Race Construction and Colonial Lingerings

Race has long been used as an important tool of identification to differentiate between classes of people. Many societies in human history, particularly since the onset of science as an explanatory tool, have used racial differences to divide resources and power. Specifically, “the West” used this tool when they colonized various countries. Although the specific organizational methods which were used varied, all relied upon a contrast of the white man as superior, and the native as inferior. This essay will examine that relationship, and look at the various ways the West used racial constructions of difference as a tool to maintain dominance over the native populations, both during and after colonization. It will examine the way this construction has impacted current issues of race in society.

When race is used as a tool to differentiate between certain groups of people, it is based on the premise that there is a biological difference between the different races. Within this construction is an inherent justification of racism. Howard Winant argues that this construction arose with modernity and the beginnings of the nation-state. As the Enlightenment understandings of the world grew in importance throughout Europe, there was a preoccupation with understanding everything scientifically. The obvious differences in appearance between white Europeans and black Africans, Asians, or Latin Americans was explained by various scientists who measured and theorized about the various ways in which the Europeans were biologically unique and differentiated from these other races. However, Winant explains that attempted differentiation of human beings by phenotype as a way to show inherent difference does not stand up to close scrutiny. He writes, “There is no biological basis for distinguishing human groups along the lines of race, and the sociohistorical categories employed to differentiate among these groups reveal themselves, upon serious examination, to be imprecise if not completely arbitrary.”[1]

The underlying rationale behind differentiating by race was never a purely scientific pursuit, however. It was linked with the beginning of colonization, and a scientific justification was found for the brutal practices which the colonists engaged in. Thus the white man was not just superior because he benefited from a more advanced cultural background, but because he was physically superior. As Nancy Stepan explains, “… science provided the ontological grounding for political argument about the differential treatment of human groups.[2] This “scientific racism” was used by the white colonizers as a rationale to explain why slavery and domination was not just alright, but even beneficial to those subjugated. It provided a way for them to be taken care of and to escape the savagery of their cultural practices lifestyle, which was caused by their racial inferiority. Stepan goes on to explain that science in general is historically understood through the lens of normalcy being the white man, and the “other” being those who differentiate from this (whether it is gender or racial difference). The “other” is always alien and inferior, furthering the inherent justification of dominance by the white man.

In colonial Rwanda, Belgium overseers used a racial hierarchy to differentiate Rwandans. They were divided between two different ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi. The Tutsi were identified as distant descendants of the Biblical Ham (Noah’s son). This explained their taller height and more European facial features, and thus their natural right, as being closer to white, to be higher on the racial hierarchy than the Hutu. As this scientifically based system did not accept that very few Hutu and Tutsi actually resembled their appropriate racial phenotype, and the authorities could often not differentiate between the two, the Belgiums instituted a system in the 1930’s whereby every Rwandan would declare their ethnic group and be given a card with their “racial’ identification on it. This new and inflexible system gradually radicalized the two groups; the Tutsi increasingly emphasized their superiority, while the Hutu became increasingly solidaristic. This racialization of Rwandan society marked the first time that each ethnic group became static, and altered what had been a system of social mobility to one of racial subjugation. Thus this scientific construction, which was based on the white man as inherently superior, would eventually lead to decades of societal unrest and eventual the genocide of 1994, in which 800,000 Rwandans were killed.[3]

There are many other examples where racial construction and its legacies can be seen in practice. Anthony Marx writes of three of them; Brazil, the U.S., and South Africa. Brazil and South Africa are marked by European colonization (the U.S. is to, but the racial issue being examined here is not between the colonized group and the colonizer), and the interaction between the native and colonized population. The U.S. and Brazil are marked by slavery, and the force migration of a subjugated population. All three of these countries have legacies of racial inequality, and all of them have been wrestling with these issues continuously since they appeared. Even today, all three have significant social and economic inequalities between white and black populations. In each, “the West” has used racial construction to differentiate between groups of people and to maintain dominance.[4]

Both the United States and South Africa relied on racial differentiation in order to create a nation and recover from conflict between elites. For South Africa, the conflict between British and Afrikaner threatened the stability of the state. By transforming this anger against each other into anger against the black population, and by defining each as a white citizen in opposition with the black “other,” it created a nation of South Africa built upon the exclusion of blacks. Similarly in America, where the end of the Civil War was marked by a willingness of Northern elites to abandon their black compatriots who had fought beside them, in order to appease the Southern whites and bring them into the process of rebuilding a sense of nation, there is once again an opposition to the black “other.” Thus in both of these states a legal segregation was imposed as a means of nation building.

