University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of skin tone on candidate evaluation: an analysis of racial socialization among Latino immigrants

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of skin tone on candidate evaluation: an analysis of racial socialization among Latino immigrants

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE ROLE OF SKIN TONE ON CANDIDATE EVALUATION:
AN ANALYSIS OF RACIAL SOCIALIZATION AMONG LATINO
IMMIGRANTS

by

Lisa S. Ybarra
__________________________________________________________________

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS)

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Lisa S. Ybarra
ii
DEDICATION

To those on both sides of the border and especially, to the many in between
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I feel extremely blessed to have had the guidance and support from the
faculty at USC. I thank my committee chair Dr. Ann Crigler for her continuous
encouragement and backing of this project and larger research agenda. Dr. Crigler
provides a true model of professionalism that has strongly influenced my personal
and academic growth. I thank Dr. Janelle Wong for her inspirational teaching and
work. In the absence of Dr. Wong, I believe I would have never received the
foundation for this piece. Additionally, I am very appreciative of the opportunity to
work side-by-side with Dr. Ricardo Ramirez and the hands-on training I acquired
through these experiences. I am also grateful for the methodological insight offered
by Dr. Patrick James. In moments of frustration, Dr. James’ optimism and
confidence in my abilities allowed me to keep marching on.
Most importantly, I thank my family, fellow colleague, Denise Gonzalez, and
life-long mentor, Dr. Caroline Heldman of Occidental College.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract v
Part One: Understanding Race 1
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Theory 4
Argument 6

Chapter 2: Understanding Competing Theories and Approaches 9
U.S. Racial Hierarchy and Its Origins 9
Merging Latin American and U.S. Racial Ideologies 17
Dividing Racial Socialization Paradigms 19
Challenging the Role of Skin Tone in the U.S. and Latin America 22
Pre-migration Socialization 29
The Effects of Candidate Race on the Voter 35

Part Two: Measuring the Impact of Skin Tone Gradation 38

Chapter 3: Research Design 38
General Methodology 38
Participants 39
Table 1: Survey Design 40
Hypotheses 41
Image Selection and Photograph Manipulation 43
Variable Operationalizations 44
Control Measures 48
Discussion and Final Thoughts 49

Bibliography 53
v
ABSTRACT
This master’s thesis explores the relationship between early racial
socialization and racial attitudes among Latino immigrants residing in the United
States. With increasing levels of Latino migration into the U.S., the traditional
black-white color divide has been challenged and complicated by this multifaceted
racial/ethnic grouping. I assess whether early racial socialization based on skin tone
persists after migration to the U.S. My interest is in the realm of politics. Many
scholars have noted that socialization related to racial hierarchies differs in Latin
America from the U.S. Unlike in the U.S., where the “one-drop” rule has long
prevailed, skin tone and not black ancestry is an important indicator of identity and
social position. I first discuss the foundations for these two cultural views of skin
tone. Secondly, I review the controversy about the two competing theories of skin
tone that are related to U.S. and Latin American racial discourse. Third, I offer a way
to test which theory is more appropriate in the changing U.S. population by looking
at the relationship between early racial socialization and candidate evaluation. I ask
the question of whether early racial socialization in Latin America, based on skin
tone, persists through continued use of the skin tone hierarchy toward candidate
evaluation in the U.S. Lastly, I discuss additional policy and/or political implications
for findings derived from such a study.

1
PART ONE: UNDERSTANDING RACE

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In the wake of one of the most volatile and competitive presidential primaries
in U.S. history, interest in the office of the presidency has been seen to increase
substantially among a “commonly” described “politically lethargic public” (Norris,
2002). As each struggled to win the contested 2008 Democratic Party nomination,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama ignited the fascination
and attention of the American public. Beyond the desire for change following the
George W. Bush administration’s actions and policies post-September 11
th
, the 2008
presidential election peaked curiosity among the public because of the unprecedented
political battle between a white female and black male.
Because the vast majority of Presidential contests have been dominated by
white, male candidates, the potential impact of a candidate or leader’s identity on
public evaluations has not been comprehensively explored
1
. Particularly, identity-
related factors like the race or gender of the leader have not been much of a critical
concern. Senator Barack Obama became the first African American candidate to
capture the Democratic Party nomination. Consequently, how the race of a
candidate affects specific voter subgroups’ understandings of appeals, perceptions of
the leader, and ultimate positions is at center stage. Although scholars have long

1
On this point, the author does recognize the legacy of Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American
candidate to run for the office of the presidency under one of the major political parties (Democratic
Party) and Jesse Jackson. For more on these individuals, see, McCartney, John. (2002). Black Power
Ideologies: An Essay in African-American Political Thought. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

2
studied the effects of a candidate’s race on turnout and vote choice
2
, the issue is even
more salient given Obama’s historical role in Presidential politics.
With the increasing number of immigrants in the U.S. coming from non-
European countries like Latin American, Asia, and the Caribbean, their socialization
into this new context must be differentiated from the experiences of early 20
th

century northern-European migrants (Lee & Bean, 2007). The experiences and
circumstances of these groups are unable to fit neatly into the dominant, black-white
dichotomy of social ordering in the U.S. With a lack of direct experience with these
contemporary migrants, the U.S. racial hierarchy does not appear to have a place for
these groups.
Growing at more rapid levels than any other immigrant grouping, Latinos can
arguably be seen as a source of potential political power through their vast numbers.
Consequently, how this population/s understands U.S. social dynamics is important
toward predicting their potential future political party identification, role in policy-
formation, and overall perspectives. In the case of the 2008 presidential election,
how they construct race is an issue that may have impacted their vote choice.
Because we know little about whether Latin American racial ideologies clash or
compliment U.S. racial constructions, it cannot be asserted that their early racial

2
For specific discussions of this topic, see, Bobo, Lawrence, & Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. (1990). Race,
Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84(2), p.
377-393; Tate, Katherine. (2003). Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their
Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press; Ramirez, Ricardo.
(2006). Patterns of Mobilization: A Longitudinal Analysis of Latino Political Participation in
California. Stanford Working Paper.

3
socialization in their homeland is completely abandoned once residing in the U.S.
context.
In contrast to the U.S. black-white racial hierarchy, it is widely perceived that
racial hierarchies in Latin America are tied to deep-rooted notions about skin tone.
Skin tone is the basis for privilege and social standing. Emerging from their colonial
past, Latin Americans hold those with lighter skin tones in higher regard (Hall,
2003). Unlike in the U.S., whether one has even a portion of perceived “black”
ancestry does not automatically classify them in the lower social tier. As one
becomes “lighter” in skin tone, they increase their social mobility.
It has been posited that in the case of Latin America, skin tone/phenotype and
not “race” or “racial” categories directly impact levels of social mobility, prestige,
and favorability (Conde, 2005). Unlike in the U.S., racial breakdowns are not as
critical on the perception and views of Latin Americans as they are among U.S.
white natives; in fact, we see that they are blurred. Consequently, I am concerned
with skin tone (phenotype) and not “race” (genotype) when looking at Latin
American migrants and their early experiences of racial socialization. The use and
significance placed on skin color gradations reflect the relevance of a skin tone
hierarchy and also the absence of “racial” group boundaries in most of Latin
America. Hence, being considered “White” by U.S. racial considerations is not
equivalent to being “White” in the Latin American sense and so forth. This brings us
to some very important questions related to the meeting of U.S. and Latin American
racial ideology.

4
How then does prior socialization within a particular racial context affect
migrants after they enter a new racial context? Particularly, looking at the issue of
candidate evaluation, does early racial socialization in Latin America based on skin
tone persist and impact perceptions of candidates in the U.S.? Although some
scholars assert that the Latin American and U.S. racial paradigms are predominately
analogous, I hold that that the two ideologies diverge in critical respects.
To answer these questions, I suggest conducting an Internet survey among
white and Latino participants. Similar campaign material from one black candidate
and another black candidate where skin tone is varied could be used to test whether
U.S. or Latin American views of skin tone/race are more central to voter decision-
making in U.S. elections. I would strive to demonstrate that Latinos will continue to
use their early racial socialization in the U.S. context-particularly in candidate
evaluations, while native born whites will not differentiate between the two
candidates. Are Latino immigrants shedding their early socialization about race as
they become more active in U.S. elections or do they retain a more open view of skin
tone and social mobility? As will be discussed in more detail later, gender roles and
stereotypes have been found to transform with migration. Will this similarly be the
case with race? Will views be transformed?

Theory
Studies of racial socialization and racial construction have identified this
form of social organization as a complex, powerful theoretical construct embodying

5
psychological dimensions, manifesting specific behavioral outcomes, and shaping
the core of public ideology and acceptance of policy. Light skin is the optimal
representation of civility, beauty, morality and intelligence (Nobles, 2000a). Its
virtues have been identified as the complete opposite of what is “black” or
“blackness.” “Black” is presented as the direct antithesis to “White,” with its
positive societal reception (Nobles, 2000a).
Particularly, intending to uphold white racial power and dominance, racial
hierarchies were created based on “White” or “light-skinned” privilege and “Black”
or “dark-skinned” subordination and disenfranchisement (Keith & Herring, 1991).
Polarizing perceptions of blacks and whites, whites were constructed as possessing
all the positive qualities and attributes lacking among blacks (Keith & Herring,
1991). Serving as a primary basis for comprehending the dynamics of U.S. ideology,
values, and history, being or becoming perceived as “White,” affect the potential for
upward mobility and measures of success in the U.S. It is seen as immutable and
realistic.
Utilized as the most vital method of classification for its distinct citizenry, the
U.S. has employed racial categorization within assessment of its populace.
Accompanying assumptions, expectations, and/or belief in its immutability, the U.S.
Census has included a self-categorization component based solely on “race.” During
the latter part of the 19
th
century, the census provided multiple, mixed racial
identities or classifications for individuals to choose from. Influenced by the social

6
and political dominance of the “one-drop rule
3
,” the census used blood quantum as
an indicator of racial identification. Emerging from one’s perceived “level” or
“degree” of black ancestry, categories like “mulatto,” “quadroon,” and “octotroon”
were added to the classifications of “White” and “Black.” (Nobles, 2000a).
However, the multiple or “mixed” identity categories noted were eliminated
from the census in the early 20
th
century. These multi-raced persons were made to
identify with a single racial identification, such as “White,” “Black,” “Chinese,” etc.
(Nobles, 2000a). Currently, the use of this “racial template” to signify one’s identity
is being challenged by the growing new immigrant population. Failing to share a
uniform “racial” identification as “Hispanic/Latino,” these respondents ranged from
identifying as “Other” to “White” or “Black.” This phenomenon appears to be
shattering contemporary American views of identity based predominately on race.

