Majority Minority Relations Census

Update 6th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/majority-minority-relations-census-update-6th-edition-
ebook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Racial and Ethnic Relations, Census Update 9th Edition

– Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/racial-and-ethnic-relations-census-
update-9th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Majority Minority Justin Gest

https://ebookmass.com/product/majority-minority-justin-gest/

International Relations (10th Edition, 2013-2014

Update) Joshua S. Goldstein

https://ebookmass.com/product/international-relations-10th-
edition-2013-2014-update-joshua-s-goldstein/

(eBook PDF) Labor Relations: Striking a Balance 6th

Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-labor-relations-striking-
a-balance-6th-edition/
Developmental Psychopathology with DSM-5 Update 6th
Revised ed. Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/developmental-psychopathology-with-
dsm-5-update-6th-revised-ed-edition/

Perspectives on International Relations: Power,

Institutions, and Ideas 6th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/perspectives-on-international-
relations-power-institutions-and-ideas-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/

Perspectives on International Relations: Power,

Institutions, and Ideas 6th Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/perspectives-on-international-
relations-power-institutions-and-ideas-6th-edition-ebook-pdf-
version/

(eBook PDF) Employment Relations, 2nd Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-employment-relations-2nd-
edition/

Steps to Writing Well, 2016 MLA Update 13th Edition,

(Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/steps-to-writing-well-2016-mla-
update-13th-edition-ebook-pdf/
Brief Contents
1 Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 2
PART I SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE AS WAYS
OFUNDERSTANDING MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS
2 Prejudice: Its Forms and Causes 20
3 Reducing Prejudice: How Achievable? How Important? 42
4 Macro-Sociological Perspectives: The Order and Conflict Models 78
PART II THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF TODAY’S INTERGROUP INEQUALITY
AND MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS

5 Origins and Causes of Ethnic Inequality 108

6 Changing Patterns of Majority-Minority Relations in the United States 140
7 Minority Group Movements and Their Impact on Society 166
8 Changing Values, Goals, and Models: New Thinking on Assimilation,
Pluralism, and Separatism 180
9 Cross-Cultural Studies of Majority-Minority Relations 212
PART III MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS IN AMERICA TODAY:
THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
10 The Status of Majority and Minority Groups in the United States
Today 248
11 The Economic and Health Care Systems and Minority Groups
in America 280
12 Living Apart: Housing Segregation in America 310
13 The American Political and Legal System and Majority-Minority
Relations 344
14 Education and American Minority Groups 390
PART IV VALUES, GOALS, AND ISSUES OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE IN
MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS
15 Current Trends in Majority-Minority Relations 440
16 Current Debates: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Race Versus
Class 466

vii
Contents
Preface xiv Socioeconomic Status and Prejudice 36
Effects of Education 36
Orientation: Basic Terms Economic Insecurity and Prejudice 39
1 and Concepts 2 Summary and Conclusion 40
Critical Review Questions 41
Why Study Race and Ethnic Relations? 2
Key Terms 41
Emphasis and Approach of This Book 6
Basic Terms and Concepts 7 Reducing Prejudice: How
Race and Ethnicity 7
3 Achievable? How Important? 42
BOX: The Census Bureau and Race 10 Reducing Prejudice: Some Principles
Majority and Minority Groups 12 and Approaches 43
Racism 15
Persuasive Communications 44
Summary and Conclusion 19 Education 47
Critical Review Questions 19 Intergroup Contact 50
Simulation and Experiential Exercises 56
Key Terms 19
Therapy 57
Overview 59
PART I SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL
STRUCTURE AS WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING How Important Is Prejudice? 60
MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS Merton’s Typology on Prejudice and
Discrimination 61
Can Behavior Determine Attitudes? 62
Prejudice: Its Forms
2 and Causes 20
Prejudice and Discrimination in America
Today 63
Symbolic Racism 70
What Is Prejudice? 20 Do Attitudes Cause Intergroup Inequality? 71
Forms of Prejudice 21 Summary and Conclusion 76
Stereotypes 21 Critical Review Questions 76
Causes of Prejudice 23 Key Terms 77
Theories About Personality and
Prejudice 23 Macro-Sociological Perspectives:
Is Prejudice Generalized? 23
4 The Order and Conflict Models 78
The Authoritarian Personality 25
Sociological Versus Social-Psychological
Explaining Prejudice: Scapegoating and
Approaches to Majority-Minority
Projection 26
Relations 78
The Development of Prejudiced
Personalities 27 Factors Shaping Patterns of Majority-Minority
Evaluation of the Personality Theory Relations: The Sociological View 80
of Prejudice 28 Perspectives in Sociology 80
Social Learning and Symbolic Interactionist Order and Conflict: Two Sociological
Theories of Prejudice 30 Perspectives 81
BOX: Whites in the Movies 32 The Order (Functionalist) Perspective 81
Personality Theory Versus Social Learning The Conflict Perspective 82
Theory 35 A Comparison 84
viii
 CONTENTS ix

The Social-Structural Perspectives Origins of Racial and Ethnic Inequality in the

and Social Problems 85 United States 116
The Definition of Social Problems 85 African Americans 116
The Location of Social Problems 86 BOX: The Alabama Slave Code, 1833 121
The Social-Structural Perspectives and Life Under Slavery 121
Majority-Minority Relations 87
BOX: The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in
Functionalist Theories About Majority-Minority the Antebellum South 122
Relations 87 Native Americans 127
BOX: Ethnocentrism and War 89 The Indian Reservation and the Slave
Conflict Theories About Majority-Minority Plantation: A Comparison 131
Relations 90 Mexican Americans 132
Varieties of Conflict Theory in Race Origins of Ethnic Stratification 133
and Ethnic Relations 92 BOX: Race and Cheap Labor in
Competing Perspectives: Is Synthesis Texas Cotton 137
Possible? 94
Summary and Conclusion 138
An Illustration of the Debate: Culture of Poverty
Critical Review Questions 139
Theory and African American Families 95
Key Terms 139
Culture of Poverty Theory 95
Family Structure, Poverty, and African American Changing Patterns of
Families 96
Is the Black Family Responsible for 6 Majority-Minority Relations
Disproportionate Black Poverty? 98 in the United States 140
BOX: The Culture of Poverty Debate Origins of Contact and Modern-Day
and Welfare Policy 100 Race Relations: A Theory of Internal
Teenage Pregnancy 104 Colonialism 141
Overview 106 Evolving Patterns of Black-White Race
Summary and Conclusion 106 Relations 144
Critical Review Questions 106 Caste Relations Become Unstable: The
Key Terms 107 Development of Rigid Competitive Race
Relations, 1860–1945 144
PART II THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF BOX: The Ethics of Living Jim Crow 150
TODAY’S INTERGROUP INEQUALITY AND Rigid Competitive Race Relations and Other
MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS Racial and Ethnic Groups 156
Asian Americans 156
Origins and Causes of Ethnic Mexican Americans 157
5 Inequality 108 Overview 158
A Shift to Fluid Competitive Race Relations:
Patterns of Race and Ethnic Relations 109 America Since World War II 159
Caste Versus Class Systems of Stratification 109 Changes in the Law: The Banning of
Three Common Patterns of Race Relations 110 Discrimination 160
The Development of Ethnic Stratification 114 Changes in Economics: The Development of
Substantial Middle Classes Among Minority
Initial Contact Between Racial and Ethnic Groups 161
Groups 115 Changes in Attitudes: Changes in the Kind and
Origins of Ethnic Inequality 115 Degree of Prejudice Among Whites 162
x CONTENTS

Factors Causing the Changes: Changing Values, Goals, and

The Effects of Urbanization and
Models: New Thinking on
Industrialization 163
8 Assimilation, Pluralism, and
Need for Greater Mobility and the Economic
Irrationality of Discrimination 163 Separatism 180
Generally Rising Educational Levels 164
Postwar Economic Growth and Relaxation Changing Goals for Minority Group
of Intergroup Competition 164 Movements 180
Increased Assertiveness by Minorities 165 Three Ideal Models of Intergroup
Summary and Conclusion 165 Relations 181
Critical Review Questions 165 Model 1: Assimilation 181
Model 2: Pluralism 183
Key Terms 165 Model 3: Separatism 186
Assimilation, Pluralism, and Separatism
Minority Group Movements
7 and Their Impact on Society 166
in American Society 189
Assimilation and Anglo Conformity 189
Critique: Have Social Scientists Exaggerated
Adaptive Responses 167
the Degree of Assimilation in American
Acceptance 167 Society? 191
Displaced Aggression 167
Avoidance 168
Changing Attitudes Toward Assimilation
Seeking Assimilation 168
and Pluralism 192
African Americans 192
Change-Oriented Responses 169
BOX: Inter-Racial Relationships in the New
A Shift Toward Change-Oriented
Century 193
Responses 170
Pluralism and Militancy Among Chicanos,
The Rising Tide of Protest 171 Latinos, and American Indians 202
Necessary Conditions for Social Discrimination and Rising Group
Movements 174 Consciousness: Arab Americans 208
Collective Dissatisfaction (Relative The “Ethnic Revival” Among White
Deprivation) 174 Americans 209
Communication Network 174 Summary and Conclusion 210
Resources 175 Critical Review Questions 211
Sense of Efficacy 175
Leadership 175 Key Terms 211

Development of These Conditions

and the Formation of Minority Social
Cross-Cultural Studies of
Movements in the United States After
World War II 175
9 Majority-Minority Relations 212
Urbanization and Industrialization 176
Economic Expansion 177
Cross-Cultural Evidence on the Effects
Mass Communications 177
of Colonization 213
Rising Educational Levels 178 South Africa 213
International Changes 178 Northern Ireland 214
Quebec, Canada 216
Summary and Conclusion 179
Iraq 217
Critical Review Questions 179 The Former Soviet Union 218
Key Term 179 The Former Yugoslavia 222
 CONTENTS xi

The Middle East 224 Whites from Western and Northern Europe:
Some Comparisons and Contrasts 226 A Dominant Group Within a Dominant
Great Britain and France: Another Effect Group 258
of Colonialism 227 Whiteness as a Racial Identity 260
Societies with Peaceful Intergroup Status of Minority Groups in America
Relations 228 Today 261
Cross-Cultural Evidence on the Effects Evidence of Improvement in Minority
of Urbanization and Modernization 229 Status 261
Industrialized Countries 229 Evidence of Continuing Inequality 263
Increasing Fluidity? Or Rigidity with The Intersection of Race, Gender, and Class
Conflict? 231 Inequality 273
Developing Countries: Two Major Trends 234
The Meaning of Gender for Women
Combined Effects of Colonialism and Degree of Color 273
of Modernization 236 Black Men in American Society 276
Number of Racial and Ethnic Groups 236 Summary and Conclusion 279
Cultural and Demographic Characteristics Critical Review Questions 279
of Majority and Minority Groups: Brazil
and Mexico 238 Key Term 279
Overlapping Versus Crosscutting
Cleavages 240 The Economic and Health Care
Territorial Ethnic Base 242
Language 242
11 Systems and Minority Groups
in America 280
International Relationships 243
Surges of Immigration 244 Wealth and Race: Asset Ownership
Racial Versus Ethnic Divisions 245 in America Today 281
International Pressure 246 Corporate Asset Ownership and Power 283
Summary and Conclusion 246 The Economics of Discrimination: Three
Critical Review Questions 247 Theories 283
Key Terms 247 Gary Becker’s Theory 284
Split Labor Market Theory 285
Marxist Theory 286
PART III MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS
Evaluating Theories About the Economics
IN AMERICA TODAY : THE ROLE OF of Discrimination 287
INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION Discrimination and Economic Productivity 289
Recent Trends and Their Effects on Economic
The Status of Majority and Inequality 290
10 Minority Groups in the United Rising Educational Demands and the
States Today 248 Employment of Minorities 290

Major Racial and Ethnic Groups: Overview The Fiscal Troubles of Cities and Their Impact
and General Statistics 248 on Minorities 292
Minority Groups: African Americans, Latinos/as, Health Care and Minorities 294
and Native Americans 248 Cost of Health Care and Health Insurance
Groups with Intermediate Status: Asian, Jewish, Coverage 296
and White Ethnic Americans 255 Frequency of Seeking Medical Care 297
xii CONTENTS

Availability of Health Care Personnel 299 The American Political and Legal
Lack of Minority Physicians 300
Places and Types of Care: Race and Class 13 System and Majority-Minority
Differences 302 Relations 344
Non-Economic Biases Against Minorities 304
The Medicaid Program 305 Government in America: Agent of
The American Health Care Institution: Minority Oppression or Protector
A Conclusion 307 of Minority Rights? 346
Summary and Conclusion 309 Historical Patterns: Government Policies
of Discrimination 346
Critical Review Questions 309 Contemporary Patterns: Government and
Key Terms 309 Majority-Minority Relations Today 352
Barriers to Greater Minority Political Power 360
Voting and Political Representation 361
Living Apart: Housing Segregation
12 in America 310
The American Legal System and Majority-
Minority Relations 366
Housing Discrimination and Segregation 311 The Criminal Justice System and the Minority
Accused 366
Housing Segregation—What It Is and How We Conclusion 382
Measure It 311 Protecting Minority Rights 382
Housing Segregation Between Blacks Summary and Conclusion 387
and Whites 311 Critical Review Questions 388
Causes of Continuing Black-White Key Terms 389
Segregation 314
Economic Explanations of Housing Education and American Minority
Segregation 314 14 Groups 390
Black Preferences 316
White Preferences 317
A Brief History of School Segregation
Practices in the Real-Estate Business 319
Since 1954 391
Housing Segregation Among Latinos/as, Asian The Role of Education: Two Views 395
Americans, and Native Americans 323
Funding of Schools 398
Discrimination in Home Finance and
Cultural and Behavioral Factors in the
Insurance 325
Education of Minorities 401
Lending Discrimination 326
Cultural Deprivation? 402
Insurance Discrimination 328
Cultural Bias? 403
Impacts of Segregation 329 Biased or Limited Coverage of Minority
Job Decentralization and Housing Groups in School Materials 403
Segregation 330 Teachers’ Expectations and Tracking 406
BOX: Supporting Integrative Moves: Linguistic Issues and the Bilingual Education
One State’s Initiative 336 Debate 412
Race, Segregation, and Hurricane Test Bias and The Standardized Testing
Katrina 337 Debate 418
BOX: The Bell Curve: A Debate on
Summary and Conclusion 342
Education, Intelligence, Genetics, and
Critical Review Questions 343 Achievement 419
Key Terms 343 Testing Bias: Summary 424
 CONTENTS xiii

Lack of Minority Role Models 425 Current Debates: Affirmative Action,

Racial Bias in the Educational System:
An Evaluation 426
16 Immigration, and Race Versus
Class 466
Resolving Problems of Majority-Minority
Inequality in Education: Affirmative Action 467
Four Approaches 427
Undoing Discrimination? 468
Approach 1: The Problem Does Not Lie in Reverse Discrimination? 469
the Educational System 427 An Alternative View on Quotas 470
Approach 2: Assimilation—Compensatory Considering the Net Outcome 470
Education and Desegregation Through How Accurately Do We Measure
Busing 427 Qualifications? 470
Approach 3: Multiculturalism and Cultural Does Affirmative Action Stigmatize Minority
Immersion 434 Group Members? 472
Approach 4: The Interactionist Approach 436 Affirmative Action and Majority Group
Summary and Conclusion 439 Resentment 474
Affirmative Action and Minority
Critical Review Questions 439 Professionals 476
Key Terms 439 Practical Consequences of Affirmative
Action: Empirical Evidence 477
Legal Aspects of the Affirmative Action
PART IV VALUES, GOALS, AND ISSUES Controversy 480
OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE IN Alternatives to Affirmative Action: Are There
MAJORITY-MINORITY RELATIONS Other Routes to Equal Opportunity? 486
The Relative Importance of Race and Class
Current Trends in Majority-Minority in American Society 489
15 Relations 440 Immigration Policy 494
History of Immigration in the United States 494
Diversity and Multiculturalism in Work Opposition to Immigration: Perceptions
and Education 441 and Realities About Immigration 495
Diversity Management in the Workplace 442 Unauthorized Immigration, the 1986, 1990,
Characteristics of Effective Diversity and 1996 Immigration Reform Laws, and
Management Programs 444 Continuing Debates About Immigration
BOX: Allstate Insurance, Diversity, Policy 497
and Business Success 445 Immigration Realities and Immigration
Policy 502
Diversity Management and
Multiculturalism 448 Summary and Conclusion 504
Hate Group Activity and Hate Crime 449 Critical Review Questions 505

Causes of Hate Group Activity 452 Key Terms 505

Combating Hatred on Campus:

Debates and Issues 456 Glossary 506
The Discrimination-Testing Movement 460 References 511
Summary and Conclusion 465 Photo Credits 565
Critical Review Questions 465 Name Index 566
Key Terms 465 Subject Index 576
Preface
ABOUT THE BOOK in the maintenance of racial and ethnic inequality in
America. That fact, however, was not reflected in many
This book is designed to enable the reader to under- of the general works on intergroup relations available
stand the principles and processes that shape the when I first wrote this book, and it still often receives
patterns of relations among racial, ethnic, and other insufficient attention. This book attempts to remedy
groups in society. It is not a study of any one racial that deficiency through extensive discussion of
or ethnic group, although a wide variety of informa- processes that create or maintain such inequality in
tion is provided about a number of groups. Rather, it political, legal, economic, health care, and educational
is intended to enhance the reader’s understanding of institutions. All these areas, as well as housing discrim-
why such groups interact as they do. The primary ination and its causes and effects, are analyzed in
emphasis is on the relationships between dominant Chapters 9–12. The purpose of this coverage is not to
(majority) and subordinate (minority) racial and deny the reality of individual discrimination; in fact,
ethnic groups in the United States. However, the book addresses many ways in which this continues
because a thorough understanding of the dynamics to occur even today, at the beginning of a new century.
of intergroup relations cannot be obtained by look- Rather, the purpose is to help students understand the
ing at only one country, a full chapter is devoted to reality of institutional forms of discrimination, which
intergroup relations in other societies. are often more subtle and harder to see than individual
The book is divided into four major parts, fol- acts of discrimination.
lowing an introduction of basic terms and concepts in Part IV explores key issues, trends, and contro-
Chapter 1. In Part I (Chapters 2, 3, and 4), major versies in the present and future of intergroup rela-
social-psychological and macro-sociological perspec- tions. Chapter 15 addresses current trends in
tives on intergroup relations are introduced and majority-minority relations, including diversity and
developed in some detail. In Chapters 2 and 3, the multiculturalism in work and education; the contin-
attitudes and beliefs of the individual concerning uing problem of hate group activity and hate crime;
intergroup relations are explored through a variety of debates about how to combat hatred, including
social-psychological approaches. The concept of prej- issues centering around speech codes and “political
udice is examined, as well as various theories about its correctness”; and the discrimination-testing move-
causes, ways in which it may be combated, and the ment. Chapter 16 explores selected debates central
relationship between intergroup attitudes and inter- to the future of race and ethnic relations in the
group behavior. In Chapter 4, two major sociological United States, with a primary focus on the continu-
perspectives, order and conflict, are introduced. These ing controversies over affirmative action and the
perspectives, and more specific kinds of theories aris- current and future immigration policy of the United
ing from them, are used subsequently throughout the States. The debate over the relative importance of
book to understand intergroup relations in society. race and class in American society is also addressed
In Part II (Chapters 5 through 9), the history of U.S. in this final chapter.
majority-minority relations is explored and analyzed To enhance the reader’s awareness of essential con-
using the two macro-sociological perspectives from cepts used throughout the book, important new terms
Chapter 4, and the theories arising from them are are defined in a glossary. These terms are presented in
tested and refined. Also explored in Part II are the bold print where they are introduced, and listed at the
concepts of assimilation and pluralism and their roles end of the chapters in which they appear. Any key term
in the history of American intergroup relations. The listed at the end of a chapter is defined in detail in the
theories are further refined through the examination glossary. Major ideas throughout the book have been
of cross-cultural variations in intergroup relations in illustrated photographically, and the substantial list of
Chapter 9. references has been grouped together at the end of this
The major concern in Part III (Chapters 10 book so any reference can be easily located. For the in-
through 14) is present-day intergroup relations in the structor, a test item file is also available.
United States. This part begins with a compilation of
data concerning the numbers, characteristics, and social NEW TO THIS EDITION
statuses of a wide range of American racial and ethnic
groups. The remainder of Part III is an extensive dis- For the most part, the basic approach and organiza-
cussion of institutional discrimination, which has be- tion of this book has been retained through all six
come at least as important as individual discrimination editions. However, the content has been revised and
xiv
 PREFACE xv

updated extensively with each edition, with substan- the role played by local newscasts in perpetuat-
tial new material added to every chapter for this ing racial stereotypes, using recent research on
sixth edition. For the sixth edition, several topics this topic, and a new box explores how portray-
have received substantial expansions in coverage, als of whites in the movies may perpetuate white
with two entirely new chapters. The new version of dominance.
Chapter 8 provides expanded and consolidated 4. In the new chapter on housing segregation
coverage of assimilation, pluralism, separatism, and (Chapter 12), there is extensive discussion
their changing roles in American society and minor- of the disproportionate racial impacts of
ity group social movements. Previously, this mate- Hurricane Katrina, and how race, poverty, and
rial was split between two chapters. In the new segregation combined to create these effects.
Chapter 12, coverage of housing discrimination and Also in this chapter is substantial new material
segregation and their consequences has been on the subprime loan crisis and how and why
expanded to full-chapter length, reflecting both the it has affected black and Hispanic Americans
author’s specialized expertise in this aspect of inter- disproportionately.
group relations and the consequences of housing 5. A listing of key terms is now provided at the end
segregation for virtually every other aspect of inter- of each chapter, to readily direct students to
group relations. Additionally, there has been a major important terms that are defined in the glossary.
expansion and update of the coverage of immigra- Additionally, the key terms and the glossary
tion, which now constitutes nearly half the material have been expanded to include nineteen new
in the book’s final chapter, Chapter 16. Finally, the terms not included in the previous edition.
book has been updated in the following other
important ways: 6. Happily, numerous textbooks and college and
university courses now cover gender, sexual
1. Data have been updated throughout the book, orientation, and persons with disabilities in far
and substantially more of the data than in any greater detail than is possible in a book primarily
previous edition are presented visually, through focused on racial and ethnic relations. This
graphs and charts. reflects a very different situation from that
in 1977, when I began work on the first edition of
2. There is extensive updated coverage throughout
this book, which was among the first college text-
the book both of current events in majority-
books to address some of these topics. For that
minority relations and of new social-scientific
reason, material primarily relating to those topics
research, theory, and writings on majority-
has been deleted to make room to cover the ever-
minority relations. These updates, as well as
expanding base of knowledge about majority-
those of data noted above, have resulted in the
minority relations based on race and ethnicity.
addition of more than 450 new references in
I strongly encourage students with interests in
the sixth edition, the great majority of them since
gender, sexual orientation, and disability to avail
2005. Among the current events with new cover-
themselves of the many excellent books and
age are Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq and
courses now available on these topics (happily, a
the ways in which ethnic and racial conflicts
different situation from 1977!). While material
within Iraq have contributed to violence and
relating primarily on these topics has been elimi-
instability since the U.S. invasion, urban racial
nated, material addressing these topics as they re-
violence in France in 2005, and the successful
lated to racial and ethnic relations has been
2008 campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for the
retained, with material on the intersection of race
presidency and what it does—and does not—tell
and gender now appearing in Chapter 10.
us about U.S. race relations. The coverage of
issues substantially discussed in earlier editions,
such as affirmative action, welfare reform, the CENSUS UPDATE
discrimination-testing movement, and work-
place diversity initiatives, has been updated 2010 Census Update—Features fully updated data
thoroughly to reflect current developments and throughout the text—including all charts and
recent research. graphs—to reflect the results of the 2010 Census.
3. Substantial updates have been made in the chap- This edition also includes a reproduction of the 2010
ters on prejudice to cover substantial recent re- Census Questionnaire.
search and to incorporate greater emphasis on A Short Introduction to the U.S. Census—A brief
the symbolic interactionist perspective. New seven-chapter overview of the Census, including im-
material has been added in Chapter 2 regarding portant information about the Constitutional mandate,
xvi PREFACE

research methods, who is affected by the Census, and Cheryl Riggs, and Michelle Ruffner for library assis-
how data is used. Additionally, the primer explores tance during the revision of the third edition, and to
key contemporary topics such as race and ethnicity, Michelle Ruffner and Gina Goodwin for assistance
the family, and poverty. The primer can be packaged in combining the new references for the third edition
at no additional cost, and is also available online in with the reference list from the second.
MySearchLab, as a part of MySocLab. In the fourth and fifth editions, it was a con-
2010 Census Update Primer Instructor’s tinuing pleasure to continue to work with Sharon
Manual with Test Bank—Includes explanations of Chambliss. The production editors for the fourth edi-
what has been updated, in-class activities, home- tion, Rob DeGeorge, and for the fifth edition, Barbara
work activities, discussion questions for the primer, Reilly, were very helpful in clearing up the many
and test questions related to the primer. minor glitches that inevitably occur in an undertaking
MySocKit 2010 Census Update gives students of this magnitude. Helpful suggestions for the fourth
the opportunity to explore 2010 Census methods edition were received from Lori A. Brown, Meredith
and data and apply Census results in a dynamic in- College; and Michael Pearson, University of North
teractive online environment. It includes a series of Carolina at Charlotte; and for the fifth edition from
activities using 2010 Census results, video clips ex- Mona Scott, Mesa Community College; Lori A.
plaining and exploring the Census, primary source Brown, Meredith College; and Kwaku Twumasi-
readings relevant to the Census, and an online ver- Ankrah, Fayetteville State University. For the fourth
sion of the 2010 Census Update Primer. edition, I am also grateful to Southern Illinois
University Edwardsville (SIUE) graduate student
Zhong Lan Yang for assistance in getting the electronic
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS reference file properly styled and formatted. As usual,
support and ideas from my colleagues in the
An undertaking such as this book would be impossible Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice Studies
without the assistance of many people. This assistance at SIUE have made an important contribution to the
goes back to the first edition and has continued with each edition of the book.
each revision. In the early stages of developing ideas for For the sixth edition, editorial direction was ably
this book, I received encouragement and helpful advice provided by Vanessa Gennarelli. Laura Lawrie, pro-
from Hugh Barlow, Joel Charon, and Charles Tilly. duction editor, kept the often-complicated editorial
Donald Noel, Howard Schuman, Lyle Shannon, production process on track, graciously tolerated my
Richard Cramer, David Willman, Katherine O’Sullivan complicated travel schedule, and helped me get
See, and Betsey Useem read and commented on part or through my first all-electronic copyediting process.
all of earlier versions of the manuscript. Reviewers for Susan McClung, the copyeditor, provided the meticu-
the second edition were Darnell F. Hawkins of the lous detail-oriented approach that I sorely lack, and
University of Illinois at Chicago and Katherine helped me get the reference list in the most error-free
O’Sullivan See of Michigan State University. Portions shape that it has been since the first edition, when it was
of the manuscript for the first edition were typed by perhaps one-third its present length. I also appreciate
Sherrie Williams, Kathy Howlatt, Lynn Krieger, Krista the assistance of reviewers for the sixth edition. Cory
Wright, and Marilyn Morrison. Brenda Eich assisted in Blad, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville; Lori
the compilation of the reference list. The capable edito- Campbell, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville;
rial staff at Prentice Hall, including past sociology edi- Susan M. De Luca, Ohio State University; Rosemary
tors Ed Stanford and Bill Webber, their assistants, Irene Hopcroft, University of North Carolina at Charlotte;
Fraga and Kathleen Dorman, and past production edi- Judy C. Morelock, University of Tennessee; and
tors Alison Gnerre and Marianne Peters, have been a Michael C. Stewart, Florida State University, provided
pleasure to work with. helpful suggestions that led to significant improvements
In the third edition, acquisitions editors Nancy in my revision plan for this edition. As with earlier edi-
Roberts and Sharon Chambliss, as well as project tions, comments and suggestions from faculty and stu-
manager Virginia Livsey, were most helpful with dents who have used the book were also helpful in the
their continued work and commitment on behalf of revision. My e-mail address is jfarley@ johnefarley.com,
this book. Helpful suggestions on portions of the so please keep sending me your comments and sugges-
book were received from Thomas D. Hall, DePauw tions. Finally, the most important support of all is the
University; David N. Lawyer, Jr., Santa Barbara City emotional support that I have received from my wife,
College; Pranab Chatterjee, Case Western Reserve Alice, from my daughter, Megan, and now from my
University; Alan Siman, San Diego State University; two grandchildren, Justin and Addison. To them, to
and Vernon McClean, William Paterson College. everyone else mentioned here, and to anyone I may
I am grateful to graduate students Craig Hughey, have forgotten, many thanks.
About the Author
John E. Farley is Professor Emeritus in the reports the results of the three-year study, was pub-
Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice lished by Southern Illinois University Press in 1998.
Studies at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Dr. Farley has conducted research on racial housing
where for nearly thirty years he taught a wide range segregation based on each U.S. census from 1980
of courses, including many years of teaching courses through 2000. He has received research grants from
in race and ethnic relations at both the undergradu- the National Science Foundation, the National
ate and graduate levels. He conducted his under- Institute of Mental Health, and SIUE’s Graduate
graduate studies at Michigan State University, where School and Institute for Urban Research.
he received a B.A. in political science. He continued Professor Farley has received a number
his studies at the University of Michigan, where he of awards for his work, including the SIUE
received an M.A. and a Ph.D. in sociology, as well as Outstanding Scholar Award for his research on race
the master of urban planning degree. relations and racial housing segregation, the SIUE
He is also the author of Sociology (Prentice Hall, Kimmell Community Service Award for his efforts
2003). He is an active researcher in urban sociology in creating a fair housing organization in the
and race and ethnic relations, and his articles have St. Louis metropolitan area, and SIUE’s Dr. Martin
appeared in the American Journal of Sociology, Social Luther King, Jr., University Humanitarian Award
Science Research, the American Journal of Economics for his efforts in the community. He has served as
and Sociology, Urban Affairs Review, the Sociological president of the SIUE Faculty Senate, the Illinois
Quarterly, Contexts, and a number of other journals. Sociological Association, the Midwest Sociological
He also regularly presents the results of his research at Society, and the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal
professional meetings and has addressed such meet- Housing Opportunity Council, which presented
ings in Canada, Sweden, and Germany, as well as him with its Open Doors Award in 2008 for his
throughout the United States. He headed a research work promoting fair housing. Dr. Farley enjoys
team studying public response to Iben Browning’s fishing, snow skiing, travel, and nature and weather
prediction of an earthquake in the Midwest in photography, especially when sharing these activi-
1990, and he was editor of a special issue of the ties with his wife, Alice, his daughter, Megan, and
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and now with his grandson Justin, born in 2004,
Disasters on that topic. His book, Earthquake Fears, and soon with his granddaughter, Addison, born
Predictions, and Preparations in Mid-America, which in 2008.

