Etymology and Social Construction of Race(ism)

Race has varied along with contradictory definitions of the term (Coleman, 2011). The notion of racism requires deliberate scrutiny due to its contested and multiple meanings (Ladson-Billings, 2000a). There are also varying perspectives as to when the term racism entered the lexicon. The Oxford English Dictionary (2013) traces the English term to 1936 (from the French racisme) in the context of Nazi theories. DuBois and Miley (2014) conceptualize racism as “the prejudicial attitudes directed against groups that society identifies as ‘lesser’—less capable, less productive, and less normal” (p. 137).

Earlier and contradictory accounts of race and racism are well documented (Coleman, 2011). The American physician and natural scientist Samuel G. Morton (1799–1851), writing in his seminal works Crania Aegyptica (1841) and Crania Americana (1839), argued for the biological basis of various racial groups, suggesting a hierarchical ranking with whites at the top and blacks at the bottom (Franklin & Higginbotham, 2011, p. 164). In his writings, Morton claimed that the Caucasians had the biggest brains, Indians, Native Americans/Native peoples/American Indians were in the middle with average brains, and “Negroes” (blacks) had the smallest brains (Franklin & Higginbotham, 2011). The polygenesis theory was the cultural concept that accompanied craniology. Polygenesis, or the idea of multiple Gardens of Eden and Adams and Eves, allowed for separate human development in various parts of the world. This cultural component made it easier for many white Christians to accept the “scientific” argument which asserted that blacks had a smaller brain size thus proving lower intelligence in blacks and their physiological distinction from whites (Franklin & Higginbotham, 2011). Races emerged from different human origins, and thus represented different human species. Franklin and Higginbotham note that “Antebellum ethnological studies touted the inherent inferiority of Blacks to justify their permanent enslavement . . . in the case of free blacks, their permanent and civic subordination” (p. 164).

As summarized by DeGruy (2005) and Haller (1971), earlier arguments described by the biologist Carl Von Linnaeus (1707–1778) in his book Systema Naturae (1735) put in motion his beliefs about race and racism, and in particular the use of skin color as a criterion for determining the moral and intellectual capacities of each race. Linnaeus is also credited with introducing the taxonomic system (DeGruy, 2005; Haller, 1971). Another proponent of racial categorizing was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1751–1840), who relied heavily on the approach of “comparative anatomy” to divide the human species into five races. He used the term Caucasian, which he invented (DeGruy, 2005; Haller, 1971). To offer a more recent example, the anthropologist Carelton Coon (1968) traced the origins of “race” to the classifications Caucasoid, Mongoliod, Negroid, and Australoid. Such stratified classifications and the rationalizations for them justified fewer resources, fewer opportunities, and fewer possibilities for those with lower status (DuBois & Miley, 2014).

Cheikh Anta Diop (1923–1986), a Senegalese physicist, historian, and anthropologist, examined the origins of the human race and precolonial African culture. Diop’s work (1974, 1978, 1989, 1991), summarized by Karenga, “found physical evidence of physical anthropology (for example, iconography, melanin dosage tests, osteological measurements, and blood group tests) confirming genetic linkages of the Nile Valley with Africanness or Blackness” (p. 52). Diop’s research findings were validated “with the 1974 discovery in Ethiopia of the fossil remains of ‘Lucy’ one of the earliest hominids; scientists now acknowledge that Africa is the continent from which human kind arose more than 3 million years ago” (Franklin & Higginbotham, 2011, p. 2).

W. E. B. Du Bois (1999) and like-minded sociologists and historians (Fredrickson, 2005; Hochschild & Powell, 2008; Smedley & Smedley, 2005; White, 2005) assert that “race” is not a biological construct that reflects innate differences, but a social construct that precisely captures categories and classifications served to justify colonialism, white supremacy, slavery, exploitation, and official forms of discrimination. From this perspective, race as defined by King (1981) is “a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends outward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classifications. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of ‘race’” (p. 118).