Argument
Why? Unlike in the U.S., Latin American social hierarchies have not had the
same background, character, and/or foundation. As noted, emerging out of its
colonial past, the predominant Latin American criterion for social classifications is
based on skin tone. In this case, racial classification is perceived to be adaptable and
potentially “remedied” (Conde, 2005). Unlike U.S. racial articulations, racial

3
The “one-drop rule” derived from societal application of Darwinism toward identifying subgroups of
persons based on their level of African ancestry. The term “one-drop” emerged from the notion that
“one-drop” or rather having even one ancestor made an individual Black. For more on the historical
role of this concept, see Nobles, Melissa. (2000a). History Counts: A Comparative Analysis of
Racial/Color Categorization in U.S. and Brazilian Census. American Journal of Public Health, 2000,
90(11), 1738-1745.

7
classification is not viewed as static or primarily based on a black-white divide.
Similar to the U.S., light-skin continues to be associated with privilege and positive
qualities (Conde, 2005).
Although various scholarly perspectives fail to address the origins and role of
skin-tone discrimination in the Latino community and its relationship to the U.S.
black-white color divide, those that do have argued one of three positions; 1) the two
racial ideologies are primarily similar and thus, early racial socialization in the pre-
migration context does not challenge or express itself differently than U.S. racial
ideology once in the U.S. context (Hanchard, 2006) ; 2) the two views are quite
distinct and therefore, pre-migration, early racial socialization will not be abandoned,
but transported to the U.S. context (Cruz-Janzen, 2001; Morales and Rodriguez,
2001; Hunter, 2002). 3) the two racial ideologies are historically and contextually
distinct and thus, as people of different ethnic backgrounds (e.g. Latinos) become
more incorporated in the American system, skin tone/ skin color becomes more
important in the U.S.; yet not in a corresponding manner to Latin American pre-
migration, early racial socialization and its criteria used for racial classifications,
including phenotype and genotype (Sue, 2009).
Following a review and critique of the following cited studies on early racial
socialization in both contexts, I reject the first argument and more strongly side with
the theories presented in the second and third perspectives. Although taking distinct
angles on the subject, the second and third approaches both acknowledge that Latin

8
American racial paradigms are distinct in important ways from U .S. racial
understandings.
I ask whether migrants can transport their developed, early racial
socialization based on skin tone to another national context (U.S.). In this paper, I
expand the explanation that Latin American and U.S. racial socialization are
dissimilar by holding that early racial socialization in Latin America is carried to the
U.S. and continues to impact migrant racial perspectives. The purpose of such a
study is to understand more comprehensively whether early racial socialization
persists and can be transported to differing national contexts. Through a discussion
of this one hypothetical research approach and/or design, I believe we can begin to
learn more about the process of early racial socialization generally, and offer some
predictions about how and if more contemporary migrants will change the dominant
U.S. black-white racial order. I hold that further, more advanced, related research
can be executed to enrich the literature.

9
CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING COMPETING THEORIES
AND APPROACHES
U.S. Racial Hierarchy and Its Origins
Through historical exploration of racial constructions in the U.S., it is clear
that actions and strategies have been used to solidify these concepts in theory and in
practice. These distinctions were and continue to be presented as “real” or legitimate
forms of identification. Consequently, they are used to “justify” Americans’ beliefs,
attitudes, treatment, and policies concerning differing groups or perceived
“outsiders.”
Beginning in the late 19
th
century, former black slaves and other minority
groups were increasing in number and having their liberties extended. Whites began
to be consumed with fear about their possible loss of dominance within the political,
social, and economic realms. Initially, whites relied upon biological differentiation
between the three sub-divisions of the human species identified as the Mongoloids,
Caucasoids, and Negroids, to express and validate their racial superiority and thus,
social position. Additionally, to halt the possible progress of black and other
minority populations, the “one-drop rule,” racial prerequisite court cases, and data
collected and reported by the U.S. Census Bureau reinforced racial divisions
(McClain and Stewart, 2002).
Mayr (2002) addresses the question of whether there are indeed “races” or
sub-divisions within the human species. The author discusses the evidence of
possible biological differences and their relationship with the notion of equality.

10
Although Mayr (2002) holds that there are biological differences between every
person and “geographical groups” or races, he theorizes that their capacities for self-
preservation, functioning, and contribution to the greater society are equal (p.4-6).
He states, “… I am sure that the performance of any individual in any racial group
can be matched by that of some individual in another racial group” (Mayr, 2002,
p.5).
Through his analysis of population, Mayr (2002) finds that biological
differences between racial groups and individuals do exist, but are more strongly
aligned with a theory of “uniqueness” than mental or social capacity (p.5). He
maintains that individuals in society should distinguish between biological
“uniqueness” and social and mental capacities when discussing civic equality (Mayr
2002, p.5). In other words, Mayr (2002) argues that races do differ to some degree,
but the differences do not include their intellectual capacities or similar desire for
needed civic equality within given democratic societies (Mayr, 2000, p.6). It can be
argued that these shared conditions were not dominant, plausible considerations in
the U.S. during initial conceptualizations of racial categorizations and base racial
divisions.
In 1661, large-scale importation and enslavement of native Africans and
African Americans resolved the labor shortage in the American colonies (McClain,
2002, p.7). However, as noted, many whites worried that the increasing numbers of
blacks being brought into the colonies would pose an enormous threat to their
position within society. Specifically, many feared that this growing population

11
would eventually rise-up against their white slave owners and upset the societal
hierarchy. Overlooking shared qualities among populations and relying on
insufficient discussions of “scientific” racial differences, such hostility evolved into a
preoccupation with sustaining the “purity” of “white” blood (McClain, 2002, p.8).
Hoping to ensure the “purity” and perceived biological “superiority” of white
Americans, whites attempted to define what constituted being African black.
Specifically, an individual could be categorized as black with as little as half of their
ancestry linked to African blacks (Davis, 1991, p.4). According to Davis’ (1991)
account of the method used to define African black, he states, “In the South it
became known as the “one-drop rule,” meaning that a single drop of “black blood”
makes a person “black” (p.4-5).
Within the context of the “one-drop rule,” “one-drop” or any traceable
lineage to a black ancestor was believed to be a biological “contamination” of white
purity. Specifically, within Maryland and Florida about one-eighth traceable
genealogy to black ancestry was necessary for defining an individual as black
(McClain, 2002, p.8). In Louisiana, an individual could be racially classified as
black with only a one-sixteenth standard of traceable lineage (McClain, 200, p.8).
The perceived “contamination” would cause the individual to be placed within the
theorized, racially inferior group of blacks (Davis, 1991, p. 4-5). Despite the beliefs
of many white Americans, there has been no concrete evidence by scholars like
Mayr (2002) and/or anthropologists that the differing visible traits between human
sub-groups imply one group’s superiority over the other (Davis, 1991, p.19). It also

12
cannot be suggested or upheld that one sub-group’s blood is able to “contaminate”
another and contribute to their descending the social hierarchy. There just is not
enough legitimate, valid, or plausible data to make such an assertion.
Despite the biologically weak argument of black blood as a pollutant, most
states within the U.S. adopted the one-drop rule in interpreting blackness and
creating public policy. Expressing the inferior status of black ancestry and the
preoccupation with sustaining perceived white “purity,” most states formulated and
adopted anti-miscegenation laws. The anti-miscegenation laws restricted those of
mixed ancestry (mulattos), whites, or blacks to engage in sexual activity or
intermarriage with other mulattos or those of differing ancestry (Davis, 1991, p.22-
23).
According to McClain (2002), twenty-nine states formulated and upheld laws
banning interracial marriage between blacks and whites and the laws eventually did
expand to include intermarriage between other racially mixed unions (p.8).
Violation of these laws would result in possible jail time and harassment (McClain,
2002, p.8). Consequently, although proponents of the laws attempted to exert their
biological-basis, it soon became clear that they were developed and implemented for
very different reasons. In the quest to withhold their power, white Americans
constructed race on a social and political level as they aimed to disenfranchise
groups through the loss of freedom and prosperity. The anti-miscegenation laws and
further prohibitions placed on interracial couples did not halt until the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia (1967) (McClain, 2002, p.8). The ruling nullified

13
Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law and expressed the injustice in all such legal
restrictions and penalties (McClain, 2002, p.8).
In addition to the concept of the one-drop rule, racial prerequisite court cases
also contributed to the defining of race. Although instead of aiming to define the
notion of “whiteness” or criteria for classification as white, the U.S. courts embarked
on case by case rulings that defined who were not “white” (Haney-Lopez, 1996, p.4).
Comparable to the one-drop rule in attempting to appear biologically-based, racial
prerequisite court case rulings initially aimed to appear scientifically supported.
Although as scientific explanations for distinguishing and defining race soon failed
to align with the dominant social beliefs of the time, “common knowledge” or the
beliefs of white Americans, emerged as the primary method of defining race (Haney-
Lopez, 1996, p. 6-7). Consequently, it appeared that race was more a social and
political construct than a biological.
From 1878 until 1952, fifty-two racial prerequisite court cases were heard in
the U.S. courts (Haney-Lopez, 1996, p.4). Initially, the courts struggled with the
decision-making process of their rulings. They pondered on the notion of using
biological evidence or “common knowledge” to justify their decisions (Haney-
Lopez, 1996, p.4). Although they had originally held that both approaches would be
of equal importance, they eventually would decide that “common knowledge”
decision-making was more closely in conjunction with the beliefs and interests of
most white Americans.