xvii
 Orientation:

1 Basic Terms
and Concepts

WHY STUDY RACE AND ETHNIC RELATIONS?

It has now been three decades since I began work on the first edition of this book. During that
time, much has changed in race and ethnic relations in the United States and the world, but much
has also remained the same. Today, Hispanic Americans have surpassed African Americans to
become the largest minority group in the United States. Today, unlike thirty years ago, the use of
racial, ethnic, or homophobic slurs or insults has become socially unacceptable, to the point that
public figures who use them are often soon out of a job. This happened to radio talk show host
Don Imus and U.S. Senator George Allen of Virginia after their use of racial slurs, and also to
Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington after his use of a slur against homosexuals. Today, there are
2
 O verview
• Why Study Race and Ethnic
African Americans, Hispanics, and women in the upper levels of government,
educational, and corporate leadership to an extent unheard of three decades Relations? 2
ago. And most dramatically, in November 2008, an African American, Barack • Emphasis and Approach of This
Obama, was elected to the presidency of the United States for the first time in Book 6
history. Additionally, through most of the 2008 campaign for the Democratic • Basic Terms and Concepts 7
presidential nomination, the only two viable candidates were a woman and an
African American. Moreover, the Republican party’s nomination of Alaska • Summary and Conclusion 19
governor Sarah Palin for vice president ensured that, for the first time in • Critical Review Questions 19
American history, either the president or the vice president would not be a • Key Terms 19
white male, no matter which party’s ticket was elected.
Nonetheless, there is also a great deal that has not changed. In the first edi-
tion of the book, I described race relations as America’s most intractable prob-
lem. Much that we see today tells us that this remains true, despite the genuine
progress noted above. As I began writing this new edition, tens of thousands
of Americans had just returned home from a march in Jena, Louisiana, where
six black students involved in an attack on a white student were charged with
felonies up to and including attempted murder, even though (1) the student
attacked had injuries so minor that he was treated at a hospital and released
without hospitalization; and (2) white students who hung nooses from a tree
to intimidate black students were charged with no crime and were not even
expelled from their school (they hung the nooses on school property, no less).
As was the case with the civil rights protests generations ago in the 1950s
and 1960s, blacks and whites saw this incident in starkly different terms.
Most blacks saw the Jena incident as representative of what happens in towns

Barack Obama, the first African American to be elected president of the United States,
addresses a campaign rally in Espanola, New Mexico. Obama’s victory is an indicator of
significant changes in race relations in the United States over the past several decades.
3
4 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

all across America—blacks being punished, while transgressions by whites get a slap on
the wrist at most. On the other hand, most whites did not understand what the fuss was
about, with one white person after another in Jena telling television interviewers that
their town was integrated and did not have a racial problem. A white friend of mine
asked, “Why don’t black leaders speak out and say the black students were wrong to
attack the white student?” (In fact, many did, but they also went on to criticize the
unequal legal treatment of blacks and whites involved in the Jena incidents.) As did the
O.J. Simpson murder trial more than a decade earlier, the Jena case shows how very dif-
ferently white and black Americans continue to perceive virtually any issue that brings
race to the foreground. That difference in perception tells us more about what has not
changed in American race relations than anything in particular about the Jena case, the
O.J. Simpson case, or any other specific incident.
But it is not just perceptions that have not changed. When I began work on the first
edition of this book, African Americans were twice as likely to be unemployed as white
Americans. They still are. Hispanic Americans were more than twice as likely to live in
poverty as non-Hispanic whites. They still are. Native American reservations had
poverty rates among the highest of any locations in the United States. They still do. And
the views that America allows too many immigrants to enter the country and that affir-
mative action gives unfair advantages to minorities are even more widespread today than
they were when I began work on the first edition of this book.
Two important realities emerge from these observations. First, conflict, discrimina-
tion, and inequality between racial and ethnic groups remain deeply entrenched in
American society, as they are in many other multiethnic and multiracial societies. In the
United States, this remains true despite a decline in open discrimination; despite hun-
dreds of civil rights laws, ordinances, and court decisions at the federal, state, and local
levels; and despite the fact that conditions have substantially improved for some minor-
ity group members. It remains true even though the United States has elected its first
African American president. In spite of all this, the aggregate pattern remains one where
racial and ethnic inequality continue. As will be shown in much detail in this book, this
is true whether we talk about income, education, political representation, or any other
measure of status in American society. In some regards there has been improvement, but
in other regards, conditions have actually gotten worse.
Second, intergroup relations in America are becoming increasingly complex, involving
more groups and a wider variety of dynamics. When I wrote the first edition of this book,
it was a clear-cut reality that the largest minority group in the United States was African
Americans. The Hispanic or Latino/a American population was about half the size of the
African American population, and aside from a few enclaves such as the Detroit area, most
Americans had very limited contact with people of Arab or Islamic background. Today, the
Latino/a population is larger than the African American population, and the Latino/a,
Asian American, Native American, Arab American, and Islamic populations in the United
States are all growing at rates far greater than those of either whites or African Americans.
Therefore, intergroup relations today are more complex than ever before and are marked
by tensions that would have seemed quite unfamiliar a quarter century ago.
The continuing reality of racial and ethnic inequality carries serious implications for
all Americans. For some minority group members, it means that life is a day-to-day
struggle for survival. For all minority group members, it means facing socially imposed disad-
vantages that they would not face if they were white. For majority group members, it means
the continued dilemma of living in a society that preaches equality but in large part fails to
practice it. Often, too, it means confronting expressions of anger and frustration from people
of color that many white people find difficult to understand. Finally, it means the near cer-
tainty of turmoil and social upheaval in the future. So long as the fundamental inequalities that
have led to past and present upheavals remain, the potential—indeed, the strong likelihood—
of future turmoil remains. All that is needed is the right mix of precipitating social conditions
to set off the spark. The conclusion is inescapable: Racial and ethnic relations will affect the life
of nearly every American in the coming years.
 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 5

Another important reality about racial and ethnic relations can be found in the
aforementioned changes in the racial and ethnic composition of the United States. Not
only is there a greater variety of racial and ethnic groups, but also a growing percentage
of the U.S. population will be composed of racial and ethnic minorities in coming years.
Today, almost 35 percent of the American population is made up of people of color—
that is, African Americans, Hispanic or Latino/a Americans, Asian Americans, and
Native Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). By 2020, this segment of the population
is projected to increase to 39 percent and, by 2045 and from then on, to become the ma-
jority—51.5 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008d, Table 4).
As America becomes more diverse—and as it continues to face increased interna-
tional competition in the world economy—every American has a growing economic
stake in reducing racial and ethnic inequality. Today, the talents of millions of
Americans are being wasted. Poor education, concentrated poverty, and widespread
unemployment in the country’s predominantly African American and Hispanic inner
cities are making it increasingly difficult for the people who live there to develop the
skills needed in today’s high-tech economic environment. Conditions on many Native
American reservations, as well as for many rural African Americans, Hispanics, and
poor whites, are as bad as those of the urban poor, or in some cases, even worse.
Moreover, the situation of those people of color who live in areas of concentrated
poverty worsened in the 1970s and 1980s (Wilson, 1987, 1991; Massey, 1990) and,
despite some improvement in the 1990s, remained quite dire into the new century
(Kingsley and Pettit, 2003, 2007). And perhaps more so than any previous event,
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 bared the devastating consequences that occur when poverty
becomes concentrated in America’s central cities.
In addition to the human suffering and the potential for social turmoil that such
conditions create, there are direct consequences for our present and future economic

Thousands of men, women, and children waited for days on roofs to be rescued after
Hurricane Katrina flooded most of New Orleans. This catastrophe laid bare ugly continuing
realities about race and poverty in American cities.
6 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

productivity. Continued failure to utilize fully the human resources of more than half
the population will seriously harm America’s productivity precisely when international
competition is at an all-time high and continuing to increase. The consequences of such a
decline in competitiveness in today’s global economy are clear: Fewer people will buy
American products, with the result that jobs will be lost and wages will fall. This will affect
all Americans, not just people of color. One study estimated the cost of racial discrimina-
tion to the U.S. economy (in the form of reduced gross domestic product) in 1991 at $215
billion—nearly ten times what it was in 1967 (Brimmer, 1993). And as the minority share
of the population grows and international competition intensifies, this cost can only grow,
and it is surely much higher now than fifteen years ago, when this study was done.
For all of these reasons, there remains a critical need to understand racial and
ethnic dynamics in America. The goal of this book is to contribute to such
understanding.

EMPHASIS AND APPROACH OF THIS BOOK

The primary emphasis of this book is on race and ethnic relations in the United States.
Nonetheless, this book is not exclusively about American race relations. The fundamen-
tal objective is to understand the dynamics of race and ethnic relations, which cannot be
done by looking at only one society. How ethnic groups interact with one another varies
from one society to another according to the social, economic, cultural, and political
conditions found in those societies. Racial and ethnic relations—including those in
America—can be best understood by comparing what has happened in different times
and places. Moreover, patterns and problems similar to some of those in the United
States are evident in a number of other industrialized countries with diverse populations.
For all these reasons, the emphasis of this book on the American situation includes a
comparative analysis of racial and ethnic relations in other societies.
A second major characteristic of this book is that it is concerned with analysis and
explanation rather than mere description. In other words, the major concern is under-
standing why race relations work the way they do, not merely describing the pattern of
American race relations or presenting a detailed descriptive history of various ethnic
groups. (The size of the book would not permit us to do justice to the varied and rich his-
tories of the multiplicity of American ethnic groups, in any case.1) If we are to understand
and deal with racial and ethnic problems, we must know not only what those problems are
but also how they developed and the social forces that cause them to persist. Therefore, we
search for principles and regularities in patterns of ethnic relations: For example, what are
the social conditions under which segregation develops? What changes are associated with
declines in segregation? Only through this approach, which stresses the whys of race rela-
tions, can we begin to understand and deal with the problems we face today.
A third important characteristic of this book is that it examines race and ethnic rela-
tions on both the individual and societal levels. Some people who study race relations
look mainly at the behaviors and prejudices of individuals, asking why a person is prej-
udiced and what we can do about it. Others look mainly at groups and societies, stress-
ing economic and political systems or such trends as urbanization and industrialization,
asking how these large-scale factors influence the interaction of the ethnic groups in a
society. This book begins at the individual level and then moves to analysis on a larger
scale. We shall examine theory and research about individual thinking and behavior, then
theories and research about larger societal factors and their relationship to race and eth-
nicity. Having laid this groundwork, we will consider the status of various racial and

1
For those interested in historical information on a wide variety of racial and ethnic groups in America, an excel-
lent though somewhat dated source is the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (Thernstrom, Orlov,
and Handlin, 1980). An excellent and more recent source with information on many groups, as well as on social
issues related to race and ethnicity, is the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society (Schaefer, 2008).
 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 7

ethnic groups in American society today and the ways in which this status is affected by
major social institutions. The book concludes with an examination of contemporary
trends in majority-minority relations and issues likely to shape future intergroup rela-
tions in the United States.

BASIC TERMS AND CONCEPTS

In any field of study, one must understand certain terms and concepts to make sense of
the subject. Unfortunately, in the field of racial and ethnic relations, more than most
other fields, any particular term may be given a wide variety of meanings by different
scholars. Therefore, it is probably impossible to devise definitions on which all would
agree. Still, we must know what is meant by the terms we are using. Accordingly, we
present the following definitions with these provisions:
• It is unlikely that every social scientist who studies race and ethnic relations would
agree on all of these definitions or on any set of definitions.
• The definitions, insofar as possible, reflect current trends in common usage among
those who study race and ethnic relations.
• The reasons for using a particular definition will be explained.
• The definitions are stated in such a way that, once they are understood, it should be
quite possible for any reader to say who or what fits the definition and who or what
does not.

