In Omi & Winant’s piece, I thought the idea introduced about how race is a key component to political leaders and political state was intriguing. I particularly enjoyed how chapter five began with an anecdote about the irony of racial politics. Additionally, I thought chapter four really provoked the idea of how involved government is in racial formation. It also shows how race is seen differently for the individual as opposed to the state, as shown in Phipps’ case. I agree with their idea that race is “an element of social structure rather than an irregularity within it” (55) because race is clearly an important factor in human interaction, perhaps unconsciously, as well as in the state (government, public health, etc.). However, I thought what Charles Murray (56) said about race not being a good enough reason to treat others differently was interesting because it contradicts what was said earlier about race being used to unevenly distributing rights but then again, it may be impossible for institutions to be “color-blind”.
How does racial formation tie in with the concept of intersectionality?
In Molina’s piece, I thought the focus on public health and how it caused racial formation was interesting. A concept that was intriguing was the idea that “American-ness” was associated with cleanliness. I think that since Chinese, Mexican, and Japanese citizens did not receive adequate health care, their unhygienic lifestyle was exacerbated. Molina further explains that these minorities were ostracized and officials of institutions treated them as if they were toxic to one’s health and to American culture, and as Molina states, ” institutional policies affected a sense of social membership.” Particularly, I though Molina’s evidence that public health discourses used unclean conditions as a way to prove Chinese would not last in the economy.
What resulted in the dramatic decrease of the Chinese population in the county (see Table 1). Was it more necessary for minority groups to be integrated or assimilated?