14
The process of resolving the conflict between the two approaches would
occur during two landmark decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court (Haney-
Lopez, 1996). Specifically, through the cases of Ozawa v. United States (1922) and
United States v. Thind (1923), the Court would not solely rely on the biological
approach, but identified the “common knowledge” approach as viable (Haney-
Lopez, 1996, p.7). Within the case of Ozawa v. United States, the courts denied U.S.
citizenship to a person of Japanese descent by claiming that he did not appear to be
of “the Caucasian race” (Lopez, 1996, p.7). In the given case, the Courts employed
both the “scientific knowledge” and “common knowledge” approach (Haney-Lopez,
1996, p.7).
In contrast, within the case of United States v. Thind (1923) scientific
explanations were dismissed in favor of the “common knowledge” approach (Haney-
Lopez, 1996, p.8). Particularly, the Court chose to repudiate the role of science
because they held that it included groups within the racial classification of Caucasian
that obviously did not appear like the ideal “white” person in their perspective
(Haney-Lopez, 1996). Hoping to be naturalized, the Asian Indian male, Thind,
developed his case from the ruling in Ozawa v. United States (Haney-Lopez 1996).
Adopting the conceptualization of Caucasian from the case, Thind hoped to be
classified as white to gain U.S. citizenship (Haney-Lopez, 1996, p.8). Despite the
strong argument of his case, the Court did not believe that he could be considered
white on the basis of a “common knowledge” position (Haney-Lopez, 1996).
Consequently, the Court dismissed the usage of science in deciding racial

15
classification. However, the role of race as a social and political construct becomes
evidently clear.
In addition to the one-drop rule and racial prerequisite court cases, the U.S.
Census Bureau also played a significant role in defining racial categorizations.
Despite the typical perception of the census as non-political, through analysis of the
data collected by this state institution, it becomes clear that it has greatly provided
support for the white American dominant ideology of racial superiority (Nobles,
2000b). Specifically, race classification was included because the differentiation of
an individual as “black” or “white” determined the civil rights and liberties they
possessed and the political representation their state would receive (Nobles, 2000b,
p.27-28).
Within the 1840s and 1850s, the concept of race would further be defined.
According to prominent belief and research of the time, it was theorized that the
human race encompassed not only one species, but rather numerous unequal, inferior
species (polygenism) (Nobles, 2000b, p.31). Aiming to support such theories by the
doctor Samuel George Mortan and Josiah C. Nott, the census was responsible for
garnering the needed data to support polygenism (Nobles, 2000b, p.33). Expressing
a higher insanity rate among free blacks than black slaves, the census expressed the
inferiority of blacks by their incapability to function as free individuals (Nobles,
2000b). Furthermore, the 1850 census was the first to include the racial category of
“mulatto.” As briefly mentioned, it would also move to include more strenuous

16
measures of black blood that lead to the formulation of categories like “quatroon”
and “octotroon” (Nobles, 2000b, p.48).
Similarly aiming to support Nott’s theories, through its data, it attempted to
reveal the inferiority of mixed races by studying and reporting death rates among the
given population (Nobles, 2000b, p.38) Nott and his supporters hoped the data
would support his theory and the consequences of polluting white blood (Nobles,
2000b, p.42). The data were also used to justify unfair and discriminatory policies
against mulattos and blacks that would continue to have a lasting impact on policy. It
supported actions and policies like the segregation and Jim Crow laws of the
twentieth century (Nobles, 2000b). Although the data reported by the census did
reflect prominent theories on race during specific periods, the information presented
would prove to have a significant legacy on American attitudes, belief, and culture.
It is clear that the American experience can be characterized as one of much
struggle and hardship for black Americans and other minorities. In their journey for
perceived racial superiority within the unjustly constructed social hierarchy, white
Americans sought to prevent the progress and prosperity of minority groups
(Morales & Rodriguez, 2001). Although they aimed to justify their discriminatory
policies and practices through inconsistent, weak, biologically-based, and/or
“common knowledge” arguments, it soon became evident that their notion of race
was merely a social and political creation (Tofoya, 2004). Through the process, they
merely created resentment, fostered corruption, and manifested a legacy of racial
division (Rodriguez, 2000).

17
Merging Latin American and U.S. Racial Ideologies
Intending to gain a sense of Latino application and expression of early racial
socialization in the U.S., the relevancy and potential incorporation of traditional
Latin American positions on race must be considered. Unlike the polarized racial
order based on a dichotomy of “white” versus “black” in the U.S., Latin American
comprehension of race and given racial categorization is typically perceived as
“gradational based on phenotype” (Sue, 2009, p.1059). Unlike the U.S. racial
category construction, Latin American social hierarchies have been held to be
grounded in phenotype (appearance) versus genotype (African ancestry) (Ono,
2002). Nevertheless, many have argued that Latin American racial ordering run
parallel and are expressed similarly to the U.S (Hanchard, 2006).
In his comprehensive analysis of racial ideology, classifications, and
hierarchies, Hanchard (2006) asserts that Latin American and U.S. racial
understandings should not be perceived as completely unrelated. Hanchard (2006)
critiques competing scholarly perspectives on the concepts of hybridity,
multiculturalism, essentialism, and racial and national identity formation. Hoping to
diminish a dominant underlying, ideological notion of the necessity and
methodological utility of conducting separate examinations of race and racism in
Latin American and the U.S., Hanchard (2006) fuses the two for analysis.
Hanchard (2006) does not analyze racial ideology, classification, and
hierarchies on a distinct individual-level and/or comparative-basis. Specifically,
Hanchard (2006) proposes a competing approach that identifies principle foundations

18
for studying racial ideologies, race-based division, and racism. Most importantly, his
concept of “racial valuation” gets at the core of Latin American and U.S. racial
socialization similarities. The identification of this phenomenon of “racial
valuation” serves as a universal basis for understanding the complexities, direct
functions, and relative importance of race and its classifications across national
contexts.
Hanchard (2006) evaluates and identifies nation-specific and multi-
national/regional racial ideology by exploring racial distinctiveness in respect to the
meaning and realistic formation of its categorization and its negation of “blackness.”
Based on differing levels of attributed value placed upon given individuals, racial
valuation departs from a definition of race dependent on acquired phenotype (p.3).
Identifying “valuation” versus phenotype as the key component underlying human
hierarchies, Hanchard (2006) attributes valuation persistence in all human
hierarchies to also be the source of racist ideology and practice. Thus, Hanchard
(2006) believes that the emergence, maintenance, and power of these hierarchies of
reflected racial valuation are dependent upon politics. Rejecting the need to
distinguish U.S. from Latin American theoretical frameworks on race and ethnicity,
Hanchard (2006) argues that a more complete grasp of human inequality can be
obtained.
Incorporating Hanchard’s (2006) innovative theoretical foundation for
dissecting racial ideology and practices, the specific features and characteristics
attributed to skin-tone or skin-color among Latinos within the Latin American and

19
U.S. context are quite similar. Mutually categorizing individuals relative to
phenotype, American and Latin American hierarchies can be characterized as being
ordered on the basis of “beauty and ugliness, safety and danger, and dominance and
subordination” (Hanchard, 2006, p.9). Given the valuation of light versus dark skin
tone or color in these racial hierarchies, competence, intelligence, and legitimate
power are attributed to lighter skinned individuals (Hunter, 2002, p.190). Privileging
light skin tone or color and recognizing it as the ultimate measure of attractiveness,
morality, and proficiency, skin color hierarchies impact one’s degree of social
mobility, opportunity for improving quality of life, and relative perceptions of
prestige and social status (Hunter, 2002, p.190).

Dividing Racial Socialization Paradigms
Unlike the outlook presented by Hanchard (2006) and others, much of the
existing literature on this topic identifies the need to treat the two ideologies as
distinct from one another. Though possessing a similar ranking of racial order,
perception of racial classification, and preference toward being “white” or having
light-skin, the nation-specific racial ideologies of conceiving which persons attain
this privileged status differ substantially.
Addressing the Latin American construction of race, Rodriguez (2000)
maintains that Latinos view race “not only as a simple question of ‘biological or
genetic ancestry or color’, but also as an issue of ‘culture, national origin, and
socialization’” (Morales and Rodriguez, 2001, p. 40). Recognizing the absence of

20
shared, uniform Latino perception of race and the potential for racist underpinning
and indications of power and privilege, Rodriguez (2000) identifies Latino depictions
of race as broadly “more cultural, shifting, and context-dependent” than U.S. notions
of race (Morales ad Rodriguez, 2001, p.40).
Reinforcing the uniqueness of Latin American racial formation and identity,
the colonial legacy of racial hierarchies have provided for differing assumptions,
expectations, and values of race. Departing from U.S. racial paradigms, Cruz-
Janzen’s (2001) work discusses the Latin American contention that “racial impurity”
or “blackness” can be “cleansed” or “removed” in subsequent generations. In spite
of approximately 75% of the Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican populations
embodying African ancestry, historical denial or “amnesia” across Latin America has
curtailed or essentially, dissolved the existence and contributions of blacks to their
heritage and nations (Cruz-Janzen, 2001). Deriving from a colonial legacy of
significance placed on systems of classification, Spanish power and rule, and
obsession with limpieza de sangre or “purity of blood,” these colonized Latin
Americans believed one could “cleanse” their racial identity and become more
“white” by marrying and creating offspring with those of Spanish blood (lighter
skin). By ascending toward the goal of “blood purification” or “lighter skin” one
was believed to elevate their social class, social standing, and familial reputation or
prestige (Cruz-Janzen, 2001).
Addressing the colonial legacy within contemporary conceptions of race,
Hunter (2002) furthers the discussion of the uniqueness of Latin American racial