Furthermore, many accounts reveal that racial ideologies are reinforced, in part, because of social power and control structures—requisite components of racism (Jackson & Weidman, 2004). The sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois (1999) and the historian George White Jr. (2005) insist that negative racial attitudes sanctioned by governmental administrators perpetuated racism in American foreign policy. It is this race-constructed reality (which emphasized racial stratification) that led to a rigid racial hierarchy resulting in the subordination of racial, ethnic, or cultural groups within the social fabric of society, allowing access to or denial of the privileges of power and wealth (Jackson & Weidman, 2004; Smedley & Smedley, 2005).

Consequently, these constructs manifest themselves in census data as residuals of historical discrimination, which serve to underpin affirmative action policies and reinforce inherited, immutable social and cultural differences between groups (Schor, 2005; Hirschman, 2004; Perez & Hirschman, 2009). The notion of classifying and counting individuals by race evolved during the American Revolutionary and Antebellum periods (Anderson, 1988, 2002; Snipp, 2003).

To better understand how the legacy of racism reverberates in the 21st century, nuanced attention to the origins of the American censuses’ race and color categorization is necessary (Alexander, 2010; Nobles, 2000). Beginning in 1790, data were collected using the first U.S. decennial census. Racial categories were used to distinguish whites from other race (or color) categories, which excluded Native Americans/Native peoples (American “Indians”), dehumanized blacks (slaves counted as three-fifths of free persons, free colored persons), divided the black race (mulattoes vs. Negros), and reinforced invisibility of the “Mexican” race (Du Bois, 1999; Nobles, 2000; Schor, 2005). This hierarchical structure—deeply rooted in colonialism and racism—has lasting effects of historical trauma for the abovementioned racial groups (Brave Heart, 2003, 2007; Estrada, 2009; Evans-Campbell, 2008; Rodgers, 2013). It is beyond the scope of this article to address racism imposed on each group in America. Social work scholars and others have provided extensive expert and empirical documentation about the historical trauma and sufferings of other racial groups and this subject is discussed elsewhere (Brave-Heart, 2003, 2007; Estrada, 2009).

Specifically, the affliction endured by blacks in America is the emphasis of this discussion. This article is particularly relevant as past discussions have mostly been enmeshed in experiences with other racial groups. Themes of “colorism” and historical trauma are provided to help advance a broader conversation about the racism blacks experience globally.

Theorizing Racism

A Brief Sketch: Old-Fashioned and Contemporary Racism

Intersectionality of Racism: Slavery, Biomedical Experimentation, Racial Disparities, and Disproportionality

In America, racism has resulted in the construction of social institutions and policies that restrict resources and determine disparities in racial and ethnic groups (Alexander, 2010; Davis & Jung; 2013; Omi & Winant, 1994). Many scholars attribute these persistent disparities to institutional racism. Black political activists Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Touré) and Charles V. Hamilton (1967) originally coined the term “institutional racism” in their analysis of the economic, political, and social conditions facing black communities in the United States. Institutional racism is dependent on anti-black beliefs and on a presumption of black inferiority. Also called structural racism, the term was later expanded and defined as system of institutional structures that lead to disparities observed by marginalized persons that are inherent in institutional processes and policies (Griffin, Pifer, Humphrey, & Hazelwood, 2011). The two terms are frequently used interchangeably and primarily emphasize racial inequities not produced by individual conduct that often are perceived as less overt, less observable but with enduring systematic impacts on human life (Cashmore & Jennings, 2001).

DeGruy (2005) and Wilkerson (2010) concede that African Americans broadly have experienced and continue to endure the residual pains and injustices born of chattel slavery. Evidence suggests that African Americans are—both historically and in the era of “the new Jim Crow”—disproportionately oppressed and endure a higher incidence of disparity in America than other populations (Alexander, 2010; Watkins, 2009). In the 21st century, racism remains pervasive and yields dire consequences. (Alexander, 2010; Davis & Jung, 2013; Rule & Rule, 2010). There is an extensive body of postracial literature on child welfare, education, housing, media and entertainment, unemployment, voting rights disparities, and inequalities among blacks and other racial and ethnic groups; such subjects have been widely documented throughout social work literature (Davis & Jung, 2013; Fong, McRoy, & Dettlaff, 2014; Lum, 2009; Pollard, 2013). The present and forthcoming sections highlight some of the myriad examples in which racism is institutionalized. Specifically, it extends previous discussion by using historical and contemporary examples, which resonate with blacks and intersects social work on the micro-, mezzo-, and macro-level systems (DuBois & Miley, 2014).

