The goal of this article is to investigate correlates of everyday discrimination-microaggressions that reflect personal rejection, disrespect, and unfair treatment among a national sample of African Americans. This is an important question given that recent research suggests that specific permutations of microaggressions are more detrimental for emotional well-being than others (Clark et al.
Figure 1: "'We are not a minority!!" mural with tribute to Che Guevara, originally painted in 1978 as part of the Chicano Park Struggle in San Diego, California.
Microaggressions and Discrimination
Microaggressions are verbal and behavioral exchanges, sometimes subtle and covert, that send denigrating messages to people of color (Sue et al. 2007). These raced-based interactions, including slights, exclusions, avoidance, and unfair treatment (Smith, Allen, and Danley 2007), can be stressful, demoralizing and, more importantly, threaten mental and physical health (Monk 2015; Sue et al. 2009; Williams and Mohammed 2009). Microaggressions are used to “…keep those at the racial margins in their place” (Pérez Huber and Solórzano 2015:298), constitute chronic sources of stress (Smith et al. 2007; Williams and Mohammed 2009), and are embedded in larger institutional arrangements and ideologies that reinforce white privilege and white superiority (see Bonilla-Silva 2013:8-11).
Investigations of microaggressions range from smaller in-depth qualitative studies to understand the nature of microaggressions (e.g., McCabe 2009) to large scale surveys that employ measures of “everyday discrimination” to evaluate the impact of routine discriminatory experiences on physical and mental health (e.g. Kessler, Mickelson, and Williams 1999; Pérez, Fortuna, and Alegría 2008).
The term “racial microaggressions” was originally coined by psychiatrist Chester Pierce (1995) to capture subtle, racialized insults and practices experienced by people of color. Expanding upon Pierce’s work, Sue and colleagues (2007; 2009) organized these experiences into a three-part typology---microassaults (e.g., discriminatory acts); microinsults (e.g., negative insinuations about ability or character), and microinvalidations (e.g., denial of racialized experiences).
Read also: Experience Fad's Fine African Cuisine
Prolific research over the past decade, largely centered on race-based interactions at predominantly white institutions (PWIs), have documented how students of color are made to feel unintelligent, exposed to stereotypic course content about their group, subjected to low faculty expectations and recounted how African American males, presumed to be criminal and dangerous, are subjected to hypervigilance by agents of law enforcement (McCabe 2009 ; Nadal Griffin, and Hamit 2014; Solórzano, Ceja and Yasso 2000; Smith et al. 2007). Further, studies of faculty of color at PWIs indicate that they are also subject to microaggressions including being dismissed as unqualified, affirmative action hires, chided for hair and dress deemed not to conform to normative standards, questioned about the appropriateness of their research and teaching topics, and having their authority and intellectual ability challenged by students, especially White students (Griffith et al.
The study of racial microaggressions has strong roots in psychological literature, often implicitly locating racial prejudice within the psyche or personality traits of individuals. A main point of departure in macro-level sociological theorizing on racism is its insistence upon expanding the lens beyond the individual (micro) level. For instance, sociologists have long rejected the notion that racial prejudice is a mere property of individual expression.
Instead, racism and racial discrimination (behaviors that are a product of either implicit or explicit racist thinking) reflects broader racialized social stratification systems that privilege Whites over people of color and is maintained by a collective ideology or frame that portrays minorities in narrow, negative stereotypes that devalue and marginalize them (Bonilla-Silva, 2013; Feagin 2006). The most profound effects of racism occur via macro levels processes such as segregation that shapes access to social and economic rewards.
However, Essed (1991), argued for recognizing that both macro and micro processes perpetuate racism, noting that the racial hierarchy (structure) is produced in ongoing and dynamic social interactions. Essed’s concept of everyday racism was “…introduced to cross the boundaries between structural and interactional approaches to racism and to link details of micro experiences to the structural and ideological context in which they are shaped” (1991:244). Her aim was to illustrate how structural racism is produced and reproduced in routine and repetitive micro interactions.
Drawing on Essed’s work, the construct of everyday discrimination (Williams and Mohammed 2013) has been especially prevalent in the public health and biomedical literatures. Everyday discrimination is conceptualized as chronic, recurrent experiences with discrimination that occur in commonplace social interactions.
Read also: The Story Behind Cachapas
Everyday discrimination is most often operationalized using the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) (Williams et al. 1997), a short 10-item instrument developed for use in large surveys, which conceptualizes discrimination as mundane stressors that derive from status positions, including minority group status. As such everyday discrimination is distinct from occurrences that are recognized major discriminatory events such as housing discrimination, being fired or denied a bank loan.