21
construction. Despite the absence of traditional colonialism in practice, Hunter
(2002) argues that colonized peoples can be held to have internalized the created
systems of racial hierarchy based on skin tone. Incorporating skin color stratification
based on the legacy of these hierarchies of skin color privileging lightness, Latin
Americans continue to employ blanqueamiento (“whitening of the race”) as the
principle source of personal and national progression and darkening of the race as the
primary source of destruction and underdevelopment (Hunter 2002, p.173).
Nationalizing such views, various Latin American countries have endorsed
policies of mestizaje (racial mixing) and blanquemiento (whitening). Represented by
the interracial union of Spanish/white and indigenous blood, mestizaje rejects the
inclusion of Latinonegros (or Latinos with black ancestry) and adopts mestizo as a
more favorable identity (Cruz-Janzen, 2001). More intensely, policies of
blanquemiento advance commitment to the eradication of all non-white genealogy
(Cruz-Janzen, 2001). Promoting racial mixing toward increased “whitening” of the
public, denial of black heritage, and “white” immigration by European nations,
blanquemiento serves as a realistic manifestation of Latino anti-black sentiment and
racial inequality (Cruz-Janzen, 2001).
Given the persistent relevance of colonialism within Latin American views of
racial formation, structure, and classifications, it is clear that Latino denial of their
“blackness” would allow them to reject Latinonegros/as (Black Latinos/as). As
highlighted by Cruz-Janzen (2001), Latinegras represent the manifestation of
“blackness” that most Latinos have fought to combat within themselves for

22
generations. Essentially threatening family honor and prestige associated with the
“purification of blood,” Latinegras reveal the taboo of a familial line “tainted” by
African heritage (Cruz-Janzen, 2001, p.170).
Considering the above literature, it can be argued that aiming to identify
overarching, broad trends of similarity linking U.S. and Latin American treatment of
race can lead one to erroneously overlook their fundamental distinctions. As noted,
the U.S. perception of being in the “white” racial grouping comprises identification
with the theorized “static” Caucasian grouping. In contrast, Latin American
“lightness” or “white” skin is associated with a Spanish identification and doctrine of
“blood purification.” Lacking the African American black experience of the U.S.,
Latin Americans do not view being black as a source of racial commonality or intra-
group solidarity. Traditional practices of denial and rejection of black ancestry
relative to its deviation from the goal of “blood purification,” has led Latin
Americans to conceptualize being “white” or being “black” differently. Therefore, I
argue that Latin American and U.S. racial paradigms should not be perceived as
similar or complementary, but rather, as deriving from totally different
circumstances and histories and producing separate outcomes.

Challenging the Role of Skin Tone in
the U.S. and Latin America
Although also deviating from the arguments presented by Hanchard (2006)
and others, additional works that acknowledge the distinctiveness of U.S. and Latin

23
American racial ideologies question the very core of existing characterizations of the
Latin American racial system. This approach challenges the assertion that the Latin
American racial system is shaped predominately by skin tone/phenotype and refutes
claims relative to U.S. and Latin American base similarities. Subsequently, it offers
a quite unique projection about the future of the U.S. racial system.
One theory that has raised much debate is Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) “Latin
Americanization” thesis. Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) theory on “Latin Americanization”
provides a compelling take on the U.S. system of race and the path in which it is
headed. Building a foundation for his theory, Bonilla-Silva (2004) presents his view
on the Latin American racial system. According to Bonilla-Silva (2004), Latin
America is ruled by a tri-racial system that uses phenotype as the primary indictor
for inclusion in a racial tier. He highlights the salience of this perspective by
discussing the Latin American elite practices of “whitening” the population to
maintain white dominance (Bonilla-Silva, 2004). Put simply, when Latin American
elites recognized that their countries were increasing their numbers of dark-skinned
individuals, they strived to “whiten” their population via promotion of European
migration.
The central argument of Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) work is that “the U.S. racial
terrain is reconfiguring to resemble that of Latin America” (p. 932). Specifically, he
maintains that the U.S. is departing from its dominant black/white model toward a
tri-racial system similar to that of Latin America. He attributes this transformation to
drastic changes in U.S. demographics (p. 932). Similar to other scholars of race in

24
Latin America, Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) theory is based on the assumption that the
Latin American system of race is driven by the importance of phenotype.
According to Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) tri-racial system, there exist three racial
tiers comprised of “whites” at the top, “honorary whites” in the middle, and a
nonwhite group/“collective black” at the bottom (p. 932). He argues that
classification into these strata is driven by pigmentation (Bonilla-Silva, 2004).
Applying this typology to the U.S., Bonilla-Silva (2004) theorizes that the “white”
grouping will encompass “traditional” whites, new “white” immigrants, and
assimilated “white” Latinos, light-skinned multi-racials, and other sub-groupings (p.
932). The “honorary whites” will include “most light-skinned Latinos, Japanese
Americans, Korean Americans, Asian Indians, Chinese Americans, Filipinos, and
most Middle Eastern Americans” (Bonilla-Silva, 2004, p. 933). Furthermore,
Bonilla-Silva (2004) argues that the non-white other/ “collective black” group will
incorporate blacks, dark-skinned Latinos, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and other
“darker-skinned” individuals (p. 933).
Moreover, Bonilla-Silva (2004) posits that like the function of the middle
class along economic lines, “honorary whites” will serve as a “buffer” or
intermediary between the other two groups (“whites” and “collective blacks”). It is
expected that color gradations that have served as a source of in-group differences
and discrimination will become more pronounced in the U.S. (Bonilla-Silva, 2004).
In other words, lighter-skinned individuals in particular racial/ethnic groupings will
become more “white” and depart from identification with their larger

25
ethnic/ancestral groups toward incorporation into classifications based on
pigmentation. To find support for his theory about the “Latin Americanization” of
the U.S. racial system, Bonilla-Silva (2004) uses what he identifies as “objective”
(i.e. income and education), “subjective” (i.e. racial attitudes and racial self-
classification), and “social interactional” (interracial marriage and residential
choices) indicators to determine the U.S. move toward a tri-racial order (p. 934). It
can be argued that such crude measures leave room from much criticism. In
particular, Bonilla-Silva (2004) offers a very large, broad, generalized theory about
the future of the U.S. racial system without vigorous empirical data. Furthermore,
we see that the work is predominately normative-based; yet there are also several
theoretical gaps and flawed assumptions in his argument.
Posing a direct challenge to Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) descriptions, theory, and
predictions about Latin American and U.S. systems of race is Sue (2009). Sue
(2009) begins her critique of the “Latin Americanization” thesis by disputing
Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) depiction of the “Latin American” racial system. As
mentioned above, we see that Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) argument emphasizes the
significance of skin tone/ pigmentation in the Latin American system of race and its
increased importance in the future dynamics of the U.S.
Disagreeing with Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) characterization of Latin American
understandings of race and its racial hierarchy, Sue (2009) provides a series of
thoughtful criticisms. Sue (2009) highlights the point that there is no consensus in
the literature about how to most “accurately” describe the Latin American racial

26
system (p. 1059). It has been described as “bi-racial,” “multi-racial,” and/or based
on a “color continuum
4
,” like that presented by Bonilla-Silva (2004) (Sue, 2009: p.
1059). Sue (2009) holds that the characterization chosen is dependent upon the data
used and researcher interpretation.
Sue (2009) holds that the tri-racial categories Bonilla-Silva (2009) uses to
describe Latin America could not be mirrored in the U.S. due to historical and
contextual disparities. Specifically, the historical prominence of the “one-drop” rule
in the U.S. has reinforced a bi-racial system of black/white (Sue, 2009).
Consequently, conceptualizations of the three racial tiers may be entirely distinct.
For example, the “collective black” racial classification in Latin America derives
from a mix between either black/white or indigenous/white (Sue, 2009). In the U.S.,
the indigenous population did not accompany blacks and whites as the historically
dominant groups.
In addition, Latin American “popular” vs. “formal” racial classifications are
less clear-cut than they are in the U.S. (Sue, 2009, p. 1061). Therefore, Bonilla-Silva
(2004) cannot effectively address the boundaries between each racial tier in Latin
America. In this case, how can the claim be made that the U.S. racial system is
moving toward that of Latin America if the assumptions made about Latin America’s
racial systems are inaccurate or flawed?

4
According to Sue’s (2009) conceptualization of a colour continuum model, “skin colour gradations
are seen as representing a skin colour hierarch and there is an absence of discreet racial group
boundaries” (p. 1059).