Race and Ethnicity

The term race refers to a socially defined group of people who are generally considered
to be physically distinct in some way, such as skin color, hair texture, or facial features,
from other groups and are generally considered by themselves or by others to be a
distinct group. Thus, the concept of race has two components: social and physical. The
social component involves group identity: The group must in some way be recognized
by its own members or by others as a distinct group, or at least as having some charac-
teristics (physical and perhaps other characteristics) in common. Without such social
recognition, a group of people will not be identified as a race. The physical component
involves the fact that every race is generally regarded as being somehow different in
appearance from other races, but it is a social choice to define what physical differences
matter.
This definition of race differs from that of many members of the general public (and,
at one time, many scientists as well). People often think of race as a matter of physical or
biological characteristics, something that is genetically determined. Although it is true
that race is socially defined on the basis of physical characteristics, it is easy to show that it
is not fundamentally physical or genetic. One illustration of this is the inability of geneti-
cists, anthropologists, or sociologists to agree on how many races there are in the world’s
population. The estimates range anywhere from the common notion of three races (black,
white, and yellow) to thirty-four races (Dobzhansky, 1962) to more than 100. Furthermore,
the particular physical characteristics used to define a race are arbitrary and vary from
one classification scheme to the next. Racial classifications similarly vary from time to
time and from place to place, both in terms of the numbers of groups recognized and in
terms of the different ways that people of mixed ancestry are classified. Finally, long-term
interbreeding between races has in many cases made the notion of race as a discrete
biological category meaningless. As these examples show, physical characteristics partially
define race, but only in the context of a decision by society to consider those physical char-
acteristics relevant.
This underlines the fact that race is socially constructed. It is based on societal
choices about what physical characteristics to pay attention to and about how to classify
8 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

While racial groups are defined on the basis of physical appearance, the process by which
any group, such as Chinese Americans, comes to be defined as a racial group is social:
Society collectively decides to define a particular group as a race. Absent this, a group will
not be considered a race, regardless of physical appearance.

people on the basis of those characteristics. Such societal choices can and do vary over
time and from one society to another. At the same time, social scientists have focused in-
creasing attention on how the concepts of race and ethnicity became so widely used—
even though how they are used varies, and even though the scientific basis for such
classification is limited. One answer is that humans use the presence of different species
in the animal world as a way to understand social groupings in the human world, a
process referred to as “folk biology” (Machery and Faucher, 2005; Gil-White, 2001).
Modern science has revealed that this is not an accurate understanding, but through the
centuries it helped people to explain why different groups dress, appear, and behave
differently, sometimes cooperating but often competing with one another.

Is Race a Meaningful Concept? For the reasons discussed, increasing numbers of so-
cial and natural scientists in recent years have questioned whether the concept of race
makes sense at all. In 1994, for example, the American Anthropological Association
passed a resolution stating that “differentiating species into biologically-defined ‘races’
has proven meaningless and unscientific” (Wheeler, 1995). There is no particular gene
or precise combination of genes that can be linked to race, and genetic traits, such as
antibodies to many diseases, generally do not correspond to racial groupings. Also,
genetic variation within one particular racial group (however it may be defined on the
basis of appearance) is almost always greater than genetic variation between two differ-
ent racial groups (Lehrman, 2003). All these reasons together indicate the futility of try-
ing to classify humanity into any set of biologically defined races (Cavalli-Sforza et al.,
1994). It is true that some biological characteristics correlate with race. For example,
physical characteristics such as skin color and hair texture usually are the products of
evolution in response to the climate that groups have experienced over the long term.
And it is well known that propensity to certain diseases varies among racial, ethnic, and
geographic groupings, in part because when genetic changes that cause disease occur,
 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 9

these changes are reproduced within groups where in-group marriage patterns occur
(Duster, 2001; Smedley and Smedley, 2005). However, these patterns do not fit any par-
ticular racial classification system.
One reason that growing numbers of social scientists object to the race concept has
to do with the ways in which it has been used. If a scientifically unjustifiable set of racial
groupings is treated as if it were real, it can easily be used to make unfounded racial dis-
tinctions that support or lead to discrimination (Lieberman and Reynolds, 1991). On the
other hand, many social scientists argue that we must continue to pay attention to race
because people do treat systems of racial classification as if they were real, whether they
have a sound biological basis or not. Certainly the fact that race is treated as real has very
real social consequences (Duster, 2001), and if we ignore or deny race, we risk ignoring
or denying the consequences of racism.
Some social scientists distinguish between a race and a racial group. This distinc-
tion is illustrated by Spencer (1979, p. 274) with the example of an Eskimo girl raised in
a white American family in the South and never exposed to Eskimo culture or society.
This girl’s race might be considered Eskimo (she has physical features and parentage
that would define her as Eskimo), but she is not part of Eskimo society or culture, and
on first contact with Eskimo society, she would not understand it any more than any-
one else in the South would. Therefore, she would not be considered a member of the
Eskimo racial group. Thus, a racial group can be defined as a group of people of
the same race who interact with one another and who develop some common cultural
characteristics.
In practice, however, many sociologists question the distinction between a race and
a racial group. Pointing out that race is a socially constructed concept, they maintain that
races, as well as racial groups, are social groups, not biological ones. Also, others in soci-
ety may treat the Eskimo girl in Spencer’s example as an Eskimo even if she is not famil-
iar with Eskimo culture. Accordingly, race and racial group will be used interchangeably
in this book, although we follow the current tendency in the discipline to use the term
racial group in preference to race. This reflects sociology’s recognition that races and
racial groups are socially defined and constructed, not defined on the basis of biology.
We study race not because the concept of race is biologically sound, but rather because
people are identified and grouped on the basis of the socially constructed concept of
race, and in real life, these groupings make a big difference in people’s life experiences
(Winant, 1994; Taylor, 1998; Duster, 2001).

The Difference Race Makes: Why Races Are Defined and Why the Definitions
Change. The difference race makes in people’s lives—its social and political conse-
quences—is one of the main reasons why society recognizes race as a key category and
why its definition and its social meaning change over time. Omi and Winant (1994) call
the process by which society recognizes and defines racial groups racial formation. This
process defines both who the racial groups in a society are and how the meaning of race
is understood. The process of defining and, over time, redefining racial groups is always
driven by political interests. For example, as is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5,
the notion of whites as free people and blacks as slaves was not there from the beginning
of the colonies that later became the United States. At first, most of the colonial popula-
tion, whether of European or African ancestry, was made up of indentured servants,
who served a limited period of servitude and then were set free. Later the plantation
owners promoted the idea of permanent slavery tied to race to get around the problem
of having to free their indentured servants and get new ones periodically.
Furthermore, whites did not initially think of themselves in racial terms; rather, they
thought in terms of ethnicity (English, Irish, Scottish) and class (Roediger, 1991). The
notion of whites as a distinct racial group is something that developed later. White
workers saw it as a way of escaping indentured servitude and of placing themselves
above another class, which would be even more disadvantaged (black slaves). Plantation
owners, in turn, promoted this notion because they saw it as useful to their own interests
10 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

THE CENSUS BUREAU AND RACE

Nothing illustrates the arbitrary nature of racial classifica- Hispanics who would use the Census Bureau’s racial classi-
tion systems more clearly than the changing ways in which fications, the 2000 census asked the race question before
the U.S. Census Bureau has classified race in the United the Hispanic origin question because experiments suggested
States over the years. Look at Table 1.1, which shows how that this way, more Hispanics would classify their race into
the census handled race (and, more recently, Hispanic origin) one of the Bureau’s racial categories. However, in the actual
for 110 years. Note that the racial categories used were census, more than 40 percent again chose the “Other” cate-
different in every census, although in general they increased gory, although a few of those also chose a second group
in number over time as the U.S. population became more from the list of racial groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a).
diverse and as more groups insisted on being recognized; This is yet another way in which arbitrary factors enter into
and the Bureau has become more sensitive to such de- racial classifications.
mands. Nearly every group has been handled differently over Finally, note the varying ways in which the Bureau has
time, and various groups have come and gone as “races.” handled people of mixed racial background. It used to have a
Mexican Americans are a good illustration of this prac- complex set of categories—“Mulatto,” “Quadroon,” and
tice. They were not treated as a separate group early on, but “Octoroon,” for example—to classify people of mixed white
in 1930, “Mexicans” were treated as a race. They disap- and black ancestry. In deference to the “one drop” rule, by
peared as a classification after that, only to reemerge as an 1920 anyone with black ancestry was classified as “Negro,”
ethnic group under the “Hispanic” classification, which was but this category was subclassified into “Black” (supposedly,
created in 1970. The Hispanic groups are ethnic groups in all-black ancestry) and “Mulatto” (mixed ancestry). After
that they can be of any race and are expected to separately 1920, the mixed categories were done away with altogether,
classify themselves into one of the racial groups. more fully formalizing the one drop rule. However, pressures
Consistently, about 40 percent have refused to do so, mark- from the growing number of Americans with parents of two
ing the race question “Other” and writing in “Hispanic,” or more different races led to more changes for the 2000
“Latino,” “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” and so on. But the census (Office of Management and Budget, 1997; see also
other 60 percent have answered the race question and clas- Wright, 1994). Beginning with that census, Americans could
sified themselves as white, black, or one of the other racial check off more than one race on the race question. About
classifications. In hopes of increasing the percentage of 2.4 percent of the population, nearly 7 million people, did so.

once slavery had become tied to being African. Whites became defined as a racial group
whose race was associated with power and freedom, and this definition of race became
the underpinning of slavery and of an economic system dominated by an elite segment of
the white population (Roediger, 1991; Winant, 1997). Europeans in the colonies, includ-
ing many former indentured servants, began to think of themselves as whites, which en-
titled them to at least some privileges relative to the African American slave population.
As a result, however, these poor whites identified with other whites and supported a
plantation system that in fact exploited them by denying them landownership and by
using them as cheap labor. This was possible because racial thinking led them to
align themselves with white plantation owners rather than black slaves (Allen, 1997).
Thus, the definition of whites as a race reflected the power and political interest of pre-
cisely the group (plantation owners) that benefited from this definition of race. Thus, the
early understanding of race in American society was directly the product of political
interests and a political process (Winant, 1997). As we shall see in later chapters, much
the same is true of our understanding of race today.

Ethnic Groups. A concept closely related to race is that of the ethnic group. An ethnic
group can be defined as a group of people who are generally recognized by themselves or
by others as a distinct group, based entirely on social or cultural characteristics. The most
common of these characteristics are nationality, language, and religion. Ethnic groups
tend to be, at least to some degree, biologically self-perpetuating. In other words, one’s
ethnicity is determined largely by the ethnicity (or ethnicities) of one’s parents. Thus, eth-
nicity, like race, is a social characteristic that passes from generation to generation. In the
 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 11

Table 1.1 Racial and Ethnic Origin Classifications Used by the U.S. Census,
1890–2000
One, Chosen One or More, Chosen
One, Chosen by Census Taker by Respondent by Respondent

1890 1920 1930 1950 1970 1990 2000 2010

White White3 White White White White White White

Black Negro Negro Negro4 Negro/black Black Black/African Black/African American
Mulatto Black Mexican Indian2 Japanese American Indian American or Negro
Quadroon1 Mulatto Indian2 Japanese Chinese or Alaska Native American Indian or American Indian or
Octoroon1 American Indian Alaska Native Alaska Native
Indian2 Chinese Chinese Filipino
Eskimo American Indian Hispanic/Latino/Spanish
Chinese Chinese Filipino Other Hawaiian
Nonwhite Aleut Eskimo Mexican, Mexican
Japanese Japanese Hindu Korean American, Chicano
Indian2 All other Korean Indian2 Asian or Pacific Aleut
Islander Puerto Rican
Hawaiian Other Asian
Chinese Cuban
Malay Chinese
Filipino Other Hispanic
Siamese Filipino
Hawaiian Asian Indian
Samoan Korean
Korean Chinese
Vietnamese
Vietnamese Filipino
Japanese
Japanese Japanese
Asian Indian
Asian Indian Korean
Samoan
Samoan Vietnamese
Guamian
Guamian Native Hawaiian
Cambodian
Other A.P.I. Guamanian or
Malaysian Chamorro
Other Pakistani Somoan
Thai Other Pacific Islander
Other Asian
Pacific Islander
Hawaiian
Guamian
Samoan
Other Pacific
Islander
Hispanic origin (may be of any race; this Mexican Mexican Mexican
category not used until 1970; called Puerto Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican
“Hispanic or Latino” beginning in 2000) Cuban Cuban Cuban
Central/South Central or South Central or South
American American American

1
“Quadroon” and “octoroon” refer to people with varying proportions of white and black ancestry.
2
Refers to American Indians.
3
This category was subcategorized into “native-born” and “non–native-born” categories.
4
Includes people with mixed and black ancestry and people with American Indian and black ancestry unless clearly accepted as Indian.

United States, Irish Americans, Jewish Americans, and Italian Americans are examples of
ethnic groups. Unlike in races or racial groups, physical traits are not necessarily charac-
teristics of an ethnic group; that is, it is impossible to tell reliably on the basis of appear-
ance alone who belongs and who does not. It is perhaps ironic that Adolf Hitler, who
always insisted that Jews were a race, ultimately turned to a classification based on parent-
age to determine who was Jewish (one was Jewish if one or more of one’s grandparents
12 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

identified with the Jewish faith) because it was impossible to tell by appearance. To tell
who was Jewish, Hitler required Jews to wear identifying marks, such as buttons with the
Star of David.
For some, ethnicity is a highly salient feature of life, whereas for others it is not. For
example, some Irish Americans view their Irish ancestry as an important part of their iden-
tity, whereas others with the same ancestry simply think of themselves as Americans.
Thus, psychological identification with a group is an important part of what makes ethnic-
ity real to people. Sometimes, of course, ethnic discrimination by others makes people’s
ethnicity a salient feature whether they want it to be or not. Hitler’s oppression of the Jews
is a good example of this, as is the discrimination that many ethnic immigrants encounter
when they arrive in a new country in large numbers. In this case, ethnicity becomes salient
because others with power have decided to make it so. Unfortunately, one way that ethnic
groups have responded to this has been to try to maximize racial differences while mini-
mizing ethnic ones. Hence, during the twentieth century, many immigrant groups once
thought of as minorities gradually became thought of less as ethnic minorities and more as
simply part of the white population. They were able to bring about this change in large
part by segregating themselves from blacks and other people of color as much as possible,
and seeking cultural similarity with middle class whites with a less recent history of immi-
gration (Roediger, 2006).

