We often confuse the concept of "racial" groups with "ethnic" groups, and we may use the terms interchangeably when they refer to very different types of group differences. In many ways, our society expresses confusion on the issue, at one time seeming to make the distinction, while at other times failing to do so. In the sixties and seventies there was the beginning of a debate over whether or not the experience of white immigrants had any meaning for America's racial minorities, showing a distinction between the two. At other times, we may speak of the two as if they are one. Recently, of course, the entire issue has been complicated by a scientific view that race itself has no meaning and that racial distinctions are themselves false. This is in contravention to the long-standing view that the concept of race did indeed have meaning and that there were real biological differences among the races, while now scientists say that these differences are not substantive. Prior to this, however, and in the popular view, racial distinctions are at least indicative of surface biological differences in skin color, hair type, and perhaps even body type. Ethnic differences relate more to geography and culture. To a great degree, these differences are social constructs that have real consequences as different policies are formed and implemented based on racial and ethnic classifications.
Race was long considered to have biological meaning, while ethnicity was seen as having a social meaning and not a biological one. Ethnicity has been examined in American sociology and has engendered an argument between the assimilationist and pluralist perspectives. Both positions emphasize the cultural origins of ethnic groups, an underlying assumption that has never been tested. According to the assimilationist, cultural differences between national origin groups pass through later generations in more and more diluted forms until they ultimatel...