27
Sue (2009) argues that Bonilla-Silva and other race scholars’ emphasis on
phenotype as a central characteristic of the Latin American racial system is
overestimated and inaccurate. Sue (2009) attributes this to the type of data that is
available on Latin America. According to Sue (2009), most data on racial
breakdowns/categories in Latin America are from “Afro-Latin America” (areas like
Brazil, Caribbean, etc.). This absence of census data in other parts of the Latin
American region is attributed to particular country’s national ideologies that deny the
existence of racism as a problem (Sue, 2009, p. 1061-1062). Although many Latin
American countries are beginning to move away from this mind-set and allow more
research to be conducted on the racial breakdowns of their populations, the body of
data that exists is predominately from this one area of Latin America and cannot
account for regional diversity related to race (Sue, 2009). This leads to an erroneous
generalization about a “Latin American” racial system. It is evident that racial
understandings across Latin America are not homogenous.
Bonilla-Silva (2004) similarly argued that like Latin America, the U.S. would
move toward a process of “whitening” their population to uphold white dominance.
However, Sue (2009) points out that the views of “whiteness” in these two areas are
completely diverse. In Latin America, moves to “whiten” the population did not
begin with white elites noticing an increase in the dark-skinned population. She
argues that Latin American countries did not just become more black/indigenous; but
rather, they had always been (Sue, 2009). Along this line, white elites in Latin
America were not considered “white” by European or North American standards

28
(Sue, 2009, p. 1062-1063). Racially mixed elites in Latin America could only
benefit from this alleged “whitening” of the population. Based on this premise, how
could the U.S. move toward a “whitening” of their population? This process would
possibly not be clear cut and not be at all similar to that of Latin America. The
multi-racial population in the U.S. would create a variety of racially combinations
that would not be easily discernable along “traditional” racial lines. If skin tone were
to become more important in the U.S., then would “traditional” whites mixed with
another racial group be “non-white” because their skin may be darker than a Latino
or black individual?
From her critique of Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) “Latin Americanization” thesis,
Sue (2009) critically attests the claim by most Latin American scholars of race that
phenotype is the key factor influencing racial socialization and racial classifications
in Latin America. With this foundation of Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) theory questioned,
it brings to light the difficulty in applying an identical racial model to the U.S. It is
clear that the “Latin Americanization” thesis has several significant theoretical and
empirical problems and I think Sue (2009) does effectively address these. As
revealed, Sue (2009) shows that the two ideologies share little due to historical and
contextual differences. Most importantly, she reveals that arguments presented on
Latin America related to race make the flawed assumption that all of Latin America
relies on phenotype as the most important indicator of racial categorization. It is
clear that this conclusion cannot effectively be drawn from data on one area of Latin
America.

29
Despite marking their differentiation on whether early racial socialization
among Latino migrants can or will be transported to the U.S. context in a similar or
distinct manner, this issue has not been comprehensively explored. To begin to
understand this issue, I suggest looking at other elements of early socialization and
their persistence or abandonment among Latino migrants in the U.S. context. From
this approach, I argue that whether and how racial socialization paradigms can be
transported to differing national contexts can begin to be unpacked.

Pre-migration Socialization
Within the existing literature on migration, there is a lack of research into
how socialization related to race might matter after migration. Nevertheless, there is
vast work on how pre-migration socialization related to issues like religion and
gender roles may be expressed in differing national contexts. Thus, I argue that
looking at these other early socialization factors may provide some critical clues into
how early socialization related to race may matter in differing contexts.
Concerning Latino religious affiliations/practices, it is not incorrect to state
that most Latin Americans were raised predominately as Catholics. However,
various scholars have emphasized and focused on increases in Evangelical and
Pentecostal forms of Protestant religious affiliation among commonly Catholic
Latino groups. In these cases, it can be inferred that early religious identification
does not necessarily persist once in the U.S. context.

30
According to Greenley’s (1994) comparisons of secular characteristics of
Latino Catholics and non-Catholics, he found that Latino Protestants were quite
different than Latino Catholics in many respects. He determined that Latino
Protestants had higher incomes, education, and occupational status than Latino
Catholics. In addition, from the sample derived from the 1972-1988 General Social
Survey, Greenley (1994) found that they were much more active in church activities
and attended church more frequently than the Latino Catholics. Greenly (1994)
observed that Latinos shifted toward these Protestant denominations because of the
Catholic Church’s inability to “provide community and respectability for the
upwardly mobile Hispanic American” (p.562). It is clear that not all Latinos have a
similar migration experience and therefore, whether they transport and continue to
identify with their early religious identification is dependent upon additional factors
and experiences.
Getting at the hub of this phenomenon, Hunt (1999) conducts research to
discover “temporal and sociodemographic factors” that cause Latinos to identify as
either Catholics or non-Catholics. Unlike Greenley (1994), Hunt (1999) came to
quite different conclusions. In respect to non-Catholics, Hunt (1999) primarily
focused his research on the Protestant affiliations of Evangelical and Pentecostal.
Hunt (1999) concentrated on the Evangelical and Pentecostal sects of Protestantism
because he hypothesized an increase in membership among Latinos. Analyzing data
from the 1972-1996 General Social Surveys, which contains a Hispanic sample from

31
a series of alternate surveys, Hunt (1999) compared Catholics and non-Catholics
from three different generations.
In contrast to Greenly (1994), Hunt (1999) found that these differences
between Latino non-Catholics and Catholics can be attributed to further assimilation
into American culture and its values emphasizing individualism over community
(Hunt, 1999, p.1604). Hunt (1999) finds that the number of first, second, and third
generation Latinos who identified as non-Catholics increased throughout the 1970s
and appeared to continue into the 1990s. He argues that such an apparent increase
can be attributed to the implications of assimilation or “Americanization” among
Latinos the longer they are in the U.S. (Hunt, 1999, p.1604). Despite his findings,
Hunt also acknowledges that the large influx in Protestant affiliation among Latinos
did not continue into the 1990s. Consequently, Hunt concludes that there is no
overall increase in conversion among Hispanic Catholics to fundamentalist
Protestants. Most importantly, Hunt finds that “1) most first generation Hispanics
are more likely to be Catholic and 2) these persons are less likely to be linguistically
assimilated into English-speaking patterns, suggesting that the Catholic Church may
continue to find strength and renewal in Spanish-only communities” (p.1619).
In addition to religious affiliation/identification, the transportation of
traditional gender paradigms obtained from early socialization in Latin America can
shed light on whether Latino migrants will abandon or continue to apply their
homeland racial ideologies across national contexts. Concerning traditional gender
roles, general feminist theory holds that women cannot be and will not be equal in

32
the polity unless they are equal in the home (Burns et al., 1997, p.373). It is
theorized that such inequality within the home can influence perceptions among
members of the households about the role and rights of women (Burns et al., 1997,
p.373).
Given that Latino migrants have been socialized with traditional gender roles,
whether deviation toward the empowerment of women through migration has
occurred, would signal the abandonment of this traditional gender paradigm.
Elaborating on this possibility, Oboler (1992) argues that the constructing of Latino
identity within the United States takes on many forms. Specifically, he contends that
its defining is derived from “self” and “other” relations within their particular
experiences (Oboler, 1992, p.19). Most importantly, Oboler (1992) contributes to
the literature by arguing that along with the Latino identity being formed through
their perceptions of being Hispanic, members of a specified social class, national-
origin sub-group members, and adoption of self-designated “racial other” terms like
Mestizo or white-Hispanic, gender is also a significant component in Latino ethnic
construction (Oboler, 1992, p.19).
Addressing the traditional gender paradigm in more depth, Leacock and Saga
(1996) maintain that international gender ideology has traditionally placed men in a
superior social, economic, and political position in relation to women. Leacock and
Saga (1996) argue that the ideology is best expressed through analysis of the better
employment possibilities granted to men throughout the world. Focusing on Latin
America, Brown (1975) and Rubbo (1975) conclude that Latin America has not and

33
cannot be excluded from these conditions. Despite the persistence of poor economic
conditions within much of Latin America, Brown (1975) and Rubbo (1995) argue
that the dominant gender ideology with its static belief that the woman’s place is in
the home and not in the workplace is still present.
However, Oboler (1992) finds that immigration to the United States has
many implications for disruption of the dominant gender ideology. Deriving from
Oboler’s (1992) numerous interviews with Latino women, she found that
immigration has a significant effect on male traditional perceptions of women.
Through assessment of respondent’s interview statements, Oboler (1992) finds and
attributes the cultural shift to the economic necessity of women to work once a
couple migrates to the U.S.
Pessar and Grasmuck (1991) contend that this shift leads women to develop a
new sense of “self” because of her often equal or more significant contribution to the
household income. Resulting from the shift away from traditional notions of male-
dominance or machismo, women respondents indicated that their male partners
began to engage in previously characterized female duties (Oboler, 1992, p.21).
Supported by Pessar’s (1987) study of Dominican households within the U.S.,
Oboler (1992) also found that “women reported that many men begin to help with
the household chores, which may lead some to feel that their masculinity and pride is
undermined in the immigration process” (p. 21). From this, it is apparent that
traditional gender roles are often not applied post-migration due to necessity.

34
Nevertheless, whether the paradigm reemerges or continues to be absent from one
generation to another is up for debate.
The literatures on religion and gender reveal a body of information that can
be employed toward predicting whether early racial socialization may be transported
to the U.S. Overall, the works in each of these areas highlight the role of the
migration process on the manifestation of cultural shifts and adaptations. Although
not in large numbers, many Latinos do depart from their strong Catholic upbringing
and convert to some form of Protestantism post-migration. With each subsequent
generation, deviation from Catholicism appears more likely based on their level of
integration into the U.S. Similarly, traditional gender roles often are put aside in the
quest for survival in this new national context. Women become key actors in the
financial realm of the home and therefore, previously early socialized ideologies
about gender and gender roles must be reconfigurated to accommodate new
conditions.
Each of these findings reveals the key point that the migration process does
change elements of the pre-migration early socialization experience. They face new,
distinct, and/or additional factors in the U.S. that often lead migrants to adapt their
views and behavior accordingly. However, as mentioned, to what degree they alter
their perceptions and actions are dependent upon numerous possible variables
relative to individual migration experiences. Though, it cannot be denied that change
does occur in ideology post-migration.

35
It then would logically follow that those racial ideologies obtained
premigration would also be impacted by the migration process. It is expected that
early racial socialization based on a skin tone hierarchy would be modified to align
with the U.S. racial hierarchy. However, I argue that this just is not the case.
Although it can be assumed that pre-migration racial paradigms would also be
initially affected by the migration process, like religion and gender have, I theorize
that the deep-rooted, historical colonial legacy of the skin tone hierarchy is too
strong to be as quickly shifted or abandoned by new migrants. With subsequent
generations, I argue that the use of this paradigm will decline in favor of the U.S.
racial template.

