Category: Race

The paper under review is a 1978 article titled “Effects of Race on Psychotherapy Process and Outcome: An Exploratory Investigation” and written by Enrico E. Jones. The main aim of the research paper is to explore the effect race of the client and the therapist has on the therapy process and short-term outcomes of therapy. This critique will explore the sample, method, and results of the study as well as evaluate the inferences the writer drew from the research.

In the literature review of the paper the author notes that the success of therapy depends as much on the therapist as it does on the client. One of the variants of therapist-client matching, apart from other investigated aspects like personality similarity, is race. The writer notes inconsistencies in studies that precede his and this is one of the gaps in the knowledge he seeks to exploit. Carkhuff and Pierce (1967) reported a positive correlation between the racial similarity of the client and therapist and the depth of the self-exploration of the client. Further inconsistencies are noted in three studies that come up with three different conclusions regarding the perceived efficacy of a therapist being a function of either race or experience. Banks et al. (1972) noted that a therapist’s race is more important than the therapist’s experience, while Cimbolic (1972) asserted that a therapist’s experience is more important than their race. Interestingly, Gardener’s research has findings that suggest both experience and race are key factors in the success of the therapeutic relationship (1971).

The writer rightly notes that the studies that preceded his lack the proper methodology to reveal the effect race has on the therapy process or outcome. First, the studies that he reviews do not use professionally trained therapists; most used lay counselors. Secondly, the “clients” in the studies were not really under distress as real clients are; college students were used. And finally, the results were usually gathered from a single interview, not from an extended interaction. The author insightfully notes that these studies lack the academic rigor that would have made them authoritative in the matter of race influencing the therapy process and outcomes of therapy.

Other limitations the author notes are a biased sample, a lack of record of desired therapy outcomes and that the mental state of an interview is markedly different from the mental state of a therapy session. Client-centered therapy is also the dominant method used in the studies that the author reviews and he notes that this limits the studies’ applicability to other therapeutic methods (Bergin and Jaspers, 1969; Garfield and Bergin, 1971). The author notes that due to these limitations the studies he reviews are invalid as they measured different aspects of the therapy process, such as racial attitudes and person perception, instead of the effects of race on therapy (Cimbolic, 1972).

These difficulties cut out the author’s work as he seeks to address all the complications in his research. The first thing the researcher sets out to do is make his study-specific and explore the therapeutic process itself. The researcher opts to use the naturalistic research methodology in this study. This methodology is apt as the data recording does not interfere with the conventional proceedings of therapy; data recorded is reflective of a realistic therapy situation, not a mere simulation of therapy.

The researcher aims at having a homogenous sample in terms of age, sex, and psychological distress. The purpose of this serves is to make sure that only racial difference is measured as a significant difference in the sample. The author notes that literature in the field of psychology lays emphasis on a client’s socioeconomic status affecting the process and outcome of therapy. The researcher uses a sample that is similar in terms of education in order to get rid of this difference in socioeconomic status. However, the researcher does not back his assumption with studies showing that people with the same level of education are of similar socioeconomic status. Furthermore, there could be a significant difference in the socioeconomic status of people of the two races that were used as respondents to the study. Consequently, this assumption is unwarranted and indefensible, thus making the study less dependable.

Another assumption that the author makes without appeal to any previous work is that the dominant pairings in a therapeutic situation are a male therapist and a female client. The author clearly provides evidence from previous research showing that black men hardly rely on therapy, but does little to show that white females are the predominant attendees of therapy among the white race. The above assumption also implies that most of the therapists are male; an assumption that is not backed by any statistics. This is a central assumption in the study and the fact that it seems to have no basis in research, apart from the author’s whims, makes the method flawed and the sample less “ecologically representative” than the author would have us believe.

The results and measures used in the study were reliable and valid as they were used in other previous researches. The statistical treatment of data is beyond reproach and the researcher uses proper statistical methods to analyze and present the data too. The results showed no significant difference in terms of the outcome of therapy across all the four pairings of client and therapist i.e. black therapist and black client, black therapist and white client, white therapist and white client, and white therapist and black client. Differences, however, were noted, in the therapy process especially among the black clients.

