Racial Categories in Three Nations: USA, South Africa, and Australia

1 Introduction

  • Race is a social construction about appearance; it is fundamentally about how one looks rather than intrinsic biology.

    • Related to ethnicity (shared cultural background) but race is treated as separate from ethnicity; when judging others, we infer race from appearance without knowing ethnic background.

    • The act of doing race and making assumptions about someone’s race is a social process.

    • Racial terminology (e.g., "black", "white", "yellow", "red") reflects its basis in appearance and carries different meanings in different parts of the world.

  • This paper compares racial formations in three countries: the United States, South Africa, and Australia.

    • All three have been profoundly shaped by European, particularly British, colonialism.

    • Current racial categories use similar terminology but carry different meanings locally.

  • Method and argument

    • Starts from racial formation theory (Omi & Winant, 1994) to highlight the contested and situated nature of racial categories.

    • Argues that while all three nations have been influenced by white supremacy, the meanings and inclusions of racial categories reflect each nation’s history and processes of racial formation.

  • Outline of the argument

    • Racial formation theory as an ideological process with legacies that continue to shape the present (Omi & Winant, 1994: 53).

    • Examination of the racial categories and hierarchies in the USA, South Africa, and Australia, with attention to similarities and differences.

    • Conclusion: all three nations show white supremacy influences, but their current racial formations reflect unique historical trajectories.

1.1 RACIAL FORMATION

  • Racial formation theory posits race as a contested, dynamic process (Omi & Winant, 1994).

    • Emphasizes that racial meanings are changeable and tied to time and place; social locations and power relations shape how race is understood and who is included in racial categories.

  • Core claims

    • Racial legacies of the past continue to shape the present (Omi & Winant, 1994: 53).

    • The process is ideological: the types of racial categories and who is included are shaped by dominant ideologies and those in power.

  • Common pattern across the three nations

    • The ideology of white supremacy has been influential in all three histories and continues to influence contemporary understandings and policies, even if the form of racism or its legal codification has changed.

    • In all three nations, whites are positioned at the top and blacks at the bottom of racial hierarchies, though who counts as "white" or "black" varies by country.

1.2 THE UNITED STATES

  • Five main racial categories (as commonly tracked):

    • 5 main categories: white, black/African-American, Native American/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian.

  • Key historical events shaping US racial formation

    • Colonisation established a divide between British settlers (later identified as "white") and Native Americans (identified as "Indian").

    • Slavery solidified racial difference; enslaved Africans were defined as black; the status of mixed-race individuals evolved over time.

    • The one-drop rule: any child with any known African ancestry is considered Black (Davis, 1991: 1991).

    • Racial difference was underpinned by white supremacy—the belief that whites are superior and Blacks are inferior (Marx, 1998: 1998).

    • The US Civil War (~1861-1865) ended slavery but also reinforced Black–White racial cleavage; whites united across class in defense of racial unity (Marx, 1998: 14-15).

    • Jim Crow laws in the southern states enforced racial separation and hierarchy, restricting miscegenation, social contact, and education across races; these laws persisted until the middle of the 20th century (mid-20th century).

    • The US Civil Rights Movement challenged Jim Crow; by the 1970s, policies emerged aiming to provide Blacks with equal opportunities, yet race-based tracking remained relevant for measuring progress.

  • The broader racial landscape in the US

    • Beyond the five main groups, the Census tracks Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander as groups of interest (US Census Bureau, 2007).

    • The white category is broad, incorporating people of European and Middle Eastern descent; the black category includes people of mixed race; appearance can determine racial classification (Davis, 1991: 5).

    • The common understanding: a Black person is someone with African ancestry, but many Blacks are racially mixed; whiteness can be maintained despite partial non-white ancestry.

  • Racial hierarchy and implications

    • The hierarchy places whites at the top and Blacks at the bottom, with other groups occupying intermediate positions.

    • Racial categorization serves as a political and social tool that reinforces social stratification and access to resources.

1.3 SOUTH AFRICA

  • Colonial and historical context

    • Initial colonization by the Dutch (Afrikaners/Boers) in the 17th century, followed by British settlement in the 18th century.

    • Slavery and forced labor practices occurred, including indentured/enslaved Africans and imported slaves from Indonesia; these dynamics contributed to complex racial mixing.

  • Main racial categories in South Africa

    • The established categories were: black (Africans), white (Boers/Africans of European descent), coloured (mixed-race), and Asian (Indian).

    • A longstanding conflict between British settlers and Afrikaners shaped political power and policy preferences around race.

  • The Anglo-Boer War and its aftermath

    • The war (turn of the 20th century) ended with British victory and influences that created certain disappointments for non-whites (Marx, 1998: 90).

    • Post-war policies solidified a racial hierarchy with whites at the top and blacks at the bottom, and they laid groundwork for later apartheid.

  • Apartheid era (1948 onward)

    • The National Party formalized apartheid, a system of legalized racial separation dictating where people could live, work, and socialize; life chances were determined by racial classification, and bureaucracy managed these classifications.

    • There were mechanisms to change one’s racial classification, particularly for the intermediate group, the coloureds.

  • The black category and the coloured category

    • The black category primarily referred to Africans; the coloured category encompassed people of mixed race and did not fit neatly into Black or White.

    • Anti-apartheid movements attempted to unify non-whites under a shared Black identity, but many resisted this umbrella categorization.

  • End of apartheid and non-racialism

    • With the end of apartheid in 1994, non-racialism became the official state policy; however, the legacies of apartheid persist and race remains important in South Africa.

  • Current framework

    • The main racial categories largely remain the same (Statistics South Africa, 2007).

1.4 AUSTRALIA

  • Colonial context and terra nullius

    • Australia began as a penal colony; white settlers declared the land terra nullius (unoccupied) to justify taking the land, despite the presence of Aboriginal peoples (Markus, 1994).

  • Key historical policies and their effects

    • White Australia Policy: established at the end of the 19th century; restricted immigration from Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Islands; a dictation test (1901) could be in any European language, further restricting non-white immigration.

    • After World War II, Australia pursued a migration program targeting British and other European migrants, which brought many Southern European migrants who were not always considered fully white.

    • For much of the 20th century, race in Australia was effectively bifurcated into white and black/Aboriginal, though some European migrants were not considered fully white but were deemed white enough to assimilate.

  • Shifts in policy and national identity

    • The White Australia Policy remained in place until the late 1960s.

    • Afterward, the abolition of race-based migration restrictions and the adoption of multiculturalism as an official state policy in the 1970s, followed by a backlash in the early 1980s and a return to anti-racist stances by the late 1980s (Markus, 1994: 174-222).

    • In contemporary Australia, multiculturalism is the policy framework, though its prominence has fluctuated in political discourse.

  • Contemporary racial formation and categories

    • The white category is narrower than in the USA or SA, reflecting the legacy of the White Australia Policy and postwar migration patterns.

    • The traditional biracial framing persists: white and black (with Aboriginal peoples representing the core black category).

    • The black category in Australia includes Aboriginal peoples, Torres Strait Islanders, and people of African and African-American descent; there is also an Asian category and arguably a separate Indian category.

    • Australia does not routinely collect population data by race; data collection focuses on ethnicity rather than race, highlighting the prominence of ethnicity in public data collection.

2 DISCUSSION

  • Shared hierarchical pattern across all three nations

    • Each country exhibits a racial hierarchy with whites at the top and blacks at the bottom.

    • The persistence of white supremacy as a governing logic underpins these hierarchies, even as legal frameworks evolve.

    • White groups across all three nations have sought to maintain economic dominance, using racial classifications to sustain benefits derived from their position.

  • Key differences across nations

    • In the United States and South Africa, the white category is broad, encompassing Europeans, Jews, and Middle Easterners; this broad definition may be shifting in a post-9/11 context (USSA context references).

    • In Australia, the white category is narrower due to historical policies (White Australia) and migration patterns; many Australians consider only Anglo-Celtic and northern European heritage as White.

  • Differences in the Black category

    • United States: Black category includes African-Americans and migrants; the one-drop rule treats anyone with Black ancestry as Black, leading many Blacks to be racially mixed in practice (Davis, 1991: 5).

    • South Africa: Black category generally refers to ethnically African people; the Coloured category captures people of mixed race; during apartheid, there was an attempt to unify non-whites under Black, but many resisted this umbrella.

    • Australia: Black category largely refers to Aboriginal people; African migrants and refugees exist but are often not the primary public association with Blackness.

  • The “ethnic-looking” category in Australia

    • A racial descriptor for people who are not clearly White based on appearance; broad and includes people who are brown (e.g., Greek, Italian, Lebanese, or those with Middle-Eastern appearance).

    • The emergence of similar appearance-based categories (e.g., “of Middle-Eastern appearance”) may reflect broader post-9/11 social categorization trends.

  • Implications and openness to change

    • The three-country comparison highlights how race is socially constructed and how racial categories emerge and shift with historical factors.

    • Despite convergence in a broad sense (whites atop the hierarchy), the meanings of White and Black differ markedly across the USA, SA, and Australia, reflecting each nation’s unique historical development.

3 CONCLUSION

  • The study provides an abbreviated account of historical factors shaping racial formations in South Africa, Australia, and the United States.

    • Similarities exist in racial hierarchies (white at the top, Black at the bottom) and the overall influence of white supremacy.

    • Differences arise from historically specific events and trajectories that shape each nation’s racial meanings and inclusions.

  • Overall takeaway

    • While the three countries share a legacy of white supremacy and similar hierarchical outcomes, the precise meanings and inclusions of White and Black categories diverge due to national histories and policy developments.

  • Final note on enduring impact

    • Even though laws and policies have evolved, racial hierarchies continue to be central to societal organization and resource distribution.

Personal Thoughts

What stood out most to me is how global white supremacy doesn’t manifest identically across contexts, even though it underpins all three systems. Farquharson makes it clear that while these countries all operate on a racial hierarchy with whiteness at the top and Blackness at the bottom, who counts as “white,” “Black,” or “ethnic” varies significantly depending on national history, colonial logic, and economic needs.

What I really appreciated is how Farquharson weaves Omi & Winant’s racial formation theory throughout. She reminds us that race isn’t a static label; it’s a shifting social process—racial categories are shaped by specific historical, political, and economic events, not biological difference. Whether it’s Jim Crow in the U.S., apartheid in South Africa, or the White Australia Policy, these structures didn’t just emerge randomly—they were constructed to preserve white power and economic control.

It also made me think about how racial formation is not only state-driven, but also popularly reinforced through cultural perception and surveillance. Even if South Africa today has a legal commitment to non-racialism, race still deeply affects access to resources and social status. Likewise, multiculturalism in Australia hasn’t erased the everyday realities of racial exclusion.

As a first-gen woman of color in the U.S., this reading made me reflect on how deeply race is shaped by place. What counts as whiteness or marginalization shifts depending on the country, yet the end result is depressingly similar: white dominance is protected, often invisibly, through legal, social, and cultural means.

It also made me think critically about U.S. exceptionalism—we often imagine our racial struggles as unique, but Farquharson’s comparative lens shows that racism is a global structure, albeit with local variations. Recognizing that opens up space for solidarity across movements—from Indigenous rights in Australia to Black liberation in the U.S. to anti-apartheid legacies in South Africa.

🔹1. How does Farquharson apply racial formation theory to the U.S., South Africa, and Australia?

Answer:
Farquharson uses racial formation theory to show that racial categories are not natural or fixed, but are historically and politically constructed. In each country, race was shaped by colonialism and economic agendas, but the specific racial categories and meanings differ. For example, the U.S. developed the “one-drop rule,” categorizing anyone with Black ancestry as Black, whereas South Africa formalized a separate “coloured” category for mixed-race people. Australia, by contrast, developed a white–Black binary largely focused on Aboriginality. These differences underscore that racial categories emerge out of national histories, not biological realities.

🔹2. What role did colonialism and white supremacy play in shaping racial hierarchies in these three nations?

Answer:
In all three nations, colonialism laid the groundwork for racial hierarchies by establishing whiteness as superior and non-whiteness as inferior. White supremacy justified the exploitation, dispossession, and control of Indigenous and Black populations. In the U.S., this was through slavery and segregation; in South Africa, through apartheid; and in Australia, through the legal erasure of Aboriginal sovereignty (e.g., terra nullius). Even as each country developed distinct racial categories, they all maintained a clear racial order that benefited whites economically, politically, and socially.

🔹3. Why is it important to understand that race is constructed differently across national contexts?

Answer:
Understanding the variability of racial categories across countries reveals that race is not a biological fact but a social and political invention. This disrupts universalist narratives about race and racism and allows us to better analyze how power operates locally and globally. It also helps build transnational solidarity—recognizing that while anti-Blackness and colonial legacies are global phenomena, they manifest differently depending on the historical and legal context.

🔹4. How does the "one-drop rule" in the U.S. compare to South Africa’s “coloured” category and Australia’s “ethnic-looking” classification?

Answer:
The one-drop rule in the U.S. reflects a rigid binary that sees any amount of Black ancestry as disqualifying from whiteness—revealing how deeply anti-Blackness is embedded in U.S. racial logic. In South Africa, mixed-race people were placed in a separate “coloured” category, creating a stratified system that divided non-white people. In Australia, the term “ethnic-looking” reflects a more ambiguous racial logic based entirely on appearance and cultural deviation from Anglo whiteness. All three systems police boundaries around whiteness, but in different ways and for different political purposes.

🔹5. Why does Farquharson argue that racial categories are ideological as well as historical?

Answer:
She argues that racial categories serve political and ideological functions—they are shaped by who holds power and what that power needs to maintain itself. Racial classifications are not simply descriptive; they are prescriptive. They tell people where they belong in the social hierarchy and justify why some groups are given more access to rights, resources, and recognition. Even when laws change, the ideological structure of white supremacy often remains intact through cultural norms and institutional inertia.

🔹6. What does the reading suggest about the relationship between race and economic power?

Answer:
Farquharson, drawing on Marx and Lipsitz, suggests that race and class are deeply entwined. Racial categories were often used to consolidate white economic power, especially when class divisions threatened white unity. For example, post–Civil War white Americans were unified across class lines through whiteness. Similarly, South African whites across British and Dutch backgrounds eventually compromised in order to maintain economic and racial dominance. In Australia, the White Australia Policy served to protect economic opportunities for white settlers. Race, then, is not just about identity—it’s a tool for managing access to wealth and labor.

🔹7. What are the implications of Farquharson’s argument that whites remain at the top of the hierarchy in all three countries?

Answer:
This suggests that despite national differences, global racial capitalism continues to privilege whiteness. Even in post-apartheid South Africa or officially multicultural Australia, racial hierarchies persist. Laws may change, but social systems often reconfigure themselves to preserve white dominance. This continuity challenges the idea that we live in a post-racial or colorblind era—it reveals that racism has simply become more flexible and adaptive.

🔹8. How might this reading challenge American students’ assumptions about race?

Answer:
Many American students assume race is a fixed or universal concept—this reading disrupts that. It forces us to question why, for example, mixed-race people in the U.S. are almost always considered Black, while in South Africa they might be “coloured” and in Australia, perhaps just “ethnic-looking.” It exposes how arbitrary yet powerful these labels are, and how they're shaped by specific historical and political goals. It also highlights how American-centric our thinking can be when we imagine race as operating the same everywhere.

🔹9. What role do state policies (e.g., Jim Crow, apartheid, the White Australia Policy) play in solidifying racial categories?

Answer:
State policies are instrumental in making racial categories feel “real.” Through laws that determine who can marry, migrate, own land, or attend school, the state codifies racial divisions and enforces hierarchy. These policies don't just reflect existing racial formations—they create and institutionalize them. Farquharson shows how, in each country, legal systems were used to define and police race for the purpose of maintaining control and excluding others from full citizenship and economic participation.

🔹10. Can you draw connections between racial formation and current global trends, such as anti-immigrant sentiment or Islamophobia?

Answer:
Absolutely. Racial formation doesn’t stop once categories are “set”—it evolves in response to contemporary anxieties. Farquharson notes the rise of terms like “Middle Eastern appearance” in Australia post-9/11, which mirrors rising Islamophobia in the U.S. and Europe. These categories shift focus but maintain the same logic: defining certain bodies as threats to national identity, safety, or whiteness. So even as formal racism is denounced, new racialized categories emerge to justify surveillance, exclusion, and violence.