Americans tend to adhere to the norm of endogamy when they become intimately involved with another person. How does this organizational tendency relate to perceived threats to dominant group privilege?
A. The rising presence of explicit white nationalism parallels these high rates of racially unmixed relationships and both can be viewed as a tactic to ensure domination in the racial hierarchy.
B. The rising levels of interracial marriages and declining levels of racially homogenous relationships are a contributing factor to the resurgence of biological notions of race that stem from fears of threats to the racial hierarchy.
C. The high rates of endogamy in American relationships are consequences of the recent popularization of biological notions of race, as dominant group members feel threatened by the notion of interracial marriage.
D. Dominant group members fear that their future children will suffer sever social consequences as a result of the “one-drop rule” if they are to marry interracially, so they tend to marry within their own race.
A. The rising presence of explicit white nationalism parallels these high rates of racially unmixed relationships and both can be viewed as a tactic to ensure domination in the racial hierarchy.
C. The high rates of endogamy in American relationships are consequences of the recent popularization of biological notions of race, as dominant group members feel threatened by the notion of interracial marriage.
You might also like to view...
What are the two broad goals of social policy?
a. to raise the quality of life for all citizens and to control the costs of government programs b. to create a social safety net and to raise the quality of life for all citizens c. to create a social safety net and to protect citizens' rights and liberties d. to protect citizens' rights and liberties and to control the costs of government programs
Which of the following is a weakness of the state moralist argument?
a. It runs the risk of advocating redistribution policies that could cause massive disruption. b. It gives too little credit to the power that natural laws of morality can have in international affairs. c. It discounts the role of supranational institutions as arbiters of moral laws among states. d. It misses the existence of trade-offs between order and justice. e. It does not provide enough explanation about when some interventions might be justified.