Guide to Sociological Language. Malden:
Blackwell Pub, 2000.
Jacques, Martin. "The Global Hierarchy of Race." Common Dreams | News & iews. V 13 Nov. 2008
<https://web.archive.org/web/20081011053448/http://www .commondreams.org/views03/0920-06.htm>.

Further reading
(2009) Rethinking the Color Line: Readings in Race and Ethnicity
, 4/e. Charles A. GallagherISBN 0-07-340427-6
(2004) From Jim Crow to racial hegemony: Evolving explanations of racial hierarchy, by Steven J. Gold. Ethnic and
Racial Studies Vol. 27 No. 6 November 2004pp. 951–968.

Discusses the nature of the racial hierarchy in the USA, contrasts the (black/white) bipolar
model vs more complex ranking systems.

(2003) The global hierarchy of race, by Martin Jacques.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_hierarchy&oldid=862836258

"
This page was last edited on 7 October 2018, at 00:55(UTC).

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.