Racism, Racial Health Disparities, and Disproportionality

Experimentation on the effects of racism continues to be a widely employed design in research and medical care. Several authoritative entities have documented that significant racial and ethnical health disparities and inequalities persist in major dimensions of medical care (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011a; Institute of Medicine, 2002; United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Davis and Jung (2013) contend that no single racial or ethnic group in the United States is excluded from health disparities. These health inequalities within the United States have a long, well-documented history, one in which racism has been used to foster racist institutions and a legacy of mistrust in the African American community (Bent-Goodley, 2007; Gamble, 1993).

Racism appears throughout the history of U.S. medical research. Vertus Wellborn Hardiman (1922–2007) was a victim of a U.S. government human radiation experiment at age five, an exposure which left him with a painful skull deformity that forced him to cover his head for 80 years (Smith, 2011). The infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (also known as “Bad Blood”) was a clinical study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service for 40 years (1932–1972) in which six hundred black men from Tuskegee, Alabama, were used as guinea pigs in a study of untreated syphilis (Brandt, 2000; Gamble, 1993; Gamble, 1997; Heller, 1972). In 1951, Henrietta Lacks (1920–1951) had her DNA (HeLa) immortal cells clandestinely removed, cultivated, and tested without her permission at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and they have been used for biomedical research from 1951 to the present day (Skloot, 2010). Black women were exploited “subjects” in medical research experimentation, including instances of the repeated cutting and sewing of women’s vaginas in the interest of advancing medical practice for white women (DeGury, 2005; Washington, 2006). These stark atrocities, perpetrated by the U.S. government and biomedical communities, contributed to treatment barriers for African Americans with various health and mental health service needs (Rodgers, 2006; Valandra, 2007).

Absent racism, investigators would expect to find roughly comparable data or results across the various groups who make up the whole of America. However, social scientists repeatedly note extreme differences in results for blacks and whites that cannot be explained by any other factor (or combination of factors). As a result, disproportionality is an appropriate way to demonstrate and/or quantify the harms caused by racism; this is especially true in the era of color-blind racism, where there is little evidence of overt racial animus or intention. Consistent with past injurious medical research are contemporary and notable examples of these widespread incidences of health disparities in African Americans. Although the 2010 Census shows that blacks make up approximately 14% of the U.S. total population (United States Census, 2011), they are inordinately affected by a range of health disparities. In 2010, for example, blacks accounted for 69% of all reported cases of gonorrhea (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011a). The AIDS endemic is yet another example of the instance of health care disparities. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011a), the diagnosis rate for HIV cases in the United States was 15.8 per 100,000 population and 60.4 among blacks. In 2010, homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between 10 and 24 years old, reaching exorbitant rates (51.5 per 100,000) and exceeding other racial groups in the same age category.

Overrepresented in the health outcomes and disparities in African Americans are inextricably linked to former slave status and firmly entrenched in colonialism as well as oppression, and in contemporary, historical, and intergenerational racism-related stress and trauma (Akbar, 1996; Barden, 2013; Davis & Jung, 2013; DeGruy, 2006; Griffith, Johnson, Ellis, & Schulz, 2010; Rodgers, 2013; Valandra, 2007). Therefore, when looking at the disproportionality of blacks in the United States, in particular, it is evident that the medical diagnosis and treatment provided is not equivalent to that of the dominant group. This assertion perhaps is best understood through the lens of colonialism. Taken together, disproportionality and colonialism breeds racism in medical and health treatment of black women, men, and children.