The results and the discussion the author presents can be called to question. First is the issue of choosing therapists that are more willing to work with ethnic minorities than ones who aren’t. This skews the results markedly and is unrepresentative of a real-life situation, this makes the research out of touch with real presenting situations. Secondly, the sample is quite small and not as representative as the researcher tries to make it appear and this calls into question the generalizability of the research findings. Thirdly, the researcher does not address the problem of using generic categories. The researcher uses clients that are classified as neurotic, yet does not clarify the kind of neurosis that the sample suffers from; this makes the sample lack homogeneity.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the results and inferences drawn from any research should not be removed from the social realities that are present during the time of the research. This research is from an epoch when racial strife was still rife in the USA. It is possible, then, that the difference in the therapy process noted could have been borne of sociopolitical realities more than it was of psychological reality. The research feels constrained and narrow, albeit an improvement on the studies reviewed by the author.

References

Banks, G., Berenson, B., & Carkhuff, R. (1967). The effects of counselor race and training upon counseling process with Negro clients in initial interviews. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 70-72.

Bergin, A., & Jasper, L. (1969). Correlations of empathy in psychotherapy: A replication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74(4), 477-481.

Carkhuff, R., & Pierce, R. (1967). Differential effects of therapist race and social class upon patient depth of self-exploration in the initial clinical interview. Journal of Counsulting Psychology, 31(6), 632-634.

Cimbolic, P. (1972). Counselor race and experience effects on black clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 328-332.

Gardner, L. (1971). The therapeutic relationship under varying conditions of race. Psychotherapy: Therapy, Research and Practice, 8(1), 78-87.

Garfield, S., & Bergin, A. (1972). Therapeutic conditions and outcome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77(2), 108-114.

In his article “The Declining Significance of Race: Revisited & Revised”, William Wilson discusses the issues that are important in connection with discriminating race relations, and economic and political developments in society, which were connected with it. He argues that racial antagonism is the result of something that is even broader than nationalistic hatred; in fact, it is connected with the desire to dominate over the other race both economically and politically. In the following paper, Wilson’s findings in this article will be evaluated on the basis of chapter 7 of the class textbook.

Discussing the main features of Wilson’s article, the first factor that becomes evident is its historical accuracy. If to compare the main events, that Wilson mentions in connection with the development of race relations in the United States, with the facts from the textbook, it appears that the two texts have a remarkable similarity. For example, both Wilson and chapter 7 mention three periods of evolution in the relations of white and black population in the country: the preindustrial period (when black population was brought to the United States to work as slaves); the industrial period (when black people obtained freedom, citizenship, and more other rights along with hazardous jobs in industry); and the modern industrial period (when African Americans managed to have a new deal with the white population).

The other important feature of Wilson’s argument is in providing extensive theory regarding the ideas that were behind the worsening of race relations in the United States. Wilson explains that initially, the African population was seen as inferior to the white population because it had been subjected to slavery. However, he shows that later the motivation behind racial oppressions and discrimination has changed. According to Wilson, the new idea, that became the foundation of nationalism, bias and race discrimination, emerged in the XIX century. During that historical period, there appeared scientists and scholars who believed that black people were an inferior race because of their poor intellectual abilities, mentality peculiarities, and even their looks. The influence of the ideas of these scholars on society was considerable, which resulted into the development of a new vision of race issues in the United States. These findings by Wilson are in full accord with the information from chapter 7, where, in the subheading “The Development of Racist Ideology”, it is possible to find a theoretical explanation similar to the one offered by Wilson.

In addition, the author pays a special attention to the explanation of how it became possible for African Americans to acquire more weight in American society. He shows that due to the transition to industrial forms of economic relations, black citizens, who were mainly occupied in industry, were able to increase their economical and political potential, and this was the basis for the formation of a new type of race relations in the United States. Similar explanation is offered in chapter 7, where it is stated that the achievements of black people in the area of economy made their status is society more substantial.

One more important point in Wilson’s argument is the reasoning on how American government has been striving to overcome the problems that are rife in connection to racial issues. According to Wilson, “state intervention designed to promote racial equality, together with the reciprocal relationship between the polity and the economy” became an important point in the development of race relations in the country (2011, p. 56). The author explains that the government proposed black population a variety of ways to strengthen their positions in the society. Along with the legislative basis, African Americans were invited to participate in the program of urban relocation and the northern industrialization, which started in the beginning of the XX century. As a result, black Americans managed to have a weightier economical and social status. This offered them a chance to continue their fight for their rights and have more powerful arguments in their opposition with those people in society who had racist moods. Chapter 7 also makes a special emphasis on the new period in the development of race relations in the United States, which have begun after the 1940s, and shows that the positive developments of this period have established sound grounds for optimism. In particular, African Americans acquired an opportunity to enlarge their economic wealth due to better chances in the educational system; it became possible for them to have an active participation in political life of the country; and they even started occupying high position in the law enforcement and legislative systems of the country.

