In 1757, Carolus Linneaus established a system of classification known as Systema Naturae, within which he introduced four human groups. The groups were based on cultural observations and observed skin color, they were as follows: Europeaus (albus), "white"; Americanus (rufescens), "red"; Asiaticus (fuscus), "dark"; and Africanus (niger), "black" (Linneaus 1757.) In subsequent years, despite the dissolution of the cultural aspects of “racing”, many people have held these unscientific groups as general knowledge and continue to let these sociological definitions of race define their reality. In all actuality, these Linnean races are based on discrete generalizations of cbaracteristics, geography, and genetics, rather than large biological differences. The concept of race as a biologically isolating feature has been disproved largely through the efforts of anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists. Biologically, humans are extremely similar, physically 99.9% the same (Smedley 2005.) The fact remains though that race is an ever-present part of life. It is seen in public policy, scientific studies, housing, disease, and a plethora of other aspects of life. This is due to “social attitudes and institutions that perpetuate the idea of race,” even though there are only minute biological variations and no significant morphological traits that can be used for classifying humans (Smedley 2005.)
In the search for the biological basis for race, many ideas have been proposed and discarded. Recent studies indicate that the most reliable indicators of race come from the skeleton. But even this can be variable. In physical features, race is most apparent through skin color and facial features. The reliability of even this is suspect, because humans have shown a diverse range of skin colors and facial features. Our skin color is actually determined by melanocytes, which are programmed genetically in every person to produce a certain amount of skin color (Freinkel et al 2001.) But even the genetically determined skin color is variable. Basically, there is a baseline or “constitutive skin color” which is determined by the melanocytes that can be altered through sunlight or other sources, which is known as “facultative” skin color (Freinkel et al 2001.) If this is true and skin color is variant, then this obvious stereotype of black, white and yellow is obviously false.
Relating to the skeleton, one researcher found a correlation between the level of pubic symphyseal metamorphosis and the different ages at which Blacks, Mexicans, and Whites reach certain stages (Katz et al 1989.) Other researchers have tried to illustrate race through physical attributes seen on the cranium. In a study conducted for the US Army, Yokota (2005) researched the admixed populations of US Blacks and Whites in which he found differing nose breadth and lip length. Yokota found that, ”multivariate anthropometric distributions of admixed individuals were within the distributions of single racial groups.” This suggests that even though admixture is occurring in the US, it has not effected these theoretical racial groups.
Earlier studies by Franz Boas showed the children of immigrants who recently entered the US showed significant changes in skeletal structure. His work brought about a change in the idea of race, but recent reevaluation of Boas studies have proved his work incorrect (Sparks et al 2003.) These current studies suggest that race could actually be inferred from these inherent differences in bone structure. But in context of other mammals, these differences are not significant. Think of butterflies with differing wing patterns, because these butterflies are aesthetically different this feature does not change their genetic makeup and it does not provide a large enough variation to consider it a different kind of butterfly. It is impossible to typify the simple, often minute, differences between each and every human. Describing an entire theoretical race would be impