Explain
how Omi and Winant disagree with the statement: “These and innumerable
other examples show that we tend to view race as something fixed and immutable-something
rooted in ‘nature.’”
The reason
that they disagree with this statement is that race is not fixed and it
is not rooted in nature. They believe that race is something that
changes with every generation. When they say “these and innumerable
other examples” they want to show through the example that we view race
as something fixed and immutable. But they disagree with that because
race is something that does not have the same meaning, it changes with
time. “Something rooted in ‘nature.’” When something is rooted
in nature that means it does not change for a very long time, and it is
done the same way every single time. For example if a family is used
to having a traditional thanksgiving dinner the way it’s been done for
several decades. They continue to do it the same way because it is
rooted in nature. Well Omi and Winant believe it is not the same
way with race. Right now we might have a certain definition that
we assimilate with racism, but over several decades, racism might not have
the same definition as it does now. And that’s what I believe they are
trying to say in this quote. “They are the results of diverse historical
practices and are continually subject to challenge over their definition
and meaning.” Race is something that is not fixed, and through out
the essay they give examples of how we believe that race is fixed.
But the authors believe that race is something that is changing.