The Effects of Candidate Race on the Voter
Past studies in political attitudes and behavior have looked at how candidate
evaluations vary by candidate race and whether the race of a candidate affects voter
turnout. Specifically, Mansbridge (1999) offers one useful argument for
understanding the core of minority representation and its underlying dynamics.
Mansbridge (1999) identifies the importance of the role of group solidarity on
candidate selection. Discussing the meaning of descriptive representation within a
minority group member’s individual psyche, Jane Mansbridge (1999) argues that
disadvantaged groups can obtain advantages from such political representation.
Specifically, Mansbridge (1999) contends that descriptive representation can “forge
bonds of trust” between the legislator and the constituent by maximizing “feelings of

36
inclusion.” Through this process, Mansbridge (1999) further asserts that the “polity
becomes democratically more legitimate in one’s eyes” and thus, advances the
possibility for their increased political participation (p. 641, 651).
Providing clarity to the concept of descriptive representation, Mansbridge
(1999) holds that in descriptive representation, representatives are in some sense
typical of the larger class of constituents they represent. Such perceived “shared”
characteristics can include physical features like hair color, skin tone and gender or
similar experiences related to background, income, or perhaps racial prejudice.
Concerning race-based representation, Mansbridge (1999) found that constituents
tend to favor candidates of their own racial identity because they assume shared,
common interests and possess strong race-related anxieties.
Presenting the theoretical essence of feelings of group solidarity related to
racial coethnicity and candidate selection, Mansbridge (1999) appears to build upon
the earlier work of Bobo and Gillam (1990). Utilizing 1987 national sample survey
data with a large Black oversample, Bobo and Gillam (1990) “explored Black-white
differences in sociopolical participation (p.377). They hypothesized that “increases
in Black empowerment would affect the level of Black sociopolitical participation
and change the nature of Black-white differences in political behavior” (Bobo and
Gillam, 1990, p.377). Ultimately, Bobo and Gillam (1990) find that Blacks residing
in “high-black empowerment areas” (cities with Black mayors) are more involved
than both Blacks living in “low-black empowerment areas” and whites of similar
socioeconomic status.

37
Departing from the arguments of Bobo and Gillam (1990) and Mansbridge
(1999), Gay (2001) looks at the nature of the relationship between black
congressional representation and political participation among whites and Blacks.
Beyond merely stating that there exists higher levels of trust and efficacy among
Blacks toward Black representation, Gay (2001) predicts that; “1) African Americans
residing in areas represented by a Black House member are more likely to go to the
polls than are similar Blacks in districts with a white incumbent; 2) white
constituents in these same Black-represented districts are less likely than their
counterparts in white-represented districts to go to the polls” (p.593). Deviating
from the findings of Bobo and Gillam (1990), Gay (2001) finds that there exists a
consistent level of white demobilization and only rare increases in Black
mobilization and turnout in precincts with Black congressional representation.
The data provided by these pieces shows the relevance of a candidate’s race
on voter attitudes and behavior. I offer a discussion of the significance of this
variable to convey that this is an issue worth exploring in further depth. Similar to
the literature on premigration socialization lacking analysis of early racial
socialization and its impact post and pre-migration, work in political science on
political attitudes and behavior have not sufficiently explored the impact of skin tone
among the Latino population. Thus, I propose a research agenda to address this gap
in the literature that is of considerable importance in political science as we examine
the changing demographics/face of the U.S. electorate.

38
PART TWO: MEASURING THE IMPACT OF SKIN TONE GRADATION

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
General Methodology
An experimental design in which skin tone is manipulated would allow us to
test the importance of skin tone in U.S. political life. This one type of research
would provide us with some insight into whether Latino migrants change or hold
constant their pre-migration, early racial ideologies once in the U.S. and whether this
is affected by the length of time they have resided in the U.S. Specifically, this
research would be intended to investigate the impact of skin tone on candidate
evaluations among Latinos and whites. This proposed study would consist of
generating and administering an Internet survey that manipulates candidate skin tone
using white and Latino participants and two fictional black males as the target
candidates.
For a research project like this, it might be useful to use a database like the
Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS) to obtain an oversample
of Latino respondents. It would be useful to use this tool to possibly acquire email
addresses and send each participant from this oversample a survey and relative
campaign advertisement/paragraph biography as attachments. Given that this type of
research would comprise white and Latino participants and projects like TESS have
large, diverse, randomly selected, representative populations, it would be likely that
Latinos would be underrepresented (as they are on a national level). To avoid this

39
potential bias, Latinos would need to be oversampled because the amount of Latinos
needed for such an analysis could not be derived from a nationally-representative
sample. Therefore, such a study would require a quota sample to obtain the sub-
population desired. This would allow for a large enough sample of the desired
population to effectively compare differences between groups.
Although the internet offers an innovative way to more effectively and
efficiently administer surveys, scholars have acknowledged the many
methodological problems that relate to internet survey research (Couper, 2008;
Groves et al., 2009). For instance, this potential sample could be biased because it
would be limited to only those within the given research project’s general sample.
Moreover, respondents would be required to have access to a computer and have an
active email account to participate in the study. This may limit the sample to
individuals with higher socio-economic status (SES). Despite these possible issues,
the method is useful because it can be convenient for the respondent. Additionally,
the use of the internet to distribute the survey would minimize the cost of materials
and research assistants needed to conduct these experiments.

Participants
The Internet experiment would have 1,200 participants- 400 recent Latino
immigrants
5
, 400 2
nd
and 3
rd
generation
6
Latinos, and 400 native whites. Among all

5
The term “recent immigrant” refers to those Latino individuals that were born in their country of
origin and migrated to the U.S. as young adults and/or 25 years or older.

40
800 Latino subjects, about a 45% male and 55% female sample would be necessary.
More females would be needed because many studies have revealed that women
dominate the migrant stream
7
. For the purpose of being as representative as possible,
it is clear from the literature that this factor is of critical importance. Similarly, there
would be the same expectations for the white participants for purposes of effective
comparison.
This research would conduct 1 experiment involving the entire sample. In
this experiment, the Latinos and the white natives would be tested with the same
experimental treatment and be given an identical post-test survey questionnaire
measuring their levels of candidate favorability. Specifically, the design of the
survey would be 3x4, where three subject groups receive one of four treatments.

Table 1: Survey Design

400 recent Latinos 400 2
nd
/3
rd
Latinos 400 whites
Light 100 100 100
Medium 100 100 100
Dark 100 100 100
Control 100 100 100

6
The categories of second generation” denotes children of immigrants and “third generation” refers
to grandchildren of immigrant. For more on these conceptualizations see Ono, Hiromi. “Assimilation,
Ethnic Competition, and Ethnic Identities of U.S.-Born Persons of Mexican Origin.” The
International Migration Review, 2002, 726-745.

7
Schiller, Nina Glick, Linda Basch, and Christina Blanc-Szanton (Eds). (1992). Towards A
Transnational Perspective On Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered.
New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

41
Hypotheses
Why is this issue even worth exploring and testing? It is important because as
Latinos are becoming more incorporated into U.S. politics through their increased
levels of naturalization and voter registration, their perspectives on race will impact
U.S. racial understandings and the nature of the system itself. On one side, there
exists a vast body of literature within migration studies that discusses the effects of
U.S. importation of popular culture and values via globalization. One school of
thought in this area holds that in this increasingly globalized world, no culture lives
in isolation from another. Borders are fluid and so are the exchanging of values,
ideas, and experiences. In addition, people are more easily able to go back and forth
and communicate across borders because of the advances in transportation and
technology.
Along this line, it can be argued that aspects or ideologies developed in one
national context cannot avoid being merged with another through migration.
However, as discussed, it has been argued that Latin American and U.S. racial
ideologies have similar underlying archetypes and perceptions of race (Hanchard,
2006). Therefore, we would assume that no significant change in early racial
socialization ideologies would occur or be necessary. Thus, to test if this is true, the
experiment would test the following:
H
0
: There would be no difference between Latino immigrant and white native
favorability for the “lighter” skinned candidate.

42
H
1
: Latino immigrants would be more favorable to a “lighter” skinned black
candidate than white natives.
If it were to be determined that there was no difference, this would imply that the
essence of this study is worthless. However, we find evidence in competing
literature (Cruz-Janzen, 2001; Morales and Rodriguez, 2001; Hunter, 2002; Bonilla-
Silva, 2004; Sue, 2009) that there are several points of divergence between Latin
American and U.S. racial systems. Thus, inquiry into this issue should not stop with
one perspective.
In contrast to some views on transnationalism and globalization and the work
on the strong similarity of U.S. and Latin American racial systems (e.g., Hanchard,
2006), I hold that borders do continue to significantly matter. The U.S. and Latin
America are not vacuums of thought. Peoples in these two contexts still continue to
think quite differently about race. I make such a claim based on the vast scholarship
previously discussed concerning the strong historical legacy of racial socialization in
Latin America. Arguably, it is the core of their identity, ingrained in their given
society for over a hundred years. Thus, how can it be identically mirrored in the U.S.
as argued by Bonilla-Silva (2004) and challenged by Sue (2009)? I argue that the
significance of this paradigm continues to be a dominant force in Latin America. I
maintain that it cannot simply be abandoned or adapted through migration. Is the
impact of this early racial socialization paradigm in Latin America declining? To
explore this phenomenon, the following hypotheses would also be tested:

43
H
0
: There would be no difference between more recent Latino immigrant (in
U.S. for less than 5 years) and 2
nd
and 3
rd
generation Latino favorability for
the “lighter” skinned candidate.
H
2
: More recent Latino immigrants that have been in the U.S. for 5 years or
less would be more likely to be more favorable to a “lighter” skin candidate
than second or third generation Latinos.
H
2a
: There would be no difference between white native and Latino
favorability for a “darker” skinned candidate.
H
2b
: White natives would be more likely to be more favorable to a
“darker” skinned candidate than Latinos.