Measuring Race and Ethnicity. Because race and ethnicity are socially constructed and
change with time, they are difficult to measure. This is illustrated in the box “The Census
Bureau and Race,” which shows how both definitions of racial groups and the handling
of mixed categories have changed over time. Through much of our history, the “one
drop” rule has applied to people of mixed black and white ancestry: If there was any
black, or “Negro,” ancestry, the person was placed in that group (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1953, p. 35; Wright, 1994). This was done in large part to maintain the system of
discrimination and to discourage whites from marrying or having children with African
Americans and other minorities. But at one time the census did include categories for
people of mixed black and white ancestry, and for the first time, in the 2000 census, peo-
ple were able to check more than one racial category (2.4 percent did so). This new policy
is largely the outgrowth of pressures from people of mixed ancestry, who did not identify
with any of the existing census racial categories.
All this has more than academic importance. On one hand, people with multiracial
parentage were made to feel like nonpersons by the system used in the past; there was no
category that accurately described them. On the other hand, if everyone were classified as
multiracial (which in reality a large proportion are, at least to some extent) or if race were
dropped from the census as an unscientific concept, there would be serious implications
for the enforcement of civil rights laws. Unfortunately, discrimination and segregation
are real, even if, in the biological sense, race is not. Census data and other federal data on
race permit the measurement of school and housing segregation, racial inequalities in in-
come and employment, and other indicators of discrimination that are all too real. Thus,
such data are important tools in the fight against discrimination, despite their many im-
perfections. For the same reason, some support for omitting the race question on the
census has come from groups opposed to affirmative action and other efforts to increase
opportunities for people of color (Wright, 1994). Recently, a group opposing affirmative
action attempted unsuccesfully to eliminate all collection of race data in the state of
California (Glazer, 2002).

Majority and Minority Groups

Two terms used throughout this book are majority group and minority group. When
sociologists use these terms, they are not speaking in a strictly numerical sense. The
sociological meaning of majority group, as used in this book, is any group that is
 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 13

dominant in society—that is, any group that enjoys more than a proportionate share of
the wealth, power, or social status in that society. Typically, a majority group is in a
position to dominate or exercise power over other groups. A minority group can be
defined as any group that is assigned an inferior status in society—that is, any group that
has less than its proportionate share of wealth, power, or social status. Often, minority
group members are discriminated against by those in the majority.
A number of important points can be made about these groups. First, majorities and
minorities often are determined by race or ethnicity, but they can also be determined by
many other relatively permanent factors, such as sex, physical disability, or sexual orienta-
tion. Much of what is true about relations between African Americans and whites, for
example, is also true about relations between males and females, gays and straights, and
people with and without disabilities. I have chosen the title of this book precisely for this
reason: The dynamics of relations between majority groups and minority groups are in
many ways similar, regardless of how those groups are defined. Thus, although this book is
mainly about race and ethnic relations, many of the principles apply to other kinds of
majority-minority relations, or intergroup relations, as well.
Second, as noted, the sociological usage of the terms majority and minority differs
from the common numerical usage. It is quite possible for a group to be a numerical
majority but still a minority group in the sociological sense. Several familiar examples
come to mind. Perhaps the best known is that of blacks in South Africa. Although more
than 80 percent of the population is black, the political system was completely under
the control of whites until the early 1990s. Racial separation and discrimination were
required by law. Since all South Africans were given the right to vote in 1994 and
Nelson Mandela was elected as South Africa’s first black president, political control has
been in the hands of the black numerical majority. However, even with such free elec-
tions, a disproportionate share of the country’s wealth has remained in the hands of the
white numerical minority, and this probably will likely continue to be the case for
many years. Thus, although blacks are an overwhelming majority numerically, until a
decade ago they were a minority group in the sociological sense, and in terms of eco-
nomic position in society, they still are.
Another numerical majority that is a sociological minority group is women in the
United States. Women make up slightly more than half of the U.S. population, but rela-
tively few hold offices in the nation’s higher political governing bodies (such as the U.S.
Congress). They have long been subject to discrimination, and a proposed U.S. constitu-
tional amendment to ban sexual discrimination has still not been enacted. Even today,
full-time working women are paid only about 76 percent of the wages of similarly edu-
cated working men. Thus, even though they are a numerical majority, women have in
many ways been relegated to a subordinate role in American society and can be regarded
as a minority group in the sociological sense.
The important point to keep in mind, then, is that it is a group’s role and status,
not its numbers, that make it a majority or minority group. A helpful way to think of
this, suggested by Yetman (1991, p. 11), is to think of majority as a synonym for
dominant and minority as a synonym for subordinate. Occasionally, a society may
have relatively peaceful and egalitarian relations among its racial or ethnic groups, so
that no group is dominant or subordinate. However, the more common pattern in
diverse societies is for some groups to dominate others; thus, in such societies interra-
cial and interethnic relations usually fall into the larger category of majority-minority
relations. Unless we are talking specifically about cases in which the three concepts—
race and ethnic relations, majority-minority relations, and intergroup relations—do
not overlap, we shall use these terms somewhat interchangeably to avoid repeated use
of the same term. This is not meant in any way to negate the important facts that not
all race and ethnic relations are marked by domination and subordination and that
many intergroup relations besides race and ethnic relations operate according to the
majority-minority model.
14 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

Although they are a numerical majority, women in the United States are a minority group in
the sociological sense. For example, they receive only about three-quarters of the wages
or salaries of similarly educated men.

than 80 percent of the population is black, the political system was completely under
the control of whites until the early 1990s. Racial separation and discrimination were
required by law. Since all South Africans were given the right to vote in 1994 and
Nelson Mandela was elected as South Africa’s first black president, political control has
been in the hands of the black numerical majority. However, even with such free elec-
tions, a disproportionate share of the country’s wealth has remained in the hands of the
white numerical minority, and this probably will likely continue to be the case for
many years. Thus, although blacks are an overwhelming majority numerically, until a
decade ago they were a minority group in the sociological sense, and in terms of eco-
nomic position in society, they still are.
Another numerical majority that is a sociological minority group is women in the
United States. Women make up slightly more than half of the U.S. population, but rela-
tively few hold offices in the nation’s higher political governing bodies (such as the U.S.
Congress). They have long been subject to discrimination, and a proposed U.S. constitu-
tional amendment to ban sexual discrimination has still not been enacted. Even today,
full-time working women are paid only about 76 percent of the wages of similarly edu-
cated working men. Thus, even though they are a numerical majority, women have in
many ways been relegated to a subordinate role in American society and can be regarded
as a minority group in the sociological sense.
The important point to keep in mind, then, is that it is a group’s role and status,
not its numbers, that make it a majority or minority group. A helpful way to think of
this, suggested by Yetman (1991, p. 11), is to think of majority as a synonym for dom-
inant and minority as a synonym for subordinate. Occasionally, a society may have
relatively peaceful and egalitarian relations among its racial or ethnic groups, so that
no group is dominant or subordinate. However, the more common pattern in diverse
societies is for some groups to dominate others; thus, in such societies interracial and
interethnic relations usually fall into the larger category of majority-minority relations.
Unless we are talking specifically about cases in which the three concepts—race and
 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 15

Thus, as used in this book, majority and dominant are similar in meaning, as are minority
and subordinate.

Racism
Perhaps no term in recent years has been used in as many different ways as racism.
Any definition of this term is subject to controversy; for this reason, we have chosen
to give this term a very broad definition and then to present further definitions to
identify different forms of racism. Accordingly, racism can be defined as any attitude,
belief, behavior, or institutional arrangement that favors one race or ethnic group
(usually a majority group) over another (usually a minority group). By “favoring one
group over another,” we mean not only intentions but also consequences: If the result
of an action or social arrangement is that one race or ethnic group receives a dispro-
portionate share of scarce resources (such as money, education, political power, and
social status), it is an example of racism. It is also a case of racism if the consequence of
an arrangement is to give one group greater freedom than another. Thus, by this broad
definition, something or someone can be racist either on the basis of intentions or on
the basis of results. It then follows that sometimes racism and similar phenomena,
such as sexism, are conscious and deliberate; at other times they are not. The
unfortunate fact is that if one is the victim of racism or sexism, it makes little differ-
ence whether the disadvantage was intentionally imposed or not; it is still a disad-
vantage. (For further discussion of this broad concept of racism, see U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights, 1970b; Jones, 1972; Ridley, 1989; Yetman, 1991, pp. 19–29; Feagin,
2000, pp. 14–27.)
Within this broad definition of racism, we can identify several specific kinds. One
is attitudinal and is called racial prejudice. A second, more narrowly defined kind of
racism is ideological racism, also called racist ideology. A third type involves individ-
ual behavior and is called individual racial discrimination. A fourth type involves
institutional or societal patterns; this is called institutional racism or institutional
discrimination. Although we present this typology primarily with respect to racism, it
is the case that prejudice and discrimination on the basis of other factors—such as sex,
sexual orientation, disability status, and in some instances religion—operate similarly
and can be similarly categorized.

Racial Prejudice. Racial prejudice, the attitudinal form of racism, refers to people’s
thinking—their attitudes and beliefs that tend to favor one group over another or to cause
unequal treatment on the basis of race. Prejudice can be direct or overt, such as disliking
a group or believing that it is inherently inferior. However, it can also be subtle, such as
the belief that a group that has been discriminated against is to blame for its own troubles,
the feeling that a group protesting its subordinate status is “causing trouble,” and the
practice of stereotyping, of assuming that “all of them are alike.” Thus, two critical points
should be kept in mind about the meaning of prejudice. First, the term refers to people’s
thinking—their attitudes and beliefs—not their behavior. Second, prejudice can be overt
and very obvious, or it can be subtle and indirect. A more detailed definition of racial
prejudice and other forms of prejudice is presented in Chapter 2; the purpose here is to
distinguish it from other forms of racism.

Ideological Racism. Closely related to the concept of prejudice is the more specific
concept of ideological racism, or racist ideology. These terms refer specifically to the
belief that some races are biologically, intellectually, or culturally inferior to others. The
term racism was originally used to mean this type of ideology, which views various
races as superior or inferior to one another, and some social scientists continue to pre-
fer this narrower definition. Racist ideology has been widely advocated and widely
believed, particularly in Europe and North America. Such racist ideology often has
16 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

been elevated to the status of “scientific theory,” giving rise to what has been called
scientific racism. The idea here is that science supposedly proves that some groups are
innately superior to others. It is significant that such ideologies always define the race
of the “scientist” as superior. An example of this can be seen in social Darwinism,
which argues on the basis of “survival of the fittest” that the wealthiest and most pow-
erful groups are biologically the “most fit.” This ideology was widely used to justify
domination and colonization of the natives of Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania
by white Europeans.
In fact, it is an important characteristic of ideological racism that its main function is
to justify the domination and exploitation of one group by another by showing that
group superiority or inferiority is the natural way of things (Wilson, 1973, pp. 32–35).
When it has served dominant-group interests to do so, claims of innate inferiority have
been made at various times in the United States against a wide variety of groups, includ-
ing Irish, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, and Jewish Americans, as well as African Americans,
Chicanos, and Native Americans. The rise of the anti-immigration and anti-Catholic
Know Nothing party around 1850 and the Ku Klux Klan in the early twentieth century
marked high points of ideological racism in the United States. Elsewhere, it was at the
heart of German Nazism, whose ideology consisted of beliefs that Germans were part of
the superior “Aryan” race and that Jews, blacks, and others were innately inferior.
Notions of racial superiority were also used by the Japanese to justify expansionism
during World War II.
Despite the advocacy of scientific racism in Europe, America, and elsewhere for
more than a century (Gobineau, 1915; Grant, 1916; Stoddard, 1920; Hitler, 1940), careful
scientific analysis does not support the notion of innate biological, intellectual, cultural,
temperamental, or moral superiority of any racial or ethnic group over another
(UNESCO, 1950, 1952; Montagu, 1963, 1964).2 More recently, scientific racism resur-
faced in the form of a book titled The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994), which
attempted to revive the argument that race is genetically linked to intelligence. The book
received considerable public acclaim but was rejected by most sociologists in the fields of
stratification, education, and race and ethnic relations and officially criticized by the
American Psychological Association. Although this book is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 14, it is important to note here that it made a number of errors that overstated
the genetic influence on intelligence (H. F. Taylor, 1995; see also Jencks and Phillips, 1998)
and that its argument was undermined by a 30 percent decline in racial differences in
intelligence scores in the two decades before it was published—hardly what one would
expect if such tests measured innate differences (Hauser, 1995). What is significant,
though, is that the attention and public acclaim the book received when first published
indicate the continued popularity in some circles of the idea that some groups could be
innately superior to others.
In discussions of scientific racism, it is also significant that science has discredited
not only the notion of racial superiority but also—as noted earlier—the concept that
races can even be defined on a purely biological basis. Therefore, ideological racism is
best understood as a means by which members of dominant groups attempt to make
acceptable their domination of other groups. Unfortunately, the stamp of science has
often been used to legitimize such ideological racism.
Obviously, ideological racism is in many regards similar to some types of racial prej-
udice. The difference is that ideological racism has become institutionalized (in other
words, it has become a widely accepted element of a culture) or it is used to justify
behavior whereby one group dominates or exploits another. Prejudice, on the other
hand, can exist in the absence of both of these conditions.

2
It is true that average scores on particular tests designed to measure intelligence and achievement vary from
group to group. As we shall see in Chapter 14, however, these differences are best explained by the testing
process and by cultural variations between groups, rendering any one test useless as a measure for all
groups.
 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts 17

Despite a 30 percent decline in the racial gap in IQ scores in the previous two decades,
scientific racism resurfaced in 1994 with the publication of The Bell Curve, which sought to
revive the belief that race is genetically linked to intelligence.

Individual Discrimination. When we talk about discrimination, we are referring to

behavior, not beliefs or attitudes. Individual discrimination can be defined as any
behavior by an individual that leads to unequal treatment because of race or ethnicity.
Examples could include a homeowner refusing to sell his or her house to a Jew, a taxi
driver refusing to pick up African Americans, or an employer paying lower wages to
Chicanos than to Anglos for comparable work. The important distinction here is what
people actually do—their behavior—rather than what they think. The two are not
always the same. Again, of course, similar types of discrimination occur not only on the
basis of race but also on the basis of sex, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and other
social characteristics.

Institutional Discrimination. Carmichael and Hamilton (1967) pointed out that not all,
and perhaps not even most, discrimination is perpetrated by individuals. Our basic
social institutions—well-established structures such as the family, the state, the educa-
tional system, the economic system, and religion, which perform basic functions in our
society—play a critical role in the creation and perpetuation of racial inequality.
Accordingly, we can define institutional racism or institutional discrimination as
arrangements or practices in social institutions and their related organizations that tend
to favor one racial or ethnic group (usually the majority group) over another.
Institutional racism sometimes is conscious and deliberate, as in the legally required
school segregation that existed in southern U.S. states before the Supreme Court ruled it
unconstitutional in 1954.
Sometimes, however, institutional racism develops without any conscious racist
intent; nonetheless, such practices tend to place or keep minority groups in a subordi-
nate position. An example can be seen in today’s high cost of college tuition. The cost of
college is one reason that African Americans and Hispanic Americans remain half as
likely or less to become college graduates as whites. College tuition is the product of a
political decision that students should pay a significant part of the cost of a college edu-
cation. It has not always been this way: At one time, California’s public colleges were
tuition-free, and high school—which early in the twentieth century was sufficient for
18 CHAPTER 1 • Orientation: Basic Terms and Concepts

most good jobs—has always been free. Additionally, col-

lege costs have risen much faster than overall inflation in
recent decades, and for a number of years, increases in stu-
dent financial aid have not kept up (College Board, 2006;
Hauptman, 2005). Though not racist in intent, this has
disproportionate effects on black and Hispanic students,
because of their families’ lower-than-average income. For
example, Kane (1994) found that for every increase of
$1,000 in the cost of attending college, the percentage of
African Americans enrolling falls by 5 points, all else being
equal. Hence, although whites are also affected by tuition
increases, minorities are affected more, and a higher per-
centage of them are kept from attending college.
Not only has financial aid failed to keep up with infla-
tion, but much of it is not targeted to the neediest students,
College students in or even based on need at all (Hauptman, 2005). In the 1999–2000 school year, nearly a
the financial aid third of students from families with incomes below $20,000 and half of students from
office. Rapid tuition
increases, which have
families with incomes between $20,000 and 39,000 got no financial aid at all (Chronicle
been only partially of Higher Education, 2003a). In addition, even for those who do get aid, in most cases it
offset by student covers only part of the cost of education, and a growing share has come in the form of
financial aid, have loans, which bring long-term indebtedness. Thus, the financial barriers to college atten-
had disproportionate dance are very real, and financial hardship affects a higher proportion of African
impacts on African American, Hispanic, and American Indian students than of white students, although
American and many of the latter are also kept out of college by its high and rising cost.
Latino/a students, Sometimes, such unconscious institutional discrimination operates by perpetuating
whose family the effects of past, more deliberate discrimination. Minorities today have low incomes
incomes are on partly because of past discrimination. The cost of college thus often deprives them of edu-
average significantly
lower than those of
cation, which in turn deprives them of access to good jobs. Thus, inequality resulting from
whites. past discrimination is perpetuated. While unconscious institutional discrimination some-
times does not reflect a deliberate effort to discriminate, it is nonetheless important to rec-
ognize that it is deeply rooted in society’s racially unequal power structure. It is not just a
coincidence that affluent whites (a group with great power in the United States) are the
ones who benefit from it, and minorities along, in some cases, with less-affluent whites
(i.e., less powerful groups), are the ones who are disadvantaged. The U.S. system of financ-
ing higher education powerfully illustrates this.
Institutional racism, including that which is not necessarily conscious or deliber-
ate, plays a critical role in the continuing pattern of racial and ethnic inequality in the
United States. Every available measure shows significant reductions in prejudice in
general and in the belief in racist ideologies in particular over the past fifty years in the
United States. Deliberate racial discrimination in virtually every form has been illegal
for years, although it is clear that it does still occur. Yet, as indicated at the beginning
of this chapter and despite laws forbidding deliberate discrimination, racial inequality
continues in America today. In fact, for many people of color, the social and economic
situation is getting worse. In my judgment, the explanation for this is to be found
largely in our social institutions and related organizations. Indeed, there is strong
evidence that institutional discrimination continues to be systemic in all of our major
social institutions (Feagin, 2000). Thus, our concern in this book cannot focus exclu-
sively on prejudice, racist ideology, or deliberate instances of individual discrimina-
tion. We must also examine our political, economic, educational, and other institutions
to identify ways in which they unconsciously perpetuate racial inequality. Without
such analysis, the problem of racial inequality in America today can be neither under-
stood nor effectively attacked.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Lesable két kézre markolta a vaskorlátot s úgy szívta a levegőt,
mint ahogy a bort issza az ember. Ugrálni, kiáltozni szeretett volna,
vad mozdulatokkal könnyíteni magán, annyira megrohanta a mély és
ujjongó öröm. Ragyogónak látta az életet, csupa boldogságnak a
jövőt! Mit is fog csinálni? És elábrándozott.
Valami zaj rezzentette föl, mely a háta mögül jött. A felesége volt.
Szeme környéke kivörösödött, arca kissé megduzzadt s igen
fáradtnak látszott. Homlokát csókra nyujtotta férje felé, aztán
megszólalt:
– Papánál fogunk ebédelni, hogy a beteg közelében
maradhassunk. A cseléd mellette lesz, míg mi eszünk.
Lesable követte feleségét a szomszéd lakásba.
Cachelin már asztalnál ült, várva leányát és a vejét. Hideg csirke,
krumplisaláta és egy tál szamóca volt kikészítve a tálalóra, a
tányérokban leves gőzölgött.
Leültek. Cachelin kijelentette:
– Ezek azok a napok, amilyeneket nem kívánok gyakran
magamnak. Ilyenkor nem valami vidám az élet.
Közöny volt a hangjában s az arcán csaknem megelégedettség.
Aztán falni kezdett, nagy étvágyú emberek módjára, kitünőnek találta
a csirkét s nagyszerűen frissítőnek a krumplisalátát.
Lesable-nak azonban elszorult a gyomra s ímmel-ámmal, izguló
lélekkel evett, egyre a szomszéd szoba felé fülelve, amelyben olyan
csönd volt, mintha teljesen lakatlan lenne. Cora-nak sem volt
étvágya, dúltan és el-elpityeredve törülgette meg olykor-olykor a
szemét szalvétája csücskével.
– Mit mondott a »fő«? – kérdezte Cachelin.
És Lesable részletes beszámolót tartott, mivel apósa apróra
kikérdezte, elismételtetve minden szót, mintha legalább egy éve nem
lett volna tájékán se a minisztériumnak.
 – Csinos feltűnést kelthetett, mikor megtudták, hogy Charlotte
beteg, mi?
S arra gondolt, milyen diadalmasan vonul majd be a haláleset
után, micsoda képeket vágnak majd a kollégák. Mindazáltal, mintegy
titkos lelkiismeretfurdalásának engedve, így beszélt:
– Szegénykének igazán nem kívánok semmi rosszat! Isten a
tanum, mennyire szeretném még soká jó egészségben látni. De
azért mégis csak nagyot fognak nézni odabenn! Savon apó még a
komműnt is el fogja felejteni bele!
Éppen a szamócába fogtak, mikor nyilt a betegszoba ajtaja.
Roppant megdöbbentek s azon vették észre magukat, hogy
valamennyien felálltak az ebédtől. A kis cseléd jött be, szokott
csendes és ostoba esetlenségével. Nyugodtan mondta:
– Má’ nem lélekzik.
Cachelin, asztalkendőjét a tányérok közé dobva, őrült módjára
rohant be; Cora dobogó szívvel követte; Lesable pedig ott maradt az
ajtóban, messziről kémlelve az ágy sápadt foltja felé, melyet alig
világított meg a búcsúzó nap. Látta, hogyan görnyed apósa háta a
fekhely fölé, mozdulatlan vizsgálódással. És egyszerre a hangját is
meghallotta, amely mintha messziről, nagyon messziről, a világ
végéről jönne, valami álombeli hang, a csodákat mesélő álmoké. A
hang ezt mondta:
– Megtörtént! nem hallani semmi pihegést.
Látta, hogyan esik hirtelen térdre a felesége, arcát a takaróba
rejtve és zokogva. Elszánta magát, hogy ő is belép s amint Cachelin
felemelkedett, a vánkos fehérségén megpillantotta Charlotte néni
arcát, lecsukott szemű, beesett, merev és fakó arcát, amely olyan
volt, mint a viaszbabáké.
Aggódva kérdezte:
– Vége?
 Cachelin, aki szintén a halottat nézte, most feléje fordult s
egymásra pillantottak.
– Igen, – felelte César s arcát szomorú kifejezésre akarta
erőltetni. A két férfi azonban nyomban belelátott egymásba s nem is
tudva: miért, ösztönszerűen kezet szorítottak, mintegy megköszönve
egymásnak, amit egymásért tettek.
Aztán, nem vesztegetve az időt, buzgón láttak hozzá a
halottaknak kijáró teendők végzéséhez.
Lesable vállalta, hogy elmegy az orvosért s hogy a lehető
leggyorsabban elintéz minden szükséges eljárnivalót.
Vette a kalapját s futva indult le a lépcsőkön; minél előbb kinn
akart lenni az uccán, egyedül maradni, fellélekzeni, gondolkozni,
magányosan élvezni a boldogságát.
Mikor elvégezte útjait, hazamenés helyett a boulevardra
igyekezett: hajtotta a vágy, embereket látni, belesodródni a
forgalomba, az este boldog életébe. Szeretett volna odakiáltani a
járókelőknek: »Ötvenezer livre évjáradékom van!« – s zsebredugott
kezekkel csatangolt, meg-megállva a kirakatok előtt, nézegetve a
drága szöveteket, az ékszereket, a nagyszerű bútorokat, vidáman
gondolva el, hogy: »Ezt most már mind megvehetném magamnak!«
Gyászruhabolt előtt ment el s egyszerre megcsapta a döbbenet:
Hátha nem is halt meg? Hátha csalódtak?
Meggyorsított léptekkel fordult haza, lelkén ott kóválygott a
kétség.
Ahogy megérkezett, első kérdése így szólt:
– Volt itt a doktor?
Cachelin felelt:
– Igen. Konstatálta a halált és megcsinálta a halottkémi jelentést.
 Beléptek az elhúnyt szobájába. Cora még mindig sírt, egy
karosszékben ülve. Halkan sírt, szinte már minden fájdalom és bánat
nélkül, a nők könnyű zokogási készségével.
Mikor aztán hárman egyedül maradtak a lakásban, megszólalt
Cachelin csöndesre fogott hangja:
– Most, hogy a cseléd aludni ment, utánanézhetünk, nincs-e
valami elrejtve a bútorokban?
És a két férfi munkának látott. Kiürítettek minden fiókot,
kiforgattak minden zsebet, széthajtogattak minden apró papirost.
Éjfélig semmi különöset sem találtak. Corát elnyomta a kimerültség,
horkolt is kissé, szokott csendes módján. César felvetette a kérdést:
– Virrasszunk?
Lesable zavarában ezt tartotta megfelelőbbnek. Erre az após is
így döntött:
– Akkor, – mondta – hozzunk be karosszékeket.
És becipelték a két másik kipárnázott széket is, melyek a fiatal
házasok bútoraihoz tartoztak.
Egy órával később a család mindhárom tagja aludt, egyenetlen
horkolással, az örök mozdulatlanságba dermedt holttest előtt.
Világos nappalra ébredtek fel, mikor a kis cseléd belépett a
szobába. Cachelin rögtön elismerte, szemeit dörzsölve, hogy:
– Elszundikáltam egy kicsit, alig lehet félórája.
Lesable azonban, aki azonnal úrrá vált magán, kijelentette:
– Vettem észre! Én egy percre sem bóbiskoltam el, csak csukva
tartottam a szemem, hogy pihenjen.
Cora visszavonult a szobájába.
Lesable ekkor színlelt közönnyel kérdezte:
 – Mikor menjünk el a közjegyzőhöz, megtudni, hogy szól a
végrendelet?
– Hát… akár még ma reggel, ha akarod.
– Szükséges, hogy Cora is velünk jöjjön?
– Talán úgy lesz jobb, mert hiszen végeredményben ő az örökös.
– Akkor megyek, szólok neki, hogy készülődjön fel.
S Lesable ment, szokott gyors lépteivel.
Belhomme úr irodáját éppen nyitották, mikor Cachelin, Lesable
és felesége megjelentek, mély gyászban, vigasztalan arccal.
A közjegyző azonnal fogadta és leültette őket. Cachelin vitte a
szót:
– Uram, tetszik ismerni, én a Charlotte Cachelin fivére vagyok.
Ez itt a lányom meg a vőm. Szegény nővérem tegnap meghalt,
holnap temetjük. Minthogy végrendelete önnél van letéve,
bátorkodunk megkérdezni, hogy a megboldogultnak nincs-e valami
külön meghagyása az elföldelésre vonatkozólag s egyébként is,
nincsenek-e önnek közlendői velünk?
A közjegyző kihúzott egy fiókot, borítékot vett elő, feltépte,
kihalászott egy papírlapot s jelentette:
– Tessék, uram, a végrendelet másolata, melyet azonnal
megismertetek önökkel. A másik példány, mely ezzel pontosan
egyezik, kezeim közt marad.
És olvasta:
»Én, alulírott, Victorine-Charlotte Cachelin, a következőkben
nyilvánítom végső akaratomat:
Egész vagyonomat, mely körülbelül egymillió százhúszezer
frankra rúg, azokra a gyermekekre hagyom, akik unokahúgom,
Céleste-Coralie Cachelin házasságából fognak származni, azzal,
hogy a jövedelmet az elsőszülött nagykorúságáig a szülők élvezzék.
 Az alább következő rendelkezések szabályozzák az egyes
gyermekekre jutó részt, valamint azt a részt, amely a szülőké marad
halálukig.
Abban az esetben, ha halálom előbb következnék be, semhogy
unokahúgom örökösnek adna életet, egész vagyonom közjegyzőm
kezei közt marad, három évig, megjegyeztetvén, hogy fentebb jelzett
akaratom teljesíttessék, mihelyt ezen idő alatt a gyermek
megszületnék.
Abban az esetben azonban, ha Coraliet az Ég nem áldaná meg
gyermekkel a halálomat követő három év alatt, vagyonom osztassék
szét, közjegyzőm közbenjöttével, a szegények közt és azon
jótékonysági intézmények közt, melyek lajstroma alább következik.«
És most mindenféle szeretetház-nevek, számok, rendelkezések
és meghagyások végtelen sora következett.
Aztán Belhomme úr udvariasan átnyujtotta az okmányt
Cachelinnek, aki elképedve állt előtte.
A közjegyző szükségesnek vélte, hogy maga is szóljon pár
magyarázó szót:
– Mikor Cachelin kisasszony – mondta – legelsőízben tisztelt
meg azzal, hogy közölje velem ezen értelemben leendő
végrendelkezési szándékát, kifejezte azt is, mily végtelenül vágyódik
egy véréből származó örökös után. Ellenvetéseimre akaratának
mind határozottabb megformulázásával felelt, ami egyébként
vallásos érzéseiből sarjadt, mivel, – úgy gondolta, – minden meddő
házasság égi átok alatt áll. Nem tudtam rávenni szándéka
legcsekélyebb megváltoztatására sem. Élénken sajnálom, tessék
elhinni.
Aztán hozzátette, Coralie felé mosolyogva:
– Nem kételkedem benne, hogy az elhúnyt desideratum-a
mihamarébb teljesülni fog!
 S a három örökségváró távozott, nagy megdöbbenésükben
szinte gondolkodni sem tudva.
Mentek hazafelé, egymás mellett lépkedve, hang nélkül,
szégyenkezve és dühösen, mintha kölcsönösen megrabolták volna
egymást. Még Corának is egyszeriben eloszlott minden gyásza:
nagynénje hálátlansága felmentette a siratás kötelessége alól. Végre
Lesable, akinek sápadt ajkait görcsbe szorította a bosszúság,
odaszólt apósának:
– Adja csak ide azt az írást, hadd ismerjem meg de visu is!
Cachelin odanyujtotta a papírt s a fiatalember elkezdte olvasni.
Megállt a járdán s miközben a járókelők neki-nekiütköztek, úgy
maradt, beleásva kutató és gyakorlott szemét a sorok közé. A másik
kettő pár lépésnyire tőle várt, még mindig hallgatagon.
Végre ezekkel a szavakkal adta vissza a végrendeletet:
– Nincs mit tenni ellene! Szépen lóvá tettek bennünket!
Cachelin, akit reményei pusztulása ingerültté tett, felelt:
– Teringettét, a te kötelességed lett volna gyerekről gondoskodni!
Jól tudtad, hogy Charlottenak régesrég ez volt a fővágya.
Lesable válasz helyett rándított egyet a vállán.
Ahogy hazaértek, egész tömeg várta már őket, csupa olyan
ember, akiknek mestersége a halottak körül folytatódik. Lesable
rögtön visszavonult, semmivel sem akart tovább törődni, César
pedig mindenkit végiggorombáskodott, kiabálva, hogy őt hagyják
békén s csinálják minél gyorsabban a dolgukat. Úgy érezte, hogy
szándékosan késleltetik a hullától való megszabadulásban.
Cora, szobájába zárkózva, meg se mukkant. Cachelin azonban,
egy óra mulva, bekopogtatott a veje ajtaján:
– Kedves Leopold, – mondta, – azért jövök, hogy hányjuk és
vessük meg a teendőket, mert végre is meg kell állapodnunk
valamiben. Véleményem szerint mégis csak tisztességes temetést
kell rendeznünk, nehogy a minisztériumban neszét vegyék a
történteknek. A költségeket majd elintézzük. Különben sincs veszve
semmi. Még nem régóta vagytok házasok s igazán ritka pech lenne,
ha nem születne gyereketek. Majd gondotok lesz rá, ennyi az egész!
Most intézzük el a legsürgősebb tennivalókat. Te úgye mielőbb
bemégy a minisztériumba? Most összeírom, ki mindenkinek kell
gyászjelentést küldeni!
Lesable fanyarul ismerte el, hogy apósának igaza van s leültek,
szembe egymással, a hosszú asztal két végére, hogy megcímezzék
a feketeszegélyes cédulákat.
Aztán első ebéd következett. Cora közömbös arccal jelent meg,
mintha mindez egyáltalán nem érintené s az este óta tartó böjt után
jól befalatozott.
Étkezés után rögtön visszazárkózott a szobájába. Lesable elment
a tengerészeti minisztériumba, Cachelin pedig kitelepedett a
balkónra, lovaglóülésben helyezkedve el a széken s pipára gyujtott.
Lomha nyári napsütés verte a házfedelek tömegét s egyik-másik
üvegtető lángolva izzott, vakító sugarakat szórva, melyeket a tekintet
nem tudott elviselni.
S Cachelin, ingujjra vetkőzve, hunyorgó szemmel a fény
özönében, a messzi, messzi dombokat nézte, melyek zölden intettek
felé, túl a nagy városon, túl a poros külső telkeken. Arra gondolt,
hogy locsog most a széles, csöndes és hűvös Szajna a halmok
alján, melyeknek lejtőin fák vannak s hogy milyen borzasztóan jobb
volna most a lombok alatt, hasalni a fűben, egészen a folyam szélén,
a vízbe köpködni s nem a terasz ólomlapján sülni. S rossz érzés
kezdte émelyíteni, szerencsétlenségük kínzó gondolata és fájdalmas
érzése, a váratlan balsors, amely annál keservesebb és vadabb volt,
mert olyan eleven és hosszú reménykedés előzte meg. S hangosan
mondta, ahogy nagy lelki megrázkódtatások idején, a rögeszmék
kábulatában fakad ki az ember:
– Piszok ringyó!
 Háta mögül, a szobából, a temetkezési vállalat embereinek
motozását hallotta, a koporsószögező kalapács szakadatlan
kopácsolását. A közjegyzőnél tett látogatás óta nem nézte meg újra
holt nővérét.
Lassanként azonban a dús nyári nap melege, vidámsága és
fénylő varázsa átjárták testét-lelkét: eszébe jutott, hogy még nincs
oda minden. Miért is ne lehetne gyermeke az ő leányának? Hiszen
még két éve sincs, hogy férjnél van! Veje pedig izmos, kemény, jó
erőben levő embernek látszik, ha kicsiny is. Lesz gyerekük, a
mindenét neki! Lesz, mert különben is, kell lennie!
Lesable lopva surrant be a minisztériumba s hivatali szobájába.
Asztalán papírlap várta, ezekkel a szavakkal: »A főnök kéreti.«
Először türelmetlen mozdulatot tett, lázadozva a zsarnokság ellen,
mely újra a nyakába ül, aztán vad és heves vágy lepte meg, csak
azért is felülkerekedni! Őbelőle is lesz még főnök, és pedig hamar; –
aztán előre, még magasabbra!
Le sem vetve kimenő-redingote-ját ment be Torchebeuf-höz.
Azzal a lesújtott arccal jelentkezett, amilyet szomorú alkalmakkor
vesz fel az ember, sőt mi több, valami mély és igazi bánat jele is ott
volt a kifejezésében, az az önkénytelen levertség, melyet a váratlan
csapások vésnek a vonásokba.
A főnök vaskos feje, mely most is valami papírlap fölött csüggött,
felemelkedett s nyers hang kérdezte:
– Egész délelőtt szükségem lett volna magára. Miért nem jött be?
Lesable felelt:
– Kedves jó főnök úr, csapás ért bennünket, Charlotte nénémet
elvesztettük s azért is jöttem, hogy meghívjam önt a holnapi
temetésre.
Torchebeuf arca azonnal nyájassá derült. S szinte elismeréssel
válaszolta:
 – Az már más, kedves barátom. Köszönöm a meghívást s
mingyárt szabadságot is adok önnek, mert most bizonyára sok a
teendője.
Lesable azonban ragaszkodott a hivatalnoki buzgósághoz:
– Köszönöm, kedves jó főnök úr, de már minden el van intézve s
itt fogok maradni a rendes hivatalos időig.
Azzal visszatért a szobájába.
A hír elterjedt s a hivatalokból mindenfelől jöttek az érdeklődők,
akik inkább gratulációkkal, mint részvétnyilatkozatokkal halmozták el
s kíváncsiak voltak, hogyan viselkedik az új örökös. Lesable
elszántan, egy színész álarcával fogadta a frázisokat és tekinteteket,
oly kitünően találta el a viselkedését, hogy elbámultak rajta. »Jól
tartja magát«, – mondták. »Mindegy, – szóltak közbe mások, –
alapjában véve bizonyára nagyon meg van elégedve.«
Maze, aki merészebb volt a többieknél, megkérdezte tőle, a
világfiak fesztelen modorában:
– Tudja már a hagyaték pontos összegét?
Lesable tökéletes nyugalommal felelte, mint akit a dolog
egyáltalán nem érdekel:
– Nem egész pontosan. A végrendelet körülbelül
egymilliókétszázezer frankról szól. Onnan tudom, mert a
közjegyzőnek sürgősen közölnie kellett velünk bizonyos kikötéseket,
amelyek a temetésre vonatkoznak.
Általános volt a vélemény, hogy Lesable nem marad a
minisztériumban. Hatvanezer livre évjáradékkal az ember nem
körmöl tovább. Úgy már v a l a k i az ember s tetszése szerint lesz
belőle, ami akar. Voltak akik azt vélték, hogy az államtanács felé fog
kacsingatni, mások inkább úgy hitték, hogy majd képviselő igyekszik
lenni. A főnök várta a lemondást, hogy az igazgató elé terjeszthesse.
Az egész minisztérium kivonult a temetésre, melyet
szegényesnek találtak. De híre járt, hogy maga Cachelin kisasszony
kívánta így: benne volt a végrendeletben!
Cachelin már másnap folytatta a szolgálatot, Lesable pedig,
egyheti gyöngélkedés után, szintén megjelent, kissé sápadtan
ugyan, de szívós és lelkes munkaerővel, mint azelőtt. Mintha semmi
változás nem történt volna az életükben. Mindössze annyit lehetett
észrevenni, hogy tüntetőleg szívtak vastag szivarokat s hogy
járadékokról, vasutakról, nagy összegekről beszéltek, oly emberek
módjára, akiknek értékpapírok vannak a zsebében. Rövid idő multán
annak is híre ment, hogy Párizs környékén villát béreltek s ott fejezik
be a nyarat.
Az emberek ilyeneket gondoltak: »Éppen olyan fösvények, mint a
vénkisasszony volt; családi vonás; megtalálta zsák a foltját; mindegy,
azért mégse úri dolog bentmaradni a minisztériumban ilyen
vagyonnal.«
Aztán nem törődtek velük többet. Megmérettek és könnyűnek
találtattak.