The EDS, in contrast, captures some of the day-to-day experiences that Essed (1991: Table 5) elaborated upon such as “treated with less respect,” “perceived as dishonest,” “threatened or harassed,” and “called names.” Although not an exhaustive list of the many microaggressions that people of color are exposed to, EDS items encompass events that are similar Sue et al.’s (2007) notions of microassaults and microinsults as clear examples of unfair treatment and disrespect.
Everyday discrimination occurs frequently for African Americans and other people of color (Gee et al. 2009; Kessler et al 1999; Pérez et al. 2008), with some studies noting that as many 50 percent or more of African American respondents report being targets of race based discrimination (Brondolo et al. 2011). Further, these encounters, characterized as frustrating, anger provoking, and generally stressful experiences, pose significant risk to physical and mental health (Keith et al, 2010; Levine et al. 2014; Lewis, Cogburn, and Williams 2015; Nadal et al. 2014; Williams and Mohammed, 2009; Watkins et al. 2011).
Phenotype and Discrimination
African Americans experience discrimination based on two interlocking systems (Hunter 2005; Weaver 2012)--- their perceived membership in an racial group (racial discrimination) as well as, a phenotype-based continuum that privileges lighter skin tones and a more Eurotypical racial appearance over darker skin tones and a more Afrotypical racial appearance (i.e., colorism). Among African Americans, lighter skin complexion is associated with higher educational attainment, occupational status, wages and income; a greater likelihood of being employed; and more positive self-evaluations (Goldsmith, Hamilton, and Darity 2007; Hughes and Hertel 1990; Keith and Herring 1991; Monk 2014; Thompson and Keith 2001).
Additional evidence of light skin advantage indicates that darker skinned defendants in the criminal justice system receive longer and more severe sentences (e.g., death sentences) than their lighter hued coethnics (Blair, Judd and Chapleau 2004; Eberhardt et al 2006; Gyimah-Brempong and Price 2006). The vast majority of studies of colorism lack direct measures of overt and covert racial bias. Instead, linkages between skin color with health and social outcomes are inferred with the assumption that darker African Americans are subjected to more negative stereotypes and, hence, more discrimination.
Read also: Techniques of African Jewellery
The few studies that include measures of discrimination have yielded mixed findings, ranging from no color bias (Borrell et al., 2006; Keith et al. 2010), minimal color differences in unfair treatment (Hersch 2011), and significantly more discriminatory experiences for darker respondents (Klonoff and Landrine 2000). Uncovering color gradations in racially biased experiences may, however, depend on the measures of skin color used and the source of discrimination (Monk 2015; Uzogara et al. 2013).
Similar to dark skin tone, negative stereotypes are applied to individuals who are perceived as being overweight or obese whereby they are viewed as lazy, gluttonous, lacking self-control, unconcerned about their health (Saguy and Gruys 2010; Strings 2015), and unattractive (Hersch 2011). The declaration of obesity as a major public health problem in the 1990s, increasing public awareness of the link between weight and health, and the news media’s framing of obesity as a moral problem (Barry et al 2009; Saguy and Almeling 2008) have likely exacerbated such perceptions and contributed to limited public understanding of structural determinants of excess body weight such as the availability and affordability of nutritious, non-fattening foods (Morland and Evenson 2008).
While body weight norms and the thinness ideal may be applied less rigorously within communities of color (Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 2003; Granberg, Simmons, and Simmons 2009), higher rates of obesity among African Americans make them vulnerable to weight-related stigma and discrimination in the larger society. Both colorism and weight may be more consequential for African American women than African American males.
Collins (2000), Crenshaw (1989), McCall (2005), and other multiracial feminist theorists have argued forcefully that race, class, gender and other social identities converge to produce interlocking systems of oppression and opportunity that condition life experiences in unique ways. While both African American men and women face racism, the particular manifestations of racism are gendered such that oppression is predicated on a unique set of controlling images (Collins 2000). Images for Black women depict them as mammies, domestic workers, promiscuous, angry, and as welfare mothers and that deem them as less attractive, unfeminine, and more distant from the European beauty ideal.
How Colorism Affects the Black Community
Genetic Ancestry of African Americans
Numerous studies have estimated the rate of European admixture in African Americans; these studies have documented average admixture rates in the range of 10% to 20%, with some regional variation, but also with substantial variation among individuals [1]. The largest study of African Americans to date, based on autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) markers, found an average of 14% European ancestry with a standard deviation of approximately 10%, and a range of near 0 to 65% [1], whereas another study based on ancestry informative markers (AIMs) found an average of 17.7% European ancestry with a standard deviation of 15.0% [2]. By using nine AIMs, Parra and colleagues [3] found substantial variation of European ancestry proportions in African-American populations across the United States, ranging from just over 10% in a Philadelphia group to more than 20% in a New Orleans population. Similar levels (11% to 15%) of European ancestry also were reported by Tishkoff and co-workers [4], based on more than 1,000 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers.