In conclusion, it should be stated that Wilson’s article provides the audience with a prospect of the main events that took place during the developments of race relations in the United Sates. Its strong point is in showing how exactly black population was able to improve its social status. However, reflecting on Wilson’s argument and the theories discussed in chapter 7 of the class textbook, the two questions still come on mind: “Is it possible to completely overcome racial contradictions in the United States?”, and “How can this be done in practice?”. I believe considering these two questions will contribute to the discussion in class.

References

Wilson, William Julius. “The Declining Significance of Race: Revisited & Revised.”Daedalus 140.2 (2011): 55-69. Print.

The “Eye of the Storm” video is a fascinating example of how race can be socially constructed in the classroom. Jane Elliott created a distinction between blue-eyed and brown-eyed children, teaching the young participants that their peers with brown eyes were superior (Bloom). Although this contrast does not possess any inherent meaning and is merely a representation of one’s amount of melanin in the body, it became significant for the children. Thus, Elliott socially constructed race by suggesting that one group of children is better than the other, with the eye colors serving as symbols to emphasize race and group belonging.

As a result of such distinction, differences in the students’ activities and performance became evident. Elliott observed that the children who were in the brown-eyed group grew more confident, and they began to behave more condescendingly towards their blue-eyed peers. Contrastingly, the latter students have been reported to become more shy and timid, supposedly intimidated by the pressure from the other group (Bloom). Blue-eyed children felt less reassured, with their academic performance dropping significantly and their relationships with their former brown-eyed classmates becoming worse (Bloom). By the end of the activity, a drastic difference between the two groups was remarkably clear, and fights between the learners could be seen frequently. Thus, each group was negatively impacted by the new racial social structure.

What stood out to me the most in this experiment was how quickly the changes in the children’s behavior became evident. Although the classmates appeared to have close relationships before the distinction was made, these connections were abruptly severed after Elliott created the two groups. The new behavioral patterns formed very soon, demonstrating how easily children can incorporate the new rules into their daily lives. From this perspective, teachers and adults should be exceptionally careful when educating children on various topics, as the results of such learning can be devastating.

Work Cited

Bloom, Stephen. Lesson of a Lifetime. Smithsonian Magazine, 2005, Web.

As a professor of law, Tendayi Achiume has always been focused on the global governance of racism and xenophobia. In the article “Race, Refugees, and International Law,” the author describes the definition of the term “race” as the social systems of meaning that attach to elements of morphology and ancestry (Achiume, 2020). Moreover, Achiume highlights that race is strongly associated with ethnicity, indigeneity, national origin, and religion. When it comes to xenophobia and xenophobic discrimination, the author states that the expression of prejudice against people from other countries needs more attention from the perspective of international law. In turn, Steve Garner believes that there is a multifaceted set of ideas and practices that result in the introduction of “race” into social relations (Garner, 2010). Therefore, the author describes “race” as a salient factor that demonstrates how groups are represented, that is, racialized.

Nowadays, there are numerous definitions of the terms “race,” “racism,” and “xenophobia,” although some of them lack the evidence-based background. Achiume’s definition of “race” seems to be tremendously interesting as the professor determines this term from the perspectives of sociology and international law. At the same time, Garden’s definition of this term takes into consideration the interrelation of the race with a combination of practices that have been used for a long time. As a result, the most comprehensive definition of the term “race” should include different perspectives. For instance, race can be described as a classification system that divides all human beings into groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Additionally, the inability of individuals to accept other racial groups results in racial discrimination that contradicts the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

References

Achiume, T. (2020). Race, refugees, and international law. Web.

Garner, S. (2010). Racisms: An introduction. Web.

One way in which sociology can make a valuable contribution to the understanding of the interrelation between race and health disparities is by coining a working definition of race that emphasizes its relevant aspects. Even today, when the idea of the social construction of race has long gained traction, the concept of race is often affected by the notions of physical anthropology and genetic inheritance. A proper sociological approach to the issue of race as related to health disparities may alleviate it by focusing on the stratifying principles of race, such as socioeconomic disadvantages and discrimination (Hummer, 1996). This approach will allow concentrating on the socioeconomic factors most relevant as social determinants of health and, by doing so, enable a better understanding of causal relations.

Another and more specific way in which sociology may help explain the connection between race and health disparities is by focusing on the environmental context of health. For instance, sociology may be of great help when explaining the access to opportunities for a healthier lifestyle and, in particular, diet. Kwate (2008) offers an example of what can be done in this regard in the study of the interrelation between residential segregation and fast food density. His approach involves analyzing the population, economic, physical, and social characteristics of a neighborhood to identify why fast food outlets are built at a proportionally larger scale in segregated black neighborhoods (Kwate, 2008). By doing so, Kwate (2008) shift attention from the simplistic explanations and assumptions that can steer the discussion of the problem in a wrong direction – such as the presumption that blacks like fast foods more. Thus, as in the case above, the sociological approach allows focusing on the actual structural factors behind the interrelation between race and health disparities.

References

Hummer, R. A. (1996). Black-White Differences in Health and Mortality: A Review and Conceptual Model. The Sociological Quarterly, 37(1), 105-125.

Kwate, N. O. A. (2008). Fried Chicken and Fresh Apples: Racial Segregation as a Fundamental Cause of Fast Food Density in Black Neighborhoods. Health & Place, 14, 32-44.

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory is an educative rebellion that tries to understand how white power is generated and upheld as a cultural, political, and at the same time, legal condition, especially in the United States context. The trust incited in the critical theory was formed from a legal study basis during the year 1970 to 1980. Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado structured this support system. Critical Race Theory differentiates itself as an approach that came up from permitted studies, and its main aim was to be a vehicle for political and social changes (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Financial institutions such as banks declined to offer loans and mortgages to people of color in those areas because the people administering the societies during the 1930s discriminated against members in those societies and termed them as financially unstable people.

The Conservative Case on Banning Critical Race Theory

The critical race theory suggests that people, white or colored, who have no intentions of being racist, can unconsciously make choices that fuel racism, as racism is a part of everyday life. Discrepancies in the critical race theory stem from varying origins of racial bigotry (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). This theory emphasizes outcomes and not individual beliefs. However, the critical race theory also calls for these perceived outcomes to be examined and rectified. In the general public, especially among scholars such as lawyers, lawmakers, and teachers, there are varying disparities in the precision needed to perform these actions and the extent that race should be openly referred to in the process.

Many different ideas associated with this theory stem from long-lasting, firm academic debates. Since the theory arose from postmodernist beliefs, which disbelieve in the idea of international values, unbiased information, personal worth, and open-mindedness, considerations should be put forth.

Reference

Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction. New York, USA: New York University Press.

Critical race theory (CRT) was initially organized at the first annual workshop on CRT in 1989 (Ladson-Billings, 2021). The theory assumes that social development and intellectual analysis of organized legal frameworks are based on the idea that race is not natural or biological based on the features of different subgroups. Still, a culturally invented foundation exploits and oppresses people of color (Ladson-Billings, 2021). The minority model is primarily based on the idea of stereotypes. The model assumes that Asian Americans are wealthy, educated or smart, hard-working, obedient, and submissive (Jin, 2021).

Individuals of Asian American origin feel pressure to meet these expectations; therefore, parents tend to push their children to work hard in school. The model minority depicts Asians as foreigners because they are not viewed as Americans and are considered cultural, military, and economic enemies for jobs and education in the United States (Jin, 2021). The idea of the model minority puts pressure on the Asian community to live up to these standards.

Critical race theory focuses on negative attitudes toward other groups and a body of legal and law practices that affect minority groups and foreigners. Many scholars have criticized the critical race theory because it embraces the incoherent postmodern-inspired uncertainty of truth and objectivity evidence while applying justice to people of color (Sawchuk, 2021). The theory is valid since it is based on the idea that racial bias is either deliberate or not vocal in the United States law and justice institutions. For example, black Americans are imprisoned at very high rates compared to most whites. The CRT invites examination of the criminal justice structure’s role in many black people’s imprisonment (Sawchuk, 2021). The critical race theory has become biased recently because it does not hold its original ideas on discrimination, making it not addressed in the news lately.

References

Jin, C. H. (2021). 6 Charts That Dismantle The Trope Of Asian Americans As A Model Minority. NPR. Web.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Critical Race Theory—What It Is Not! Sage Journals; Taylor and Francis Group, an infoma business. Web.

Sawchuk, S. (2021). What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?Education Week. Web.