IV.

Charlotte néni temetése után Lesable egyre csak a millióra

gondolt s dühében, mely annál hevesebben marta, minél jobban
kellett titkolnia, az egész világot meggyűlölte siralmas balsorsa miatt.
Ő is kérdezgette magában: »Kétévi házasság alatt miért nem
született gyermekünk?« S a félelem, hogy családi élete meddő
marad, riadtan doboltatta meg a szívét.
És ekkor, akárcsak a suhanc, aki felnéz a magas és zsírosan
fénylő mászórúd csúcsára s a kitűzött lepényt szemlélve, keményen
teszi fel magában, hogy törik-szakad, de neki lesz ereje és kitartása
a sikerhez, Lesable kétségbeesett elszántsággal határozta el, hogy
apává kell válnia. Hiszen annyian lettek azzá, miért ne lehetne hát ő
is? Talán hanyag volt, gondatlan, talán nem is tudott eleget a
dologhoz, hiszen teljesen közönyösen hagyta eddig az ilyesmi.
Sohasem érezvén az utódhagyás erős vágyát, nem törekedett teljes
lélekkel erre az eredményre. Ezentúl majd megfeszíti minden erejét,
nem hagy figyelmen kívül semmit s meglesz a siker, mert így akarja.
Mikor azonban hazament, valósággal rosszul érezte magát és
ágyba kellett feküdnie. A csalódás nagyon is nyers volt, nem bírta ki
a visszahatást.
Az orvos meglehetősen komolynak találta állapotát s feltétlen
pihenést rendelt, mellyel további, jócskán hosszúra szabott
önkímélési idő kényszerűsége is járt. Súlyos idegláz veszélye
fenyegetett.
Egy hét mulva mégis újra talpraállt Lesable s ismét elfoglalta
hivatalát a minisztériumban.
Azonban még mindig betegnek érezte magát s nem mert
közeledni a hitvesi ágyhoz. Habozott és reszketett, mint a hadvezér,
aki csatára készül, csatára, melytől jövője függ. S estéről-estére a
másnapot leste, az egészség, a testi-lelki jóérzés és energia egy
olyan órájáért sóvárogva, mikor az ember mindenre képesnek hiszi
magát. Minden pillanatban az üterét tapogatta, hol gyöngének, hol
túlgyorsnak találva az érverést, izgatószereket szedett, félig nyers
húst evett, hazamenés előtt hosszú, edző sétákat tartott.
Mivel sehogy sem kapott erőre úgy, ahogy szerette volna, azt
vette a fejébe, hogy a meleg időszak végét valahol Párizs környékén
tölti el. S csakhamar megérlelődött benne a hit, hogy a mezők
szabad levegője döntő hatással lesz vérmérsékletére. Az övéhez
hasonló állapotban csodás, biztos eredményeket szokott hozni a
vidéki élet. A közeli sikernek ez a bizonyossága megnyugtatta s újra
meg újra elmondta apósának, sokat sejtető hangsúlyozással:
– Ha kinn leszünk a falun, teljesen összeszedem magam s
minden rendben lesz.
Már a puszta »falu« szó is valami misztikus jelentőséggel
csengett a fülében.
 Kibéreltek tehát egy kis házat Bezonsban s mindhárman
kiköltöztek a faluba. A két férfi reggelente gyalog lábalt át a síkon a
colombesi állomásra s este is gyalogosan tértek vissza.
Cora, akit elbűvölt ez az élet a szelíd folyam mentén, le-leült a
lejtős parton, szedte a virágot s szőke és reszkető fűkalászokból
kötött nagy csokrokkal ment haza.
Esténként mind a hárman lesétáltak a folyam hosszában a
Lazacos-gátig s betértek egy-egy üveg sörre a Hársfa-vendéglőbe. A
folyam, megtorlódva a hosszú cöveksoron, átsustorgott a réseken, s
vagy száz méternyi szélességben szökellt, dobolt és tajtékzott
tovább. A zuhogó hullámok harsogásától rengett a part, a levegőben
pedig finom vízpor felhőzött, lengő és nedves pára, mely úgy
emelkedett föl a vízesésből, mint holmi könnyű füst, a szétpaskolt
hab és a felkavart iszap illatát hintve szét.
Leszállt az éj. Szemközt, messzire, a nagy világosság Párizst
hirdette s Cachelin minden este elmondta rá:
– Hű! Mégis csak fene nagy város ez a Párizs.
Olykor-olykor egy-egy vonat, amint áthaladt a sziget végét
keresztbeszelő vashídon, mennydörgésszerűen robajlott s
csakhamar eltűnt, jobbra vagy balra, Párizs vagy a tenger felé.
Lassú léptekkel fordultak vissza s nézték a felkelő holdat, leülve
egy-egy árok szélére, hogy minél tovább láthassák a csöndes
folyamba omló puha és sárga fényt, mely mintha együtt úszott volna
a vízzel s melyet az ár völgyelései úgy remegtettek át magukon, mint
valami tűzből szőtt habselymet. Felzendült a békák rövid, fémes
hangú kurjongatása. Éji madarak egymást hivogató hangja hasított
át a levegőn. S olykor egy-egy nagy néma árny suhant tova a folyón,
megtörve fénylő és csöndes iramlását. Portyázó halászok bárkái
voltak, melyekből hirtelen ki-kivetették a hálót s zajtalanul vonták be
újra, tág és sötét öblében a villogó és ficánkoló potykákkal, mint
valami vízmélyi kincset, ezüst halak élő kincsét.
Cora megindult gyöngédséggel támaszkodott férje karjára,
kitalálva a férfi vágyát, noha sohasem beszéltek a dologról. Mintha
jegyességük másodvirágzását élték volna, új várását a nászi
csóknak. A férj olykor lopva végigsimította a nő füle mögött a
nyakszirt kezdődő hajlatát, a lágy formák finom zugocskáját, ahol az
első pelyhek selymesednek. Az asszony kézszorítással válaszolt s
vágytak egymásra, egyelőre mégis lemondva egymásról, felajzottan
és visszakorbácsoltan egy még hatalmasabb akarat parancsától, a
millió álomképétől.
Cachelin, akit lecsillapított a maga körül érzett reménykedés,
boldogan élt, nagyokat ivott és evett, s alkonyattájt valami költői
megszállottságba ringatózott, abba az együgyű ellágyulásba, mely a
legtompább lelkeken is erőt vesz egy-egy természeti látványosság
előtt: mikor fény záporoz végig a lombokon s a távoli dombok közt
lemegy a nap, bíbor visszfényekkel a folyó tükrén. Kibökte:
– Ilyenkor, ha efféléket látok, hiszek az Istenben. Az ilyesmi
belém markol, – folytatta, gyomra táját tapogatva – s valósággal
megtérek. Egész furcsákat érzek. Mintha valami fürdőbe mártogattak
volna, amitől sírni szeretnék.
Lesable pedig kezdte magát jobban érezni, hév ébredt benne,
melyet már elfelejtett, futni szeretett volna, mint egy csikó,
meghempergőzni a fűben, kiabálni jókedvében.
Elérkezettnek látta az időt. Igazi új nászéjszaka volt az.
Azután a mézeshetek jöttek, tele szerelemmel és
reménykedéssel.
Azután tapasztalniuk kellett, hogy minden kísérletük meddő
maradt s bizakodásuk hiúnak bizonyult.
Maga volt ez a kétségbeesés, a katasztrófa! Lesable azonban
nem veszítette el a bátorságát, emberfölötti erőfeszítéssel
makacskodott. Felesége, ugyanannak a vágynak izgalmával s
ugyanannak a félelemnek remegésével, egyszersmind pedig a maga
izmosabb testiségével is, készségesen engedte át magát férje
kísérleteinek, tüzelte csókjait s szűntelenül élesztgette lankadó
hevét.
 Október első napjaiban tértek vissza Párizsba.
Életük elkomorodott. Szájukon most már kellemetlen szavak
csúsztak ki, s Cachelin, kiszimatolva a helyzetet, a maga mérgezett
és trágár obsitos-kiszólásaival gyötörte őket.
S szűntelenül üldözte mindegyiküket, vájta és hegyezte
kölcsönös dühüket a megkaparíthatatlan örökség gondolata.
Corának most már felvágták a nyelvét s agyonkínozta a férjét. Kisfiú
volt a szemében, anyámasszonykatonája, aki nem számít. Cachelin
pedig minden ebédnél elismételte:
– Nekem, ha gazdag lettem volna, csőstül volna gyerekem…
Persze, ha szegény az ember, okosnak kell lennie…
S leánya felé fordulva, még hozzátette:
– Te biztosan olyan is vagy, mint én, dehát ez itt…
És jelentős pillantást vetett a veje felé, megvetéssel teljes
mozdulatra rántva a vállát.
Lesable nem szállt vitára, felsőbbrendű emberként, aki
parasztcsalád közé keveredett. A minisztériumban úgy találták, hogy
rossz színben van. Egyszer a főnök meg is kérdezte:
– Nem beteg ön? Mintha valahogy megváltozott volna!
Felelt:
– Dehogy, kedves jó főnök úr! Talán a fáradtság látszik meg
rajtam. Mostanában sokat dolgoztam, hiszen láthatta ön.
Nagyban számított az évvégi előléptetésre s ebben a reményben
újra nekifeküdt minta-hivatalnoki robotjának.
Teljesen jelentéktelen jutalomfélét kapott, kevesebbet, mint bárki
másé. Apósa, Cachelin pedig semmit.
Lesable, szívén találva, újra bement a főnökhöz s ezúttal
elsőízben szólította egyszerűen »uram«-nak:
 – Uram, hát érdemes úgy dolgozni, ahogy én teszem, ha az
ember nem látja semmi gyümölcsét?
Torchebeuf vaskos feje sértődött mozdulattal ütődött fel:
– Mondtam már önnek, Lesable úr, hogy az ilyfajta
eszmecserének nincs helye köztünk. Újra ismétlem, hogy
ildomtalannak találom ezt a kérdőrevonást, mivel ön az adott
esetben igen gazdag ember szegény kollégáihoz képest…
Lesable nem türtőztethette tovább magát:
– De ha egyszer semmim sincs, uram! Nagynénénk a
házasságomból születendő elsőszülött gyermekre hagyta a
vagyonát. Én és apósom a fizetésünkből élünk!
A főnök meglepődött, de aztán válaszolt:
– Nos, ha ma még nincs is semmije, legközelebb mégis csak
gazdag lesz. És így egyre megy…
Lesable takarodót fújt, jobban lesujtva az elveszett előléptetés,
mint a megmarkolhatatlan örökség miatt.
Mikor azonban, pár nappal később, Cachelin megérkezett a
hivatalba, a szép Maze ajkán mosoly jelent meg, majd Pitolet lépett
be s a szemei csillogtak. Utána Boissel nyomta be az ajtót s fürgén
sietett előre, sunnyogó jókedvvel nézve össze a többiekkel. Savon
apó tovább másolt, szája csücskében lógó agyagpipájával, magas
székén kuporogva, felrakott lábakkal, ahogy a kisfiúk szoktak ülni.
Senki sem szólt egy szót sem. Mintha valamire vártak volna. S
Cachelin iktatta az ügydarabokat, szokása szerint hangosan mondva
maga elé:
– Toulon. Tiszti csajka-felszerelés a Richelieu számára. – Lorient.
Úszóövek a Desaix számára. – Brest. Angol gyártmányú
vitorlavászonminták.
Lesable jelent meg. Mostanában minden reggel bejött a rája eső
aktákért, mivel apósa nem vett magának annyi fáradságot, hogy a
szolgával küldje be őket hozzá.
Miközben Lesable a rendtiszt asztalán heverő papírok közt
kotorászott, Maze oldalt sandított rá, kezeit dörzsölve, a cigarettáját
sodró Pitolet szájaszélén pedig vidám vonás vetett kis ráncot, a már
visszafojthatatlan jókedv hirdetője. A másoló öreghez fordult:
– Úgye, Savon papa, maga sokat tapasztalt világéletében, mi?
Az öreg, tudva, hogy most gúnyolódni akarnak vele s megint a
feleségével hozakodnak elő, nem felelt.
Pitolet újrakezdte:
– Maga biztosan rátalált a nyitjára, hogyan kell gyerekeket
fabrikálni, mivelhogy több gyereke is volt, úgy-e?
Szegény öreg felemelte a fejét:
– Ön tudja, Pitolet úr, hogy nem szeretem az efféle tréfákat.
Szerencsétlenségemre méltatlan személyt vettem feleségül. Mikor
megbizonyosodtam a hűtlenségéről, el is váltam tőle.
Maze közömbös hangon kérdezte és nem nevetett:
– Több ízben is megbizonyosodott, nem?
Savon apó komolyan válaszolta:
– Igen, uram.
Pitolet kapta el újra a szót:
– Ez azonban nem akadályozta meg abban, hogy apja ne legyen
egypár gyereknek, háromnak vagy négynek is, ahogy hallom.
A jámbor öreg roppantul elpirult, úgy hebegte:
– Ön sértegetni akar, Pitolet úr, de ez sem fog önnek sikerülni.
Feleségemnek valóban volt három gyermeke. Okom van feltételezni,
hogy az első tőlem való, a másik kettőt azonban nem ismerem el.
Pitolet folytatta:
 – Csakugyan, mindenki azt mondja, hogy az első a magáé. Ez
elég is. Nagyon szép dolog, ha az embernek van egy gyermeke,
nagyon szép dolog és nagy boldogság. Fogadjunk, hogy Lesable
sokat adna érte, ha csak egyet is tudna sikeríteni, úgy, mint maga
tudott!
Cachelin abbahagyta a lajstromozást. Nem nevetett, noha Savon
apó a szokásos, megkínzott pofozógép-arcot mutatta s ilyenkor a
szabadszájú tréfák özönét szokta rázúdítani az öreg házastársi
viszontagságaira.
Lesable már összeszedte az írásait, de érezve, hogy a támadás
neki szól, maradni akart, visszatartotta a dac, egyben pedig zavart
és ingerült is volt, próbálta kitalálni, ki adhatott így túl a titkán. Aztán
eszébe jutott, mit mondott a főnöknek s nyomban megértette, hogy
azonnal a legteljesebb energiát kell tanusítania, ha nem akar az
egész minisztérium céltáblája lenni.
Boissel le és föl járt a szobában, szinte vinnyogva. Az uccai
kikiáltók rekedt hangját utánozva bődült el: »A gyerekgyártás titka,
csak tíz centime, két sou! Tessék, tessék, a gyerekgyártás titka,
monsieur Savon szabadalma, töméntelenül borzasztóan érdekes!«
Mindenki nevetett, csak Lesable és az apósa nem. Pitolet pedig
odafordult a rendtiszthez:
– Mi baja, Cachelin úr? Hová tette a jókedvét? Azt hinné az
ember, hogy nem is mulat azon, hogy Savon apónak mégis csak van
egy gyereke a feleségétől. Ez pedig nagyon jó vicc, szerintem. Nem
mindenki tudja idáig vinni!
Lesable újra elkezdett a papírjai közt babrálni, úgy tett, mintha
olvasna és nem hallana semmit, de sápadt volt.
Boissel megint rákezdte a piaci kikiáltást:
– Használhatja mindenki, aki meg akarja kapni az örökségét,
csak tíz centime, két sou, tessék, tessék.
 Ekkor Maze, aki alantasnak találta az ilyenfajta elménckedést s
aki különben is személyes haragot forralt Lesable ellen, amiért
megfosztotta a vagyon reményétől, melyet titokban ott táplált a
szívében, közvetlen kérdéssel állt elő:
– Rosszul van, Lesable? olyan sápadt!
Lesable felkapta a fejét s farkasszemet nézett kollégájával. Pár
másodpercig remegő ajkkal habozott, valami metsző, de szellemes
mondást keresve, de sehogy sem találva. Felelt:
– Kutyabajom. Csak csodálom, mennyi finom puskaport
elpazarolnak az urak…
Maze, még mindig háttal a tűznek, redingote-ja két szárnyát
maga elé fogta s nevetve mondta:
– Az ember igyekszik, kedvesem. Úgy vagyunk vele, mint ön:
nem mindig úgy sül el, ahogy kéne…
Kitörő hahota szakította félbe. Savon apó, aki félhülyén is sejteni
kezdte, hogy most már nem őt bántják és gúnyolják, lefittyent szájjal
várt, tolla megakadt a levegőben. És Cachelin is várt, készen
bármely pillanatban ököllel esni annak, aki éppen a kezeügyébe
kerül.
Lesable dadogott:
– Nem… értem… Mi nem sült el?… hogy érti?…
A szép Maze visszaejtette az egyik redingoteleffentyűt, hogy
megpödörhesse a bajuszát s finomkodó hangon mondta:
– Jól tudom, hogy önnek rendszerint minden vállalkozása jól sül
el. Alapjában tehát nem helyes, hogy önt is szóbahoztam. Különben
is Savon papa gyerekeiről volt szó és nem az önéiről, hisz önnek
nincsenek is. Hiszen tekintettel arra, hogy önnek minden
vállalkozása jól üt ki, nyilvánvaló, hogy gyermekei is csak azért
nincsenek, mert nem akarta, hogy legyenek…
Lesable nyersen vágott közbe:
 – Talán nem ütné ilyesmibe az orrát…
A kihívó szavakra Maze is felemelte a hangját:
– Kérem, micsoda hang ez? Beszéljen tisztességesen, mert
meggyűlhet velem a baja!
De Lesable már reszketett a dühtől s elveszített minden
mértéket:
– Maze úr, én nem vagyok holmi léha figura, vagy kinyalt uracs,
mint ön. Ha szabad kérnem, kíméljen meg ezentúl a barátságától.
Semmi közöm önhöz, és a magafajtájú népséghez.
Kihívó tekintettel kísérte szavait Pitolet és Boissel felé.
Maze hirtelen megértette, hogy az igazi erő a hallgatás és az
irónia; azonban hiúsága alapjaiban lévén megsértve, szíven akarta
találni ellenfelét s protektori hangon, a baráti jótanács szavával
szólalt meg, miközben szemében ott izzott a düh:
– Kedves Lesable, ön túlmegy a határon. Egyébként megértem
bosszúságát; gonosz dolog elesni a vagyontól s hozzá még olyan
kicsiség miatt, olyan könnyű, egyszerű izé miatt… Nézze csak, ha
akarja, én szolgálatára állok, teljesen ingyen, baráti szívességből. Öt
perc az egész…
Még beszélt, mikor Savon apó kalamárisa, melyet Lesable
hozzávágott, melle közepén találta. Tintaáradat fröccsent szét az
arcán, meglepő hirtelenséggel csinálva négert belőle. Előre ugrott, a
szeme fehérje forgott, kezét ütésre emelte. Cachelin azonban
fedezte a vejét, átnyalábolva a nagy Maze-t, akit jól összerázva és
oldalbadögönyözve nekilódított a falnak. Maze vad erőfeszítéssel
szabadította ki magát, feltépte az ajtót s visszakiáltott a két emberre:
– Még hallanak rólam!
Azzal eltűnt.
Pitolet és Boissel követték. Boissel azzal magyarázta ki
tartózkodó viselkedését, hogy beavatkozás esetén alighanem