Image Selection and Photograph Manipulation
In this experiment, respondents’ exposure to differing skin tones would be
varied ranging from researcher designated notions of “light” to “dark” skin.
Photographs of two black candidates would be digitally morphed into a typical flyer-
like campaign advertisement. In addition, both flyers would be edited for
conformity. Specifically, the two advertisements would present two black male
candidates. Both would be wearing very similar clothing, have almost identical in-
text background and advertisement content, and each would l have a bibliographic
paragraph that is quite comparable. Put simply, the text and photographs for both
candidates would be identical except for skin tone.

44
Each paragraph would describe the candidates with equal levels of education,
experiences, etc. Candidate A would be the control and would not have his skin tone
altered in the experiment. Candidate A’s skin tone will always be the same and it
would be somewhere in between researcher identified skin tone scale ranging from
“light” to “dark.” In this experimental design, medium-dark (in between medium and
dark skin tones selected) would be Candidate A’s static skin tone. However,
Candidate B would vary in skin tone within the particular generated skin tone scale.
Each individual would be shown Candidate A and Candidate B. The respondents
would differ in their exposure to the skin tones of Candidate B. As noted,
individuals in three subject groups will receive one of four treatments:
• Condition 1: Candidate B’s skin tone would be light.
• Condition 2: Candidate B’s skin tone would be medium.
• Condition 3: Candidate B’s skin tone would be dark.
• Condition 4 (control): Candidate B’s skin tone would be identical to
Candidate A (medium-dark).

Variable Operationalizations
Dependent Measures
Within the experiment, all participants would be asked to rate the two black
candidates-Candidate A (identical skin tone) and Candidate B (treatment candidate
in which skin tone varied) - on a series of dimensions while simultaneously viewing
the ads side-by-side. Following the experiment (exposure to images and

45
bibliographic script), there would be a key or some indicator to be clicked to assume
that the respondent completed looking at both images and scripts. This would
subsequently lead to a post-test questionnaire.
In this type of research, one would measure this multi-dimensional concept of
“candidate favorability” by incorporating psychological and behavioral indicators to
specific, abstract dimensions of the variable. “Candidate favorability” would ideally
be operationalized by obtaining responses concerning perceived positive traits
attributed to candidate/s, ability to trust candidate/s, affective responses toward
candidates, general feeling related to likability of candidate/s, and decision to support
a given candidate
8
. From these scores, an overall rating or score of “candidate
favorability” for each respondent would be generated. Subsequently, a researcher
would compare the average percentage of favorability for Candidate A depending on
the skin tone variation of Candidate B for each individual. Favorability rankings
would then possibly be compared between both groups (Latinos and white natives)
relative to variation of skin tone or rather, a specific skin tone based on differing
color gradations.

Trait Attribution
Each respondent in the experiment would hypothetically be asked to assess
whether specific traits are attributable to or “fit” each candidate. The traits would

8
These measures were derived from measures of preference for candidates in Bailenson, Jeremy,
Shanto Iyengar, Nick Yee, and Nathan Collins. “Facial Similarity as a Voting Heuristic: Some
Experimental Evidence,” Stanford Working Paper, 2007. These measures were not developed solely
by the author of this work.

46
include: knowledgeable, caring, intelligent, friendly, personable, “down-to-earth,”
and an effective leader. Responses to each candidate’s possession of these traits
would be measured on a 4-point scale ranging from “Extremely Well” (1) to “Not
Well” (4). These scores could then be averaged for each candidate.

Trustworthiness
Participants would then be asked how trustworthy they believe each
candidate to be. The responses would be measured using a 5-point scale ranging
from “Very Trustworthy” (1) to “Not At All Trustworthy” (5).

Affective Response
As previous literature has found, skin tone does impact affective appraisals of
other people (Bailenson et al., 2007). Therefore, the researcher would also ask 5
questions concerning whether each candidate made the participant feel angry, proud,
hopeful, discontent, disgusted, and/or afraid. Positive affective responses would be
coded as 1 and negative affective responses would l be coded as -1. Scores would
then be averaged for each of the two candidates.

Feelings of Likability
A “feeling thermometer” would be utilized that ranges from 0 to 100 to
obtain each participant’s overall appraisal of the two candidates. Hypothetically, a
score of 50 would be given to those respondents without a preference.

47
Intention to Support Candidate
Intention to support a given candidates would be conceptualized and
operationalized as intention to cast a ballot for that candidate. Specifically, a
respondent would be asked how likely they would be to vote for Candidate A or
Candidate B in the upcoming presidential election. Scores would then be placed on a
scale in which the maximum is given a standardized score of 1 and lowest a
standardized score of 0. Those participants lacking a preference would be given a
midrange score. Higher scores translate into a stronger level of intention to support a
candidate through a vote.

Overall Candidate Favorability
The five measures included within this dependent variable of “candidate
favorability” would all strongly correlate. Consequently, each individual indicator
would have to be standardized (M=0, SD=1) and averaged. To obtain the overall
score for “candidate favorability,” scores for one candidate would be subtracted from
the other candidate’s score to generate a difference score for the purposes of
analysis.

48
Control Measures
SES-Related Variables
Given existing literature recognition of the significance of socioeconomic
factors on voter turnout, one would have to control for the socioeconomic status
variables of income, education, and occupation.
Income: Defined and measured by the amount of money an individual
generates in a given year. As an interval variable, income would be operationalized
through numerical categorizations ranging from $50,000 or less a year to $100,000
or more a year (ranging from a coding scheme of 1 to about 5 or 6 depending on
“breakdown”).
Education: Defined as level one completed in school. As an ordinal variable,
it would be operationalized by the last grade or class one completed in school. The
measure would include the categories of “None, or grade 1-8” coded as 1, “High
school incomplete (grades 9-11)” coded as 2, “High school graduate (grade 12 or
GED)” coded as 3, “Business, technical or vocational school after high school”
coded as 4, “Some college, no 4-year degree” coded as 5, “College graduate” coded
as 6, and “Post-graduate training or professional schooling after college” coded as 7.
Occupation: Defined as one’s type of profession relative to the prestige it
holds. This nominal variable would be operationalized by distinct categories ranging
from primarily “blue-collar-type jobs” to more “white-collar jobs.” Combining the
three dimensions statistically, I would standardize them by transforming their values
into z-scores and thus, unify them within the variable of SES.

49
Party Identification
Strength of respondent party identification would also be important. A
research would ask respondents to identify as Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
If respondents are either Democrats or Republican, they would then be asked a
follow-up question concerning the strength of their partisanship. Strong Democrats
could be coded as “1,” strong Republicans as “-1,” and Independents, weak
partisans, etc. would be placed into a third group coded as “0.”

Image Morphing Recognition
Following the answering of each survey, respondents would be asked a final
question regarding the study itself and its measures. In particular, they would be
asked if they knew the purpose of the experiment and whether the photographs were
morphed or digitized. These data would be discussed as a percentage and considered
within the discussion of the work for possible issues or limitations related to validity,
reliability, and explanatory power of findings.

Discussion and Final Thoughts
The discussed research design would strengthen understanding about whether
and how early racial socialization based on skin tone can be transported into different
contexts and more specifically, whether early racial socialization in Latin America
based on skin tone persist through continued use of the skin tone hierarchy toward
U.S. candidate evaluation in several respects. Depending on the findings from such

50
a research design, possible changes to and/or “commonly” held assumptions about
the Latin American system of race would be highlighted and disputed. A research
design like this one would challenge the “commonly” accepted characterizations
about Latin American racial ideologies and its emphasis on the role of skin tone.
In this work, three competing perspectives on U.S. and Latin American racial
paradigms were presented; their main points of dispute being the similarities and/or
differences between U.S. and Latin American racial paradigms and the role of
phenotype/skin tone in both the U.S. and Latin America contexts. Is the U.S.
beginning to mirror the alleged “Latin American” conceptualization of race as a “tri-
racial” system based on skin-tone/pigmentation/phenotype (Bonilla-Silva, 2004)? Is
the Latin American system of race even driven by phenotype (Sue, 2009)? Although
debated extensively in the literature, this just has not been comprehensively and
effectively tested. Its exploration is relevant for several reasons.
Depending on which one of the three arguments would be determined to be
most salient among the Latino and white native participants in this hypothetical
research design, we could get an idea about if and how U.S. racial understandings
would be morphed and how and if Latinos contributed to this. Assuming that the
Latin American racial system is predominately driven by phenotype and that the U.S.
is moving in that direction, racial inequality in the U.S. would still persist; yet in a
different form. The two racial systems can arguably be found to strongly reflect or
diverge from one another; either way, inequality continues in both settings.
Nevertheless, research of this type is still valuable.

51
Specifically, findings from such research would have many implications.
They could foreshadow the role that race will play in electoral decision-making in
the U.S. If the U.S. system were transformed to emphasize primarily skin tone, the
role of race in electoral-decision-making would still be as important, but it would be
reconceptualized. In this case, phenotype/skin tone would serve as the basis for
racial classifications and not genotype based on the historically significant “one-
drop” rule. This change in perspective would affect criteria used to by voters to
evaluate candidates and impact their levels of favorability for a given candidate.
Historically race-based categorizations would give way to skin tone differences.
This would have repercussions for the literature on race-based group solidarity (e.g.,
Dawson, 1994).
Relatedly, findings from this type of experiment would also bring into
question notions of individual and group identity. Specifically, if merely skin
tone/phenotype were used to racially classify individuals, would previously held
ancestral/ethnic bounds of group solidarity disappear? In the section on the effects of
a candidate’s rate on voter turnout, the literature finds that the race of the candidate
does affect voter turnout, political participation, etc. For example, black voters
tended to feel that a black candidate would more strongly serve their interests than a
white candidate (Mansbridge, 1999). Would this sense of U.S. racial group
solidarity among those of similar ancestry etc. be insignificant? The potential
reconfiguration of groups would undermine what we might expect from a shared
ethnicity among a voter/s and a particular candidate.