The consideration of race as a social construct clearly contributes to the establishment of barriers between different population groups, and those of conscious nature seem to prevail. The mechanism behind this phenomenon is directly connected to the economic development of countries. Since it occurs in the conditions of scarcity of resources essential for the survival of citizens, the varying degree of access to them can be determined on the basis of racial background (Phinney 2). In other words, the grounds for the layman to classify their peers, discussed in the case study, are guaranteed by including this characteristic. From this point of view, it can be claimed that the so-called barriers are simply the tools for setting up a clear hierarchy within society with justification to some extent. Hence, the corresponding stereotypes are unavoidable in this model of interactions.

The examination of the issues mentioned above by scholars supports this standpoint from the perspective of urbanism. According to Phinney, the concept of austerity is explicitly linked to racialization, and the domination of the majority, in this case, effectively determines the patterns of resource distribution in cities (2). Therefore, the economic processes and political shifts, reflecting these changes, can be informative for explaining why race as a social construct is frequently used for creating conscious and unconscious barriers. In this situation, the former obstacles are related to the population’s financial inequality, whereas the latter is more of a natural fear, caused by the desire to survive. Both provisions are possible to take into account when referring to this single characteristic, and their combination ensures the lasting nature of the problem in communities. They are affected by the attempts to establish the privileged position of one or another group of citizens on the basis of their race.

Work Cited

Phinney, Sawyer. “Rethinking Geographies of Race and Austerity Urbanism.” Geography Compass, vol. 14, no. 3, 2020, pp. 1-12.

Race can be explained as a historically formed group of people characterized by common hereditary physical peculiarities. All races originated in different geographical regions meaning that different skin colors, eye shapes, and other characteristics are merely a product of specific climates (Myers & Ha, 2019). Under the influence of various environmental conditions, humans had to adjust to either hot and humid or severe and freezing weather. For instance, African people have dark-colored skin due to the active sun, while those living in Russian Siberia tend to have thicker hair to protect them from cold winders. Hence, geography only defines the physical characteristics of one’s body.

Given that the difference between miscellaneous groups of individuals is less than a thousand percent, the concept of race loses its validity since it drastically categorizes people. In the meantime, the world aims to establish equality regardless of all distinctions. Race remains a concept in the social sense, not a scientific one (Myers & Ha, 2019). It means that society still differentiates people based on their skin color. Thus, the attempt to categorize humans based on this notion is no longer valid as it causes more inequity and contributes to rating the most and least dominant races.

As a result, the concept of race is not useful in terms of social life. However, it remains vital for anthropology, history, geology, and other similar disciplines which study how the environment has shaped the lifestyle, culture, and peculiarities of different nations. Race is a controversial issue that has sparked numerous conflicts leading to riots and wars for dominance. Hence, the phenomenon of being a human is far more relevant than sticking to classifying a person based on their physical traits.

Reference

Myers, S., & Ha, I. (2019). Race neutrality. Lexington Books.

Introduction

The concept of race has changed over time. In ancient times, people did not see race the same way today. There were no strict divisions between different races, and people generally saw themselves as part of a larger racial group. This began to change with European colonization when people from different parts of the world started to interact with each other more closely. Today, people still use the concept of race to categorize people, but it is a much more complex idea than it was in ancient times.

The Concept of Race in the Ancient World

In ancient times, racial distinctions were not based on the physical features associated with race today (Banton 58). Rather, these distinctions were largely linked to religious or political affiliations rather than skin color or other physical characteristics. For example, in Ancient Egypt, one’s status was determined by their place within a hierarchical class system and their relationship to the Pharaoh (al-Baghdadi 48). In Ancient Greece and Rome, one’s race was largely determined by their citizenship or place of origin. Moreover, in early Christendom, there was no concept of race in the same way it exists today. Rather, people were divided into different groups based on their religious affiliation. For example, all Christians were considered part of the same “race,” regardless of their skin color or physical features. This meant that people from different parts of the world were considered different races based on their citizenship, even if they shared the same skin color or physical features.

The Concept of Race in Modern Times

In modern times, the concept of race has evolved significantly, with physical features such as skin color and ethnicity becoming the primary factor in determining one’s racial identity (Krishnapriya et al. 12). European colonization played a large role in this shift, as Europeans sought to establish control over and categorize populations they came across during the colonial period (Keskinen 172). This resulted in a hierarchical racial system, with white Europeans at the top and other races being placed lower on the social ladder. In modern times, the concept of race has become more complex and fluid than it was in ancient times. Physical features such as skin color and ethnicity have become the primary factor in determining one’s racial identity, while other factors such as culture and nationality are also taken into account. This change can be largely attributed to European colonization, which greatly shaped how people think about race today.

