Abstract: Racial/ethnic health disparities remain a persistent problem in the United States, and everyday discrimination is a key psychosocial pathway contributing to these disparities. Prior research has mostly relied on older, nonrepresentative, or single-group data and has rarely tested theory-driven explanations for why associations between discrimination and health vary across racial/ethnic groups. Guided by the minority stress model and settler colonialism framework, we hypothesized that (1) everyday discrimination is associated with poor self-rated health (SRH) and unhappiness, net of sociodemographic controls, and (2) these associations vary by race/ethnicity, with the strongest associations among Hispanic and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) respondents. This quantitative study used pooled cross-sectional data from four waves (2018–2024) of the General Social Survey (n = 7924), based on nationally representative samples of U.S. adults. We applied logistic regression and causal inference methods, including propensity score matching and double machine learning, to estimate associations between discrimination and SRH/happiness. Findings supported both hypotheses. Everyday discrimination was reported by 74% of respondents and was associated with 62% higher odds of poor SRH and 58% higher odds of unhappiness. Hispanic and AAPI respondents showed the strongest associations between discrimination and SRH. The Black–White unhappiness difference was explained by sociodemographic factors rather than everyday discrimination, whereas American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) respondents showed an SRH disadvantage unexplained by either factor. Everyday discrimination is pervasive and structurally patterned, and its associations with health vary across racial and ethnic groups. Institutional efforts should address exclusive treatment and perpetual foreigner stereotyping affecting both Hispanic and AAPI populations while addressing structural determinants such as socioeconomic inequality among Black Americans. Larger AI/AN samples are needed to identify the mechanisms underlying their SRH disadvantage.







Abstract: The Sunshine Coast of southern British Columbia, Canada, is extensively populated by Himalayan blackberries (Rubus armeniacus), a species introduced to North America in the late nineteenth century. In their coexistence with other species, humans often categorize nonhuman life forms as either beneficial or detrimental. Yet the Himalayan blackberry challenges this binary classification: while widely recognized as an invasive species that threatens local biodiversity, it also serves as a valuable source of food for birds, mammals, and humans. Moreover, the city of Powell River celebrates this plant as a local emblem through its annual Blackberry Festival. At the same time, the city is engaged in a public debate about renaming itself, due to the controversial legacy of IsraelWood Powell, British Columbia’s first Superintendent of Indian Affairs, who the city is named after. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and qualitative interviews, this paper examines three human–blackberry entanglements, representing contrasting approaches to handling multispecies relations that are embedded within the legacies of settler colonialism and its extractive infrastructures. Conceptualizing present-day Powell River as the “Powell River Patch”, i.e., the outcome of imperial and industrial infrastructures, the analysis brings the concept of invasive life into conversation with the theory of ontological security. In doing so, the paper argues for understanding multispecies cohabitation not only as an ecological condition but also as a critical lens for examining contemporary political and societal challenges in the Anthropocene.