The existence of race and ethnicity is part of a societal construct designed so that one group, the dominant group, remains superior. If that dominant group - in the case of U.S. culture, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants - is to remain in control of the majority of a society’s wealth and power, then the people belonging to other groups, or minorities, can only be held in subordination by distinguishing them from the dominant group. The simplest way to make that distinction is to separate people according to skin color, which denotes an obvious difference and establishes race. Other distinguishing factors such as religious practices, language and culture patterns further separate groups into ethnicities. In order to understand the relationship between dominant and minority groups, we must first understand the history of these relationships and analyze them as described by the hypotheses presented by Blauner and Noel.
The conditions of initial contact between groups seal the fate of minority groups. According to sociologist Donald Noel, there are three features of this initial contact that lead to immediate and lasting inequality: “If two or more groups come together in a contact situation characterized by ethnocentrism, competition, and a differential in power, then some form of racial or ethnic stratification will result.” (Noel, 1968 p.168). The Noel Hypothesis helps explain why black Africans were enslaved by colonists while white indentured servants or Native Americans were not.
First, all three groups were subjected to the ethnocentric feelings and perceptions on the part of the colonists. This ethnocentrism established what we now call WASPs as the dominant group. Black Africans and Native Americans were perceived as being different first on religious, then later on racial grounds. Many white indentured servants were Irish Catholic, criminals or extremely poor people. They not only occupied a low status in society, but were further perceived as different from the British Protestants who dominated colonial society (Healey, 2007, p. 271).
The second feature of Noel’s hypothesis, competition, existed as well among all three groups. The competition with the Native Americans was direct; they were competing directly for the land and resources with the colonists. Competition with both white and black indentured servants was more indirect; these groups were the labor force needed by landowners in order to make their plantations successful in the New World.
The differential in power, the third variable in Noel’s hypothesis, explains why Africans were enslaved in place of the other groups. Shortly after arriving in the New World, it became apparent to the colonists that there was very little differential in power with Native Americans (Healey, 2007, p 59). While the colonists had guns, the Native Americans were well organized in their tribes and able to mount heavy resistance to being captured or dominated. The issue of power was also in the hands of white indentured servants. Because they were the preferred labor source of the colonists, they had a bargaining tool and were thus able to negotiate more lenient terms for their servitude. They also entered the colonies of their own volition, unlike the Africans who were there under force and coercion, thus establishing a differential in power between themselves and the colonists not found with the other two groups.
It was that forced and coerced entry by Africans into the New World that is the foundation for Robert Blauner’s hypothesis. In his book Racial Oppression in America, Blauner explains that “minority groups created by colonization will experience more intense prejudice, racism, and discrimination than those created by immigration. Furthermore, the disadvantaged status of colonized groups will persist longer and be more difficult to overcome than [that] faced by groups created by immigration.” (Blauner, 1972 p.58) The fact that Africans were forced into the host society while immigrants chose to enter caused the pervasive racism and discrimination felt by today’s African Americans. According to Blauner, immigrants naturally had an easier time assimilating into the dominant culture because of the circumstances under which they entered the host society.
Assimilating into the dominant culture, however, is not merely a matter of immigration versus colonization. It is necessary to point out that skin color played a major role in this. From the 1880s to the 1920s, a large number of Europeans immigrated to the United States. While they initially felt discrimination in the job market, housing and wealth, they and their descendents quickly assimilated and distanced themselves from oppressed groups, many coming to be viewed as “white” rather than as part of a particular culture. Sociologist Robert Park wrote in 1913 “a Pole, Lithuanian, or Norwegian cannot be distinguished, in the second generation, from an American, born of native parents”(Lecture notes, 3-18-2009). In other words, because of their skin color, second-generation European immigrants generally were easily able to assimilate into the dominant group, whereas African Americans, who inhabited the United States since the early 1600s, were not.
An example of a European immigrant group that was not as easily assimilated into the dominant culture is Italian Americans. After their mass migration to the U.S. peaked in the early 1900s, Italian Americans were not treated well and their social mobility was much slower than that of other immigrant groups, leading them to identify heavily with African Americans (Lecture Notes 3-18-09). Because they were the targets of accusations of illegal activity - i.e. mob involvement – Italian Americans resorted to avoidance and established a community separate from society called Little Italy (Lecture Notes 3-18-09), while other groups such as Scots, Dutch, French, and Germans were able to conform and blend into society.
The hypotheses of Blauner and Noel give a clear understanding of the history of race and ethnicity. From the contact situation to the manner in which each group came into the dominant society, it is clear that the dominant group has constructed the concepts of race and ethnicity in order to maintain its dominance. The pervasive nature of the inequality that exists still between groups can best be understood in the scope of its history and through the work of sociologists like Blauner and Noel.
And
The Origins of Dominant/Minority Relations
SOC 201
Verdis Robinson, Instructor
April 1, 2009
Blauner, Robert (1972) Racial Oppression in America. New York, NY: Harper and Row,
Healey, Joseph (2007). Diversity and Society: Race Ethnicity and Gender. California: Pine Forge Press
Noel, Donald L. (1968). "A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification". Social Problems 16 (2): 157–172
Robinson, Verdis (2009). Lecture Notes: SOC 201, March 18, 2009