Although much attention has been paid in the genetics literature to the continental admixture underlying the genetic makeup of African Americans, less attention has been paid to the within-continental contribution to African Americans, in particular from the continent of Africa. Studies have focused primarily on the matrilineally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and patrilineally inherited Y chromosome [5-7]. These two DNA sources have gained wide prominence owing, in part, to their use by ancestry-testing companies to identify the regional and ethnic origins of their subscribers. Yet these two sources provide a very narrow perspective in delineating only two of possibly thousands of ancestral lineages in an individual.
The majority of African Americans derive their African ancestry from the approximately 500,000 to 650,000 Africans that were forcibly brought to British North America as slaves during the Middle Passage [8, 9]. These individuals were deported primarily from various geographic regions of Western Africa, ranging from Senegal to Nigeria to Angola. Thus, it has been estimated that the majority of African Americans derive ancestry from these geographic regions, although more central and eastern locations also have contributed [10-12]. Recent studies of African and African-American mtDNA haplotypes and autosomal microsatellite markers also confirmed a broad range of Western Africa as the likely roots of most African Americans [4, 13].
The recent development of high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping assays, used primarily in genome-wide association (GWA) studies, has also provided unprecedented opportunities to address questions related to the evolution and migration patterns of humans.
In this study, we characterize the African origins of African Americans by making use of the high-density genotype data generated for 94 HGDP indigenous Africans from differing geographic and linguistic groups, including 21 Mandenka from West Africa, 21 Yoruba from West Central Africa, 15 Bantu speakers from Southwestern and Eastern Africa, 20 Biaka Pygmy and 12 Mbuti Pygmy from Central Africa, and five San from Southern Africa [18]. These subjects are used to represent the potential African ancestors of 136 African Americans recently genotyped in a GWA study of early-onset coronary artery disease (ADVANCE) [19].
Analysis of African Ancestry Components
From cluster analysis, we found that all the African Americans are admixed in their African components of ancestry, with the majority contributions being from West and West-Central Africa, and only modest variation in these African-ancestry proportions among individuals. Furthermore, by principal components analysis, we found little evidence of genetic structure within the African component of ancestry in African Americans.
These results are consistent with historic mating patterns among African Americans that are largely uncorrelated to African ancestral origins, and they cast doubt on the general utility of mtDNA or Y-chromosome markers alone to delineate the full African ancestry of African Americans.
The amount of European ancestry shows considerable variation, with an average (± SD) of 21.9% ± 12.2%, and a range of 0 to 72% (Table 1). The largest African ancestral contribution comes from the Yoruba, with an average of 47.1% ± 8.7% (range, 18% to 64%), followed by the Bantu at 14.8% ± 5.0% (range, 3% to 28%) and Mandenka at 13.8% ± 4.5% (range, 3% to 29%). The contributions from the other three African groups were quite modest, with an average of 1.7% from the Biaka, 0.5% from the Mbuti, and 0.3% from the San.
We estimate that, on average, nearly 80% of the ancestry in our samples of African Americans is of African origin. A careful examination of the African component of ancestry in the African Americans is facilitated by restricting the analysis to those portions of their genomes that are exclusively of African origin.
Consistent with Figure 1, Figure 4 shows that all African Americans are estimated to have significant ancestry from each of the three West and Central West African groups (Mandenka, Yoruba, and Bantu), with only modest variation among individuals in their ancestral proportions from these three groups.
Overall, we estimate within-Africa contributions of 64%, 19%, and 14% from Yoruba, Mandenka, and Bantu, respectively. The variances for the various African IA components are much smaller than those for the European IA and are roughly similar across groups (SD ranging from 0.038 to 0.049). These observations are consistent with visual inspection of the bar chart in Figure 4, that African Americans generally derive substantial ancestry from all three West and Central West African population groups.
Thus, the PC and frappe analyses of the 128 African Americans based only on their African-derived genotypes suggest a lack of genetic structure within the African component of their ancestry.
In this case, each PC accounts for a very modest amount of variance, and no clear pattern is evident. The distribution of the proportion of variance explained by each PC revealed a continuous distribution with no outliers (data not shown).
| African Group | Average IA (%) | Standard Deviation (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Yoruba | 64 | 8.7 |
| Mandenka | 19 | 4.5 |
| Bantu | 14 | 5.0 |
