Race, ethnicity, and nationality

Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality
Name of the Student
Name of University
Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality
Education is strongly influenced by class barriers, which has been notable under different contexts. During the 1960s, the education system in the United Kingdom was liberalized and was open to all segments of the society. The education system became open for the common mass and was supposed to be free from race, cultural and social barriers. Although the participation of students in colleges and universities increased, there was a distinct skewness in the admission trends. Rather, the expansion of higher education created increased inequalities amongst the social classes in the UK. The admission features in colleges were based on the concept of social and cultural capital, which was termed as “habitus”. Habitus was referred to as a conceptual tool which integrated the individual choice, expectations, and dispositions, in selecting the higher education institutions. There was clearly a demarcation of selection of colleges between the upper/middle class and the working class. The students belonging from the former class could select the place of an educational institution, based on various features. One of such features was the pedigree of the college (race, class, and social strata attended in that college during the previous years). However, the working-class students who had limited exposure to college environments were left with default choices of getting admitted to non-elite colleges.

The Economic mindset was also one of the chef criteria in causing such skewness in admission characteristics (Lester, 2006).
Inequalities have existed regarding religion. However, such inequalities by religion have been politically motivated. After the bombings which took place in London during 2005, the British Prime Minister alleged, that the terrorist attacks were a reflection of the evil side of Islam. The reality is, Islam never promoted terrorism. However, such a comment clearly demonstrated the British society was on the verge of getting divided over religion. It also became apparent from various posts, that the Muslim youths in Britain are not loyal to Britain and their value system. Such speculations were just an apprehension, but the fact remained it created inequality and racialism by religion (Malik, 2005).
It is a rule, rather than the exception that more we want to promote the message of equality by race, culture and religion, the inequality in real life experience becomes more apparent. It is questioned that whether under the prevalence of exploitation, domination, and resistance, could there be inequality on race and ethnicity? The world is witnessing acts of genocide all across the globe, whether it is the United States or Rwanda. It is speculated that as human race diversified into various demographical locations, inequalities about race and ethnicity became more prominent. It has been hypothesized that, as men moved away from the African sub-continent racism became pronounced. Such phenomenon was attributed to the side-effects of man’s necessity for a long-term survival strategy (Batur-VanderLippe, 1999).
Judging and differentiating a person, by the virtue of his or her skin color, remains a reality. People often tend to form an impression of a person by his external phenotype. Skin color is just a scientific and genetic phenomenon, which has nothing to do with race, social class, religion or character of a person. However, judging a person by skin color has led to the effects of social inequality (Patricia, 2012). In the famous book “Fences”, it was clearly revealed that how “blacks” were viewed down and was restricted in the social strata in the United States. Qualities of a person hardly mattered. For example, we could clearly see that “Troy” the central character of the novel was deprived of getting into the baseball team. This was because of his suspected criminal origin, which was tagged with his character due to skin color only.
Race and class distinctions also become apparent, when we analyze the behavior of police officials. The attitude and behavior of police officials towards specific classes vary widely. It has been observed that police officials in the United States are more considerate towards people who are “white.” White people are considered by police officials to be someone who is affluent and are not impoverished. On the other hand, “black” people are regarded to be belonging from minority neighborhoods and are impoverished. With such philosophy in the mind of the police officials, they feel that since “black” people are impoverished, they are responsible for all the criminal activities due to their needs. Although, in police academies, each official are taught the lesson of preaching equality of all in practice settings, they put aside such philosophies after joining the force. They exhibit brutal behavior towards ‘black” people, and in most instances do not give a second thought in shooting them down for an anticipated criminal activity (Shedd, 2010).
Racial disparities become apparent when “Productive engagement” is estimated for older adults. Productive engagement is considered a key factor in ensuring the health of older adults. A study examined the sense of well being from an indirect estimation of “Productive engagement” in African-Americans and Whites in the United States. The study revealed that the “Whites” had a better productive engagement than the Africa-Americans. Therefore, it may be argued that may be due to racial discrimination, the African-Americans are not as much productively engaged compared to their “white” counterparts. Such inequality in engagement can therefore also produce inequality in health amongst African-Americans, compared to their “white” counterparts (Hayward et al., 2000).
It is argued, that even if the society wants to wipe out any inequalities by color, caste, and religion, politics will prevent such wishes. During the 1990s, various legislations and strictures were laid down to prevent the menace of inequality in the United States. The truth remained that even in the 21st century, United States cannot boast of an inequality free culture. Governments all across the world have an important role to manage the issue of racial and ethnic inequalities. However, it becomes apparent on some occasions that government encourages racial and ethnic discriminations for their political interests. Under such circumstances, even the moral intentions of the society in alleviating class and ethnic barriers could not become successful (Wong, 2000).
Racial and ethnic discrimination is also witnessed in the place of work. It is evident that there has been a dramatic change in the socio-economic profile of working women belonging from backward classes and races. However, it is also noted that gender and racial differences, becomes apparent regarding the attainment of authority in their respective workplace. Women and individuals belonging to backward classes or from minority population are subdued, when the question of delegation of authority arises (Smith, 2000).
Racial discrimination at workplace deeply impacts individuals and their families. In an interview with 209 African –Americans all across the United States, it was revealed that “Black” people were discriminated in their respective workplaces. Since, these individuals are also attached to their kin after returning from work; there family also became deeply impacted on the issue of racial discrimination and humiliation suffered by them in their workplace. Such types of humiliations and harassments could also have been the reason of domestic violence or substance abuse. Thus, the impact of racial discrimination does have a direct and indirect effect, which eventually creates more discrimination, when the family members stand beside the injustice to their community in the workplace (Yanick & Feagin, 1998).
Hence, it is the moral responsibility of the Government and the civic society to preach and teach the message of racial, social and ethnic equality to all individuals. We were created as a single race “humans”, and there is no reason we should become disintegrated in the name of caste, creed or religion. This can be done by teaching the true meaning of patriotism. Patriotism could just not arise from exhibiting or declaring an individual’s love for the country. It means much more than a mere declaration or exhibiting patriotism, just for the sake of patriotism (Parker, 2002). An individual can only be called a “true patriot,” if he or she stands besides all forms of racial and social discrimination towards mankind. As “patriots”, they should prevent any injustice done on individuals or group of individuals, by caste, creed or religion. It is then only we can come out from the menace of social inequality and racial discriminations.
References
Batur-VanderLippe, Pinar. (1999).The Future of Ethnicity, Race and Nationality Contemporary Sociology28(3),296-297.
Hayward, M. D., Crimmins, E. M., Milies.T. P., & Yang, Y. (2000). The significance of socioeconomic status in explaining the racial gap in chronic health conditions. American Sociological Review, 65, 910-930
Lester, Jaime. (2006). Degrees of Choice: Social Class, Race and Gender in Higher Education. Review of Higher Education29(3), 412-413.

Malik, Mustafa. (2005). Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity, and Muslims in Britain
Middle East Policy12(4),172-175.
Patricia L. (2012). Race and ethnicity II: Skin and other intimacies. Progress in Human Geography 37(4,) 578–586
Parker, R. (2002).Homeland: An essay on patriotism. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy25(2)407-427.
Shedd, Carla. (2010). “Race and Police Brutality: Roots of an Urban Dilemma”. Contemporary Sociology39(1), 43-44.
Smith, R. (2000). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: Theory and research
Annual Review of Sociology28, 509-542.
Wong, M.(2000). Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in the United States: Toward the Twenty-First Century. Journal of American Ethnic History,19(4), 85-87.
Yanik, S & Feagin, J. (1998). The family costs of White racism: The case of African
American families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies29(2),297-312.