Conversely, in Brazil, this use of race to unify by exclusion did not happen. It has attempted to form a national identity based on assimilation, and a sense of continuity with the past, irrespective of race. Historically, racism in Brazil is informal as opposed to the strict segregation of apartheid and Jim Crow. Brazil did not experience the intra-white conflict of the other two states, what conflicts it did experience were based on fears of slave revolts. The imperative of nation-building in Brazil was thus focused on appeasing the Afro-Brazilian population, not on moderating intra-white conflicts, and so the nation which emerged was based on the myth of an inclusive democracy which did not base policy on skin color, and in which belonging to the Brazilian nation was the most important identity structure.

Marx argues that all of these states remain racially unequal, and he worries that South Africa and the U.S. are beginning to follow Brazil’s pattern where an official myth of equality obscures the issues of inequality which remain. The inequality which does exist in today’s society is often dismissed as being the fault of the oppressed for not actively joining in this new racially inclusive society. Even if the oppressed race does attempt to join in the new society, they often find it is at the expense of their own cultural identity, and that they may remain second-class citizens; the case of North Africans in France is a salient example.

Cultural identity is often seen as different from racial identity, and thus discrimination on the basis of culture is not seen as racism. Tariq Modood challenges that interpretation, and argues that racism can be culturally constructed as well as simply a product of “color.” He explains that color racism has no scientific basis anymore, as the earlier construction of human beings as having innate differences in intelligence and ability based merely on their race have been disproved. Specifically, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, there has been a focus on disproving that differences between people are racially based, and that there is any such thing as a master race. However, as racism remains, and is still a tool used by the dominant members of society to express their disdain and disapproval of the “other,” an attempt must be made to look at culture as a reason. Thus definition relies on racism as being people expressing their contempt at anything other than the civilized norm, which is always defined as a white male (which typically has aspects of Christianity intertwined with it). He explains that Muslim Pakistanis in contemporary Britain are viewed as racially inferior not because (or not just because) they are a different color, but because they are viewed as culturally inferior. Pakistanis are seen as representing a different and alien culture, with values that clash with the dominant culture. This form of racism is strongest against groups which offer a positive alternative cultural viewpoint to the dominant culture.[5]

Modood asserts that in the future, as science continues to disprove that race constitutes any biological difference between people, cultural racism could become the dominant form of racism, as people seek to maintain power against rival ideologies or ideas, and maintain their superior position vis-à-vis the “other.” Another option exists too, one which none of the theorists read so far have mentioned. As memories of the Holocaust slowly fade from societal conscious, at least as a dominant trend shaping scientific choices of study, people will begin to once again seek differences between groups based on biology. What if they find them? The idea that evolution may have impacted different geographical groups differently based on their specific regional pressures is not a new or revolutionary one. But biology is certainly more advanced today than it was the last time racial difference was a popular topic of study, and scientists have certainly become more objective in their methodology (although one can doubt where true impartiality can ever be reached.)

Indeed, a study suggests that Ashkenazi Jews may be more intelligent than the general population, and that this is a result of their long history of being persecuted. Those who were extremely intelligent were more likely to rise to the top of their fields and to escape various forms of persecution, and thus were more likely to have children; Ashkenazi also commonly intra-marry within their own group. The study suggests that Ashkenazi who were successful were disproportionately likely to have a certain mutated gene, and theorizes that this mutation increases their innate intelligence.[6] Regardless of the truth behind this, as science advances it is reasonable to assume that more and more correlations between genetic mutations and physical abilities and traits will be discovered, and that these will likely be explained by pointing out racial differences. This raises important questions about humanity, and whether we share a commonality which grants us the right to equal recognition as human within our diverse differences, differences which people will continue to attempt to exploit. Whether cultural racism becomes the dominant form of discriminatory expression or color racism enjoys a biological renaissance, racism will remain, and attempts to understand its specific manifestations are as important as ever.

[1] Howard Winant, “Race and Race Theory,” Annual Review of Sociology. 26:169–85. 2000. Pg.172.
[2] Nancy Leys Stepan, “Race, Gender, Science, and Citizenship.” Gender and History. 10: 26-52. April 1998. Pg. 32.
[3] Mahmood Mamdani. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide
in Rwanda. Kampala: Fountain, 2002.
[4] Anthony Marx. Making Race and Nation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[5] Tariq Modood. Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity, and Muslims in Britain. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.
[6] “Natural genius?,” The Economist, June 2nd, 2005.