Race and ethnicity is a phenomena based on social characteristic rather than a biological phenomena. However, ethnicity is a term that represents social groups with a collective history, intellect identity which is geographical and cultural having extraction which may take place in spite of racial difference. Moreover, it refers to selected cultural and considerably physical individuality used to categorize individuals into various groups or categories measured to be considerably different from others (Aspinall P, 2007).
In addition, ethnic cultures have generally played a vital role in determining how a particular individual views, interprets and interact with the world (Aspinall P, 2007). On the other hand, race is a term which refers to a human population well thought out to be different based on physical individuality. Moreover, it is a biological outline or selection of species that includes more or less diverse population with anatomical individuality that distinguish it from other race.
Generally race is mostly a social construct and through overview it is considered that it is only 2 percent of our genes that are eventually responsible for the evidence differences such as skin color (Aspinall P, 2007). In relation, race and ethnicity are constantly developing concepts. They are easy to determine and are relatively used in all places involved in the biomedical literature and thus slick to uphold as ultimate personal characteristics.
Considerably, nations have come to define race for its census takers of which it has come to be upheld as a family, tribe, people or nation belonging to a similar ordinary stock, or a group or type of individuals combined by shared interests, habits or characteristics (Gordon C, 1993). In accordance, the conditions used to reproduce the nation’s altering demographics and growing recognition of human assortment. However, individuals have come to learn and are now able to identify and relate to their own racial and ethnic categories (Gordon C, 1993).
Through explanation, race and ethnicity can be related in various ways where they share principles of common ancestry but are different in quite a few ways. First of all race is mainly unitary. In relation to this, an individual can only have one race while in contrast you can claim various ethnic affiliations (Aspinall P, 2007). However, an individual can identify himself or herself ethnically as Irish and Polish but through contrast one has to be essentially either black or white. Considerably, the basic difference is that race is socially imposed.
Variation is build in the system concerned with race and ethnicity of which each individual has no control over one’s race and apparently it is how you are perceived by others. Apparently, a lot of individuals relate race with biology and ethnicity with culture. Through culture and language, ethnicity is not just a question of attachment; it is a question based on choice that is with relation to various individuals. Moreover, ethnicity is a question of group membership and it is mainly related with a geographic region but it is often confused or conflated with nationality of which it is not the same thing (Tomlinson J, 1991).
In the present day, people have come to categorize with ethnicity positively the reason being that individuals see themselves as being part of that exact group. Moreover, individuals cannot just merely say that they want to become a member of some particular race (Tomlinson J, 1991). Individuals are either members or not of that particular race. In relation, if one wants to look at ethnicity based on culture, one could learn a language and also learn customs and various other things so that one could belong to that group.
Generally, the difference in relation between race and ethnicity is that race becomes institutionalized in a way that has philosophical social consequences on the members of different groups (Gordon C, 1993). There are significant differences related to race and ethnicity that lie in the ways that leading powerful institutions and organizations treat race versus ethnicity. While various individuals could disagree that both ethnicity and race are socially constructed, their authority based on power and variation is in the way that racial identities have been constructed historically.
In addition, individuals could come into an argument that they are both deceptive and predictable, but racial categories have had an actual collision on individuals’ lives, the reason being that these individuals have been used to distinguish and to distribute resources irregularly and set up different standards for protection under a certain law (Gordon C, 1993). Equally, public policy and private institutional and communal actions have formed inequalities based on race. Certainly groups that are definite and are defined as ethically diverse have been discriminated against but not in spectacular ways.
Through impact, ethnic groups that suffered from discrimination were more often than not labeled at that moment as racial groups as well (Tomlinson J, 1991). Moreover, individuals generally make these distinctions between race and ethnicity as being biological or either cultural. In addition, individuals also make these distinctions based on national origins and various things having the same aim. Having these common distinctions between race and ethnicity it is actually important to keep in mind two things.
First of all, equally ethnic and racial identities have changed all through history as time is going on. Secondly, there is very little evidence that people actually see great distinctions between race and ethnicity that is culturally, politically and basically in the daily life. As a matter of fact, there is a history of racial self-identification found in various nations that is very similar to that of ethnic self-identification (Tomlinson J, 1991). There are some reasons why race and ethnicity are used in society and through commonsensical perspective the nonexistence of race seems obviously nonsensical.
Race can be used in society where individuals are submitted in a particular race in a certain society and are recognized through that race (Aspinall P, 2007). After all, to deny the existence of race is to deny the existence of biological fact. Here, it is worth subjecting to critical inspension to critical study the two related notions of ethnicity and race and asking whether a world beyond race is possible (Aspinall P, 2007). The other example is where presumably in ethnicity people guess when they see another individual about the genealogical facts. This is where people recognize other individuals in society from whom they descend.
Moreover, like race, the concept of ethnicity is wrapped up with the notion of genealogy. Here, there is the benefit where it shows that people of the same ethnicity that is descending from common ancestors having common genealogy shows that humanity must bear a single ethnic group. Through comparing the conflict and structural functionalist in perspective to race and ethnicity we find that through various overviews many aspects of the functionalist approach to sociology are similar to those of other sociological approaches that pertain to recognition through race and through ethnicity.
Moreover, these approaches are based on a different particular emphasis on function, interdependence consensus, equilibrium and evolutionary change (Gordon C, 1993). However, there are aspects concerned with sociological approaches considered in race and ethnicity and the most important one is interdependence and equilibrium and through comparison functionalism attempts to explain the relationship of different parts of the system to each other, and to the whole. In addition these parts regularly work hand in hand in an orderly manner without any great conflict (Gordon C, 1993).
Through comparing structural function, different parts of each society donate positively to the operation or functioning of the system as a whole. This is the functional part of the structural functional approach. In contrast functional analysis does not emphasize conflict. In consideration conflict is an integral part of the social world and it generally does not consider change to be dramatic but rather it is evolutionary (Aspinall P, 2007). Still on comparing structural functional approach, argues an equality of opportunity and effects social reforms that encourage race and ethnicity.
Moreover, through comparing the conflict and structural functionalist perspective, influences used by the structural approach are mostly popular explanations in recognition that is in consideration to race. It can also be considered as the sociological counterpart of models of inequality of human capital models in concern with race and ethnicity (Tomlinson J, 1991). Efficiently, the conflict approach revolving around Marx style ideas having do’s and don’ts with concern has one examination of racial and ethnic minorities in various nations like the United States.
Here, the focus is mainly on the social forces behind organizational dominance and minority group responses based on assimilation versus cultural pluralism (Aspinall P, 2007). Moreover, it brings about general collective movements concerning social change. However, through Marx style of haves and have nots implementation of affirmative action have been improved and looked upon of which busing, I. Q. , testing, and genetic screening and birth control have affected race and ethnicity positively (Tomlinson J, 1991).