Similarities between Race in the Ancient World and Modern Times

In ancient and modern times, race has been used to categorize and understand populations. In both cases, people have been divided into different groups based on their skin color, ethnicity, and place of origin. This has allowed people to make assumptions about someone’s abilities, character, and worth based on their racial identity.

Additionally, in both cases, the race has been used to justify the exploitation and domination of certain groups of people. For example, in the ancient world, white European men used the concept of race to justify their conquest and colonization of other parts of the world. They claimed they were superior to the people they were colonizing and that it was their right to rule over them. This mentality continues to exist in modern times, where people of color are often seen as inferior to white people and are subjected to discrimination and violence.

Lastly, in ancient and modern times, race has been used to create divisions between people and perpetuate inequality systems. These divisions were often based on wealth and power in the ancient world. For example, in the societies of Ancient Greece and Rome, citizens were seen as superior to those who were not. In modern times, race has been used to create social hierarchies largely based on skin color or physical characteristics. While this form of discrimination has changed over time, its effects remain. In ancient and modern times, the race has been used to create barriers that are difficult to overcome, resulting in a great deal of injustice and inequality. Despite these differences in how race has been used throughout history, one thing remains consistent – the use of race has been a powerful force for creating and maintaining the power structures of society.

Differences between Race in the Ancient World and Modern Times

While there are similarities between race in the ancient world and modern times, there are also significant differences. In the ancient world, race was not an organizing principle of society, and there was no notion of racial superiority or inferiority. People were primarily identified by their ethnicity and culture rather than the physical characteristics used to define racial categories in modern times.

Additionally, the concept of race in the ancient world did not carry the same social, economic, and political implications today. In modern times, race has been used to justify oppressive systems of power based on notions of racial superiority, while in the ancient world, this notion did not exist (Pihama 30). Consequently, discrimination based solely on physical characteristics was virtually non-existent. This starkly contrasts with modern times, where race continues to shape social, economic, and political realities.

Finally, while both the ancient world and modern times have used race to discriminate against certain groups of people, in modern times, there has been a greater emphasis on recognizing the interconnectedness of people, regardless of their racial identity. This has led to a greater recognition that race is an artificial social construct and that no one group is inherently superior or inferior to another.

Overall, it is clear that the concept of race has changed significantly over time from an emphasis on racial purity in the ancient world to a greater awareness of our interconnectedness in modern times. While there are similarities between race in the ancient world and modern times, such as using race to create divisions and perpetuate inequality systems, there are also significant differences, such as the absence of the notion of racial superiority or inferiority in the ancient world, and the growing recognition that race is an artificial construct in modern times. Ultimately, these changes demonstrate that our understanding of race continues to evolve.

Conclusions about How Race Has Changed over Time

Race has continued to evolve over time, with new distinctions being made and old ones being discarded. In the ancient world, there was a greater focus on racial purity, with people categorized as either “white” or “non-white.” However, this distinction has been largely abandoned in recent years as society has become more aware of the complexities of race and ethnicity. Additionally, the idea of a “global community” has become increasingly popular in recent years, with people recognizing that we are all connected regardless of our racial or ethnic backgrounds. This means that the idea of race is no longer as static or fixed as it once was and will continue to change and evolve.

Works Cited

Al-Baghdadi, Abd al-Latif. “The Nile of Lower Egypt: Memphis, the First Capital City.” Nile, 2019, pp. 47–60., Web.

Banton, Michael. “The Idiom of Race.” Theories of Race and Racism, 2020, pp. 55–67., Web.

Keskinen, Suvi. “Intra-Nordic Differences, Colonial/Racial Histories, and National Narratives: Rewriting Finnish History.” Scandinavian Studies, vol. 91, no. 1-2, 2019, pp. 163–181., Web.

Krishnapriya, K. S., et al. “Issues Related to Face Recognition Accuracy Varying Based on Race and Skin Tone.” IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, pp. 8–20., Web.

Pihama, Leonie. “Colonization and the Importation of Ideologies of Race, Gender, and Class in Aotearoa.” Handbook of Indigenous Education, 2019, pp. 29–48., Web.