Race Divisions in the United States

The concept of race is one which has seen a relatively recent introduction into American culture, and one which is falsely understood to have a biological basis by many individuals. Racial categories place people together in one group based on physical features which are perceived as being similar, despite stark differences in ethnicity. Because many are under the impression that racial divisions are as distinct, “natural,” and easily conceptualized as differences in species, rules like hypodescent dictate the manner in which many researchers approach populations, thus further perpetuating a misguided perception of humans.
Race changes across social and political dynamics, however, so it is defined differently in different societies. In the United States, race is most commonly defined by society using identifying features such as facial features, hair texture, skin color, etc. What is interesting about this definition is that when it becomes problematic (i.e. if one’s hair is curly and dark, but one’s skin is light), it confuses (and even disturbs) many members of society because then they are not able to classify the individual.
These human classifications are acknowledged by authoritative figures in society, which replenishes the bases for these categories, which creates a cyclic effect (though there are many more factors which help to catalyze this cycle). Such authority includes the United States Census Bureau, Charles Darwin, and many other researchers who argue for the existence of a correlation between race and intangible characteristics (i.e. intelligence).
Oftentimes, many individuals (particularly in the dominant group of “white” Americans) see minority groups (such as the NAACP) which identify themselves as belonging to a racial category, and don’t understand why this is the case. The question arises: if a group of individualsfind racial categories to be problematic, why does that group then acknowledge and use these categories to define itself? The answer obviously varies among different groups, but one possible answer is that in order to gain any ethos when addressing authoritative figures about discrimination, these groups have to appeal to what the authority thinks it knows to be “natural” and true. For a similar reason, large organizations of minorities like the NAACP recruit minorities to identify themselves as black so that they can gain more power in society because larger groups are more likely to be heard.
Similarly, minority groups often work together. This kind of collaboration is vital for diversity groups to gain any sort of power. This is because although the challenges of these groups may seem different, they are the same. However, members of the dominant groups in society do not face these kinds of challenges, and thus do not have to collaborate in this same way. Therefore, when minority groups try to coordinate with the dominant group, it becomes difficult. This separation thus has created yet another obstacle for the integration of minority groups into the dominant one.
There are other perceptions of minority groups which may appear to be favorable towards that group, but are just as inaccurate. For instance, there is a common perception that black people are more suited for athletic sports. While some individuals who had ancestors in West Africa may have biological features which favor conditions for athleticism, there are no biological characteristics which unite black people as one group. Similar misconceptions involve Asian Americans being labeled “model minorities” in the United States. These misconceptions are not only detrimental to these groups as a whole, but also present large problems for individuals who do not fit this stereotype.
The way in which the society of the United States conceptualizes race enables racial problems to exist and continue to antagonize the individuals belonging to minority groups, while allowing members of the dominant white group to ignore these divisions as problems.