The burdens of asthma fall more heavily on black children (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). According to the CDC summary health statistics for U.S. children, in a national health interview survey completed in 2012, black children were more likely to have been diagnosed with asthma (22%) than other racial groups and were more likely to have had two or more visits to the emergency room in the past 12 months than other racial groups (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). Other health disparities in African American children include proportionally larger prescribing of Methylphendiate (Ritalin), a drug commonly used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—see American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2013) for diagnosis details. According to a report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) released in 2009, researchers have shown that Ritalin can cause physical changes in neurons in reward regions of mouse brains—in some cases, these effects mirrored those of cocaine. While NIDA (2008) asserts that Ritalin does not lead to drug addiction or other health consequences in adulthood, the fact remains that black children who attend public schools are prescribed Ritalin at disproportionately higher rates (Carlezon, Mague, & Andersen, 2003) and are still exorbitantly represented with various health risks when compared to other racial groups. African American children and other children of color who are diagnosed with ADHD are placed on Ritalin in large numbers (Boyd-Franklin, 2003; Boyd-Franklin, Franklin, & Toussaint, 2001). Research suggests that the misdiagnosis of ADHD combined with prescription drug use in children may lead to a higher risk of those children developing depressive symptoms in adulthood.

In 2009, the mortality rate for all cancers combined continued to be 31% higher in African American men and 15% higher in African American women than in white men and women, respectively (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, 2012). Yet in 2011, black women were more likely to die of breast cancer than any other group (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011a). Research found that black women who reported they had been racially discriminated against were more likely (31%) to develop breast cancer than those who did not report experiences of racial discrimination (Taylor et al., 2007).

In 2010, approximately 4 out of every 10 black women (43.7%) had been a victim of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. In cases of sexual assault survivors, research suggests that African American women are more likely to have been assaulted with weapons and to arrive at emergency rooms for health services than other racial groups (Boykins, Alvanzo, Carson, Forte, Leisey, & Plichta, 2010). Additionally, other studies documented that black women have suffered sexual abuse at a greater rate than other women, with estimates ranging from 8 to 19% of all black women (Wise, Palmer, Rothman, & Rosenberg, 2009). There are extensive examples and empirical studies documenting psychological and other mental health outcomes. However, shortcomings of traditional approaches in existing models for responding to intimate partner violence among African American women are predicated on oppressive institutional structures and function from a culturally neutral perspective, in which violence is perceived to be the same across all race and cultural groups (Bent-Goodley, Chase, Rodgers, & Circo, 2010).

As asserted by Bent-Goodley et al. (2010), Rodgers (2006, 2011), and Williams (2008), it is critical to place intimate partner violence and other aforementioned prevalence rates into a sociocultural context rooted in African values and traditions, and other culturally competent strength-based models in which historical trauma are given nuanced attention. These approaches will help cement the sustainability of President Barack Obama’s progressive priorities, which include an initiative called Healthy People 2020, a 10-year national plan with objectives to improve health of all Americans.

Post-Slavery Era in United States: Policies, Social Controls, Social Institutions

Historical Trauma and Mental Health

As asserted by Frantz Fanon (1925–1961) “the habit of considering racism as a mental quirk, as a psychological flaw, must be abandoned” (1967, p. 77). Racism in the context of historical trauma and mental health is researched and understood (Williams & Williams-Morris, 2000) in cultural trauma (Barden, 2013; Eyerman, 2001), invisibility syndrome (Franklin et. al., 2006; Franklin & Boyd-Franklin, 2000), race-based trauma (Carter & Forsyth, 2009), post-slavery traumatic stress syndrome (Akbar, 1996), post-traumatic slavery syndrome (Pouissaint & Alexander, 2000), and post-traumatic slave syndrome (Crawford, Nobles, Leary, 2003; DeGruy, 2005).

In the case of African Americans, social worker Joy DeGruy (2005), in her pioneering book Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome: America’s Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing, has described post-traumatic slave syndrome “as a condition that exists when a population has experienced multigenerational trauma resulting from centuries of slavery and continues to experience oppression and institutionalized racism today” (p. 125).

The accounts briefly described thus far chronicle various intersections of a legacy of racism institutionalized in America (Du Bois, 1999; DeGruy, 2005). While many abhorrent things happen to blacks because of the racist practices perpetrated against them, it is also critical to acknowledge their strengths embedded in a proud genetic inheritance of greatness, “oneness,” survival, and spirituality (Ani, 1994; Diop, 1974, 1978, 1989, 1991; Martin & Martin, 2002, Robinson, Battle, & Robinson, 1987; Williams, 1987).

Social Work: Perceptions, Responses, and Commitment to Eradicate Racism in the United States

This section highlights the ways social work as a profession has responded to far-reaching effects of racism. In firm support against racism, social work trailblazers like pioneer and activist Whitney M. Young Jr. (1921–1971) and NABSW first National President Cenie “Jomo” Williams Jr. (1939–1983) spearheaded early attempts to eradicate racism. Building on Whitney’s classical work, Beyond Racism: Building an Open Society, recent NASW literature informs us that racism is an ideology or practice of white supremacy of one group over others by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural heritage (Clark, Weismiller, Whitaker, Waller, Zlontnik, & Corbett, 2006; National Association of Social Workers, 2007).

Social work’s model of anti-racism intervention acknowledges the embedded systemic and multidimensional nature of racism (National Association of Social Workers, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). Despite these strides and political and social gains of the Civil Rights era (for discussion of this development, see the entry “Civil Rights,” Pollard, 2013 in this encyclopedia), overt and explicit forms of racism (for example, segregation or lynching) appear to have attenuated over the years. Examples of notable milestones of the social work profession’s commitment to eradicate racism include the establishment of National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) during the 1960s to address issues of racism and poverty in America. In addition, NASW established several committees, policies, and innovative strategies to eradicate racism, including: The Social Work Profession: A Call To Action to address institutional racism.

At the macro level, the profession has demonstrated its commitment to combat racism through advocacy efforts and policy reform. For example, Social Work Congress passed Social Work Imperative #6 to address the impact of racism, other forms of oppression, social injustice, and other human rights violations through social work education and practice. In the National Association of Social Workers 2012 Document to the Obama Administration the profession recommended ending the practice of racial profiling through the promotion of initiatives that fairly target the perpetrators of crimes, rather than those who represent a particular racial or ethnic minority, and urged passage of the End Racial Profiling Act.

Additionally, NASW testified at the 110 Congress to include the End Racial Profiling Act (H.R.4611/S.2481) seeking corrective action against “profiling” by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials who routinely use race, ethnicity, or national origin when choosing which individuals should be stopped, detained, or searched.

However, the implementation of the aforementioned practices are merely lip services if the actions of individuals within the social work profession ignore racism, dismiss valid claims by issuing statements as state chapters within the organization rather than as a united national and international profession.

[E]Race[ing] Colorism Globally

Racism has taken place throughout various parts of the world. Therefore, this portion of the entry highlights those examples through the theme of colorism. Racial classification based on color is a significant factor in the globalization of racism. True to prediction and into the 21st century, the world is plagued with unrest relative to color in the United States and around the world. W. E. B. Du Bois (1999) in his classic 1903 work, The Souls of Black Folk, envisaged that “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line (racism)—the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea.” It is clear that issues of “Color in a White Society” (National Association of Social Workers, 2007, p. 25) continue into this day. As stated previously, race is a social construct that precisely captures categories and classifications served to justify colonialism, slavery, exploitation, and official forms of discrimination (Fredrickson, 2005; Hochschild & Powell, 2008; Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Du Bois, 1999; White, 2005). However colorism is a construct rooted in characteristics of skin tone (Hochschild & Powell, 2008; Robinson, 2013). According to Culbreth (2006), types of colorism include “interracial colorism” and “intraracial colorism.” Whereas, interracial colorism involves a member of one racial group making a distinction based on the skin color of members belonging to a different racial group, in contrast, intraracial colorism involves a member of one group making distinctions based on the skin color of members belonging to the same racial group.

As asserted by Robinson (2013), “One lesson taught by slavery and colonialism was a social discrimination and hierarchical structure between members of the same race, based on skin color, a phenomenon known as colorism” (p. 580). Partisan practices date back to the American chattel system of slavery where slave owners used skin color as the basis to divide work chores and blacks. Moreover, the “blackest” slaves were perceived as the healthiest and better laborers and the lighter-skinned blacks were better suited for intelligent tasks, such as craftsmanship or lighter labor (Kerr, 2005). Dark-skinned slaves worked in the field and performed more physically demanding tasks and lighter skinned slaves (resulting from mothers raped by slave masters) were given more prestigious jobs (Hunter, 2002; Johnson, 2001).

Kerr (2005) contends that derogatory attention to African features was revealed by objectionable, taboo “complexion tests,” which included “the brown paper bag principle,” and in songs, rituals, rhymes. A quote embedded in Jim Crow Laws—“If you’re light you’re right, if you’re yellow, you’re mellow, if you’re brown stick around, but if you’re Black get back, way back”—upholds earlier research conducted by Kenneth and Mamie Clark (1947) in which majority of the black children who participated in the “doll test” preferred the white dolls and rejected the ones which looked like them. These lasting effects of racism are also reinforced by media portrayals which spotlight negative images (Watkins, 2009). Additional examples include Toni Morrison’s (1970) virtuosic first novel, Bluest Eye, as well as Bill Duke and D. Channsin Berry’s (2011) documentary Dark Girls and Kiri Davis’s (2005) film, A Girl Like Me—power narratives which dig beneath the surface to explore roots of the psychological effects of colorism from America to isolated corners of the globe. Research suggests that skin color paradox has a negative impact on dark-skinned blacks.

In the United States of America, researchers found evidence of profound social stratification by skin tone. African Americans with darker skin tone reported significantly less or lower: educational attainment, employment opportunities, income status, home ownership, marital status, political representation, as well as, longer prison sentences (Culbreth, 2006; Hughes & Hertel, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 2000a; Robinson, 2013). This dark-light paradigm premised on color accords well with research that shows that since slavery, as light skin hue has been considered more attractive and appealing than dark skin (Clark & Clark, 1947; Herring, Keith, & Horton, 2004). Consequences have resulted in the blatant form of colorism—the practice of skin lightening or skin bleaching to lighten ones complexion for blacks in the United States and Afro-Jamaicans in the West Indies (WI) as a means of improving beauty and ultimately increasing opportunities for economic and social mobility (Charles, 2009; Robinson, 2013).

In Jamaica, WI, Robinson (2013) examined skin-bleaching perceptions in Afro-Jamaicans. Findings from her study suggest that British values of significant preference for light skin over dark was upheld by participants and that bleaching was a significant benefit of an exaggerated sense of beauty (Robinson, 2013). Earlier literature (Charles, 2009; Hickling & Hutchinson, 2000) confirms that the attainment of whiteness is a symbol of social acceptance. Skin bleaching poses serious concern for health officials and necessities governmental policy (Robinson, 2013).

Colorism also has immigration policy implications for persons arriving from other islands in the West Indies. For example, while past U.S.-Cuban agreement has supported the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy for Cuban migration and eventually legal permanent resident status of Cubans if they made it to shore, darker-skinned immigrants, such as Haitians, who made it to land have not received the same treatment. As observed by the scholars Abu-Jamal (2004) and Danticat (2004), Haitians (unlike Cubans) are met with distorted American dreams, confined in de facto prisons, indefinite detentions or eventual deportation back to their home island.

In Brazil, slavery lasted for more than 300 years and was compounded by the divide of blacks based on color. Post-slavery, Brazilian blacks systematically occupy lower status in many venues of social, economic, and political life (Reichmann, 1995). Almost a decade later, Telles (2004) found that darker-skinned Brazilians reported lower earnings and occupational status, less access to education, and experienced various forms of discrimination when compared with lighter-skinned Brazilians. Concerning gender, Brazilian women tended to be classified in whiter categories than men (Telles, 2004).

In Africa, researchers (Ajose, 2005; Blay, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 2000a; Lewis, Robkin, Gaska, & Njoki, 2011; Ly, 2007) have also found that despite dangerous outcomes from skin bleaching chemicals (such as mercury), which may cause skin cancer, kidney disease, brain disease and increased infertility rates, skin bleaching in Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Ghana persists. For example, Blay (2007) reported that the light skin privileges embedded by colonialism in Ghana’s social history and culture perpetuates persistence of skin bleaching despite negative health outcomes. In the case of the Tanzanian women, a study by Lewis et al. (2011) found that skin bleaching was associated with self-objectification, colonialism, and Westernization. Regardless of the hemisphere, rac(ism) for blacks is woven throughout the fabric of every society (Jones, 1997) and it requires a collective response from social workers and like-minded disciplines interested in eradicating racism in America and globally (Ladson-Billings, 2000a; National Association of Social Workers, 2007; Wise, 2005).

Implications for Social Work

This article has trans-disciplinary—black studies, anthropology, sociology, history, social work—implications. As an exemplar, black social worker trailblazers and their colleagues in the profession have made notable milestones to eradicate racism. Still, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) asserts that racism is pervasive in U.S. society and remains a silent code that systematically closes doors to many individuals (National Association of Social Workers, 2007).

Despite social work’s concerted efforts to remedy racism institutionalized in systems through cultural competence, social diversity, policy statements and legislative action, racism continues to plague America and international societies in the 21st century. Gibson (2014) and others call for social work educators to include multifaceted pedagogical approaches across the curriculum.

To ensure the profession’s social responsibility to combat racism, innovative and deliberate social work using anti-racism practice tools (Bent-Goodley, 2001; Gilbert, Harvey, & Belgrave, 2009; Ladson-Billings, 2000b; National Association of Social Workers, 2007; Chisom & Washington, 1997) are needed.

The urgency to tackle racism through academic curricula and Council on Social Work Education practice standards (Clark et al., 2006; Council on Social Work Education, 2008; National Association of Social Workers, 2007) necessitates the inclusion of conventional models of education and practices grounded in African-centered pedagogies. There is opportunity for the social work profession to promote positive images and historical narratives of women (from Harriet A. Jacobs [1813–1897], to U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama)—children (Celia, a slave [1836–1855] to Thessalonika Arzu Embry)—and men (from astronomer-scientist Benjamin Banneker [1731–1806] to U.S. President Barack Obama). Effective examples are occurring at micro, messo, and macro levels (e.g., President Obama’s Race and Beyond: Moving Forward with “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative; NASW social work pioneers). Contemporary examples are also documented in descendants of African ancestry who are prominent academics in varying disciplines—black studies, English, fine arts, history, social work, sociology, and teacher education (Rodgers & Cudjoe, 2013) and community leaders JWT (J. Walter Thompson) Differenter/Innovators of Change (Thacker, 2015)

On the macro level, reform is needed in federal and state systems, and a change in language, one that does not dehumanize persons. This article reinforces themes, which are aligned with the 2014 Social Work Month theme, “All People Matter” and the profession’s value of respect for the dignity and worth of the person. Moreover, discussions central to eradicating racism must transcend conversations outlined in United Nations post-2015 agenda. Social work proposed by scholars (DeGruy, 2005; Franklin et al., 2006; Whitaker, Weismiller, & Clark, 2006) assert the need for critical approaches, which include a shift from an invisibility syndrome to social responsibility, a balance of power in institutions, and actionable social policies that acknowledge grievous injustice, uphold the promise of “forty acres and a mule” (Darity, 2008), and confront racial exclusion.

In looking forward, the realities of racism endured by blacks in the United States and globally will not be resolved solely by the efforts of social workers at individual, mid-level, or macro-structural conversations. Instead, a collective revolutionary action of blacks, dedicated social workers, and like-minded individuals will be rallied through intellectual protests which include authentic historical phenomena (chants, dye-ins, marches) infused into pedagogy, educational core competencies, culturally competent practice, community organizing, policy reform, and grassroots social activism.