52
Overall, it can be asserted that a micro-level test of this kind can help provide
insight into contemporary modes of mass immigration and how new migrants look at
candidates. Specifically, by comparing the responses of Latinos and native whites, it
is possible to examine how context. As revealed in the gender literature, gender
roles and stereotypes transform through migration. It is likely that interaction
between race and gender will matter. For example, would skin tone have the same
impact on candidate favorability for a female and male candidate? Would a dark skin
male and female candidate have similar levels of favorability?
The election of Barack Obama for U.S. President reflected a change in
contemporary views of race among the U.S. population. It can be argued that it
signaled the beginning of a completely nuanced U.S. racial paradigm. However,
maybe it has not and it is merely one event rather than representing a pattern of
change. As the U.S. population becomes increasingly multi-racial and Latinos
continue to migrate to the U.S., studying how their pre-migration, early racial
socialization influences their political attitudes and behavior in the U.S. is vital. It
will affect U.S. racial ideologies in one degree or another and influence criteria for
racial classification. In turn, this will likely shape how candidates are evaluated,
favored, etc. A research design such as the one suggested above, is one example that
can be used to understand the dynamics, transportation, and manifestation of early
racial socialization among Latino migrants in the U.S. context.

53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bailenson, Jeremy, Shanto Iyengar, Nick Yee, & Nathan Collins. (2007). Facial
Similarity as a Voting Heuristic: Some Experimental Evidence. Stanford
Working Paper.

Bobo, Lawrence and Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. (1990). Race, Sociopolitical
Participation, and Black Empowerment. American Political Science Review,
84(2), 377-393.

Bolks, Sean M., Evans, Diana, Polinard, J.L., & Wrinkle, Robert. (2000). Core
beliefs and abortion attitudes: A Look at Latinos. Social Science Quarterly,
8(1), 253-261.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. (2002). We are all Americans! The Latin Americanization of
Racial Stratification in the USA. Race & Society, 5, 3-16.

_____ (2004). From Bi-Racial to Tri-Racial: Towards a New System of Racial
Stratification in the USA. Race & Society, 27(6), 931-950.

Brown, S.E. (1975). Love unites then and hunger separates them: poor women in the
Dominican Republic. In R. Rapp (Ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women
(pp. 322-332). New York: Monthly Review Press.

Burns, Nancy, Schlozman, Lehman, & Verba, Sidney. (1997). The Public
Consequences of Private Inequality: Family Life and Citizen Participation.
The American Political Science Review, 91(2), 373-389.

Conde, Carlos D. (2005). Latino Kaleidoscope: Who Are We Anyway? The Whiting
of Latinos. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 15, 8.

Couper, Mick P. (2008). Designing Effective Web Surveys. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Cruz-Janzen, Marta I. (2001). Latinegras: Desired Women-Undesirable Mothers,
Daughters, Sisters, and Wives. Frontiers, 22, 168-178.

Darity Jr, William A., Jason Dietrich, & Darrick Hamilton. (2005). Bleach in the
Rainbow: Latin Ethnicity and Preference for Whiteness. Transforming
Anthropology, 13, 103-109.

Davis, James. (1991). Who is Black? The Nation’s Definition. University Park: State
University Press.

54
Dawson, Michael C. (1994). Behind The Mule: Race And Class In African-American
Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

DeSipio, Louis. (1996). Counting on the Latino Vote: Latinos As A New Electorate.
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Etzioni, Amitai. (2002). Inventing Hispanics. The Brookings Review, 20(1), 10-14.

Garcia, John A. (2003). Latino Politics in America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers Inc.

Gay, Claudine. (2001). The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on
Political Participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 589-602.

Greenly, Andrew M. (1994). The Demography of American Catholics: 1965-1990.
In The Sociology of Andrew Greenly. Atlanta: Scholarly Press.

Groves, Robert M., Floyd Fowler, Mike P. Couper, James M. Lepkowski, Eleanor
Singer, and Roger Tourangeau. (2009). Survey Methodology. Chicester:
Wiley-Blackwell.

Hall, Ronald E. (2003). Skin Color as Post-Colonial Hierarchy: A Global Strategy
for Conflict Resolution. The Journal of Psychology, 137(1), 41-53

Hanchard, Michael. (2006). The Color Line Versus Mixed Race: Racial Valuation
and Transnational Black Politics. Northwestern University Working Paper

Haney-Lopez, Ian. (1996). White Lines. In Haney-Lopez, White by Law: The Legal
Constructions of Race. New York, NY: University Press.

Hunt, Larry L. (1999). Hispanic Protestantism in the United States: Trends by
Decade and Generation. Social Forces, 7 (4), 1601-1624.

Hunter, Margaret L. (2002). “If You’re Light You’re Alright”: Light Skin Color as
Social Capital for Women of Color. Gender and Society, 16, 175-193.

Jacobsen, Matthew Frye. (1998). Whiteness of a Different Color. Cambridge &
London: Harvard University Press.

Keith, Verna M. and Cedric Herring. (1991). Skin Tone and Stratification in the
Black Community. The American Journal of Sociology, 97 (3), 760-778.

55
Leacock, E. & H.I. Safa. (Eds.). (1986). Women’s Work. South Hadley: Bergin and
Garvey.

Lee, Jennifer, & Frank D. Bean. (2007). Reinventing the Color Line: Immigration
and America’s New Racial and Ethnic Divide. Social Forces, 82(2), 561-586.

Mansbridge, Jane. (1999). Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent
Women? A Contingent ‘Yes. Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628-657.

Mayr, Ernst. (2002). The biology of race and the concept of equality. Daedalus,
131(1), 89-95.

McCartney, John. (1992). Black Power Ideologies: An Essay in African-American
Political Thought. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McClain, Paula D. & Joseph Stewart Jr. (2002). Can We All Get Along?” Racial and
Ethnic Minorities in American Politics. Boulder: Westview Press.

Morales, Pablo, & Clara E. Rodriguez. (2001). Latinos and the ‘Other Race’ Option:
Transforming U.S. Concepts of Race. NACLA Report on the Americas, 34,
40-46.

Nobles, Melissa. (2000a). History Counts: A Comparative Analysis of Racial/Color
Categorization in U.S. and Brazilian Census. American Journal of Public
Health, 90(11), 1738-1745.

Nobles, Melissa. (2000b). Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern
Politics. Stanford: Stanford Press.

Norris, Pippa. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Oboler, Suzanne. (1992). The Politics of Labeling: Latino/Cultural Identities of Self
and Others. Latin American Perspectives 19(4), 18-36.

Ono, Hiromi. (2002). Assimilation, Ethnic Competition, and Ethnic Identities of
U.S.-Born Persons of Mexican Origin. The International Migration Review,
36(3), 726-745.

Pessar, P. (1987). The Dominicans: Women in the household and garment industry.
In N. Foner (Ed.), New Immigrants in New York (pp. 103-130). New York:
Colombia University Press.

56
Pessar, P. & S. Grasmuck. (1991). Between Two Islands. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Ramirez, Ricardo. (2005). Patterns of Mobilization: A Longitudinal Analysis of
Latino Political Participation in California. Stanford Working Paper.

Rodriguez, Clara. (1989). Puerto Ricans: Born in the USA. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Rodriguez, Clara. (1992). Race, Culture, and Latino ‘Otherness’ in the 1980
Census.” Social Science Quarterly, 73, 930-937.

Rodriguez, Clara. (2000). Changing Race: Latinos, in the Census and the History of
Ethnicity in the United States. New York, New York University Press.

Rubbo, A. (1975). The spread of capitalism in rural Colombia: effects on poor
women. In R. Rapp (Ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women (pp. 333-357).
New York: Monthly Review Press.

Schiller, Nina Glick, Linda Basch, & Christina Blanc-Szanton (Eds). (1992).
Towards A Transnational Perspective On Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity,
and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York: Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences.

Sue, Christina. (2009). An Assessment of the Latin Americanization Thesis. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 32(6), 1058-1070.

Tate, Katherine. (2003). Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their
Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tofoya, Sonya. (2004). Shades of Belonging. Pew Hispanic Center, Washington,
D.C.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Health care for all? Anti-Latino and anti-immigrant attitudes, health care policy, and the Latino community

PDF

Political incorporation and transnationalism: a study of South Asian immigrants in the United States

PDF

In/visible constituents: the representation of undocumented immigrants

PDF

Multiracial politics or the politics of being multiracial?: Racial theory, civic engagement, and socio-political participation in a contemporary society

PDF

Essays on the politics of the American welfare state

Asset Metadata

Creator Ybarra, Lisa S. (author)

Core Title The role of skin tone on candidate evaluation: an analysis of racial socialization among Latino immigrants

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Politics

Publication Date 11/17/2009

Defense Date 10/30/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag candidate evaluation,Ethnicity,immigration,Latinos,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race

Place Name Latin America (region), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crigler, Ann (committee chair), Musso, Juliet A. (committee member), Wong, Janelle S. (committee member)

Creator Email lsybarra@usc.edu,Lybarra83@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2743

Unique identifier UC1501746

Identifier etd-Ybarra-3378 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-278190 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2743 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Ybarra-3378.pdf

Dmrecord 278190

Document Type Thesis

Rights Ybarra, Lisa S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu