I forgot to point out that this is Omi and Winant actually wrote:
“One of the first things we notice about people (along with their sex) is their race. We utilize race to provide clues about who a person is. This fact is made painfully obvious when we encounter someone whom we cannot conveniently racially categorize – someone who is, for example, racially ‘mixed’ or of an ethnic/racial group with which we are not familiar. Such an encounter becomes a source of discomfort and momentarily a crisis of racial meaning. Without a racial identity, one is in danger of having no identity.”
Michaels has completely taken their comment out of context and made it mean something it doesn't mean.
I read Omi and Winant in an anthology I used to use, Susan S. Rothenberg's Race, class, and gender in the United States: an integrated study. I'm sorry that I revisited this book. I have to say, now, that it's worse than my original assessment. Anyone who gets a quote that wrong doesn't merit serious attention other than to pull out the rest of his faulty reasoning and logic and ridicule it. At this point, I'm not at all interesting in separating the baby from the dirty diaper.
You can read it Omi and Winant in Rothenberg here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9I7ExPk-920C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22%E2%80%9COne+of+the+first+things+we+notice+about+people+(along+with+their+sex)+is+their+race.%22&source=bl&ots=r6Xwak-FBU&sig=l9IQMllxw7VvMNtScm3FMuD6Pi4&hl=en&ei=NK3MSpW1J4LZlAfouPyNCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22%E2%80%9COne%20of%20the%20first%20things%20we%20notice%20about%20people%20(along%20with%20their%20sex)%20is%20their%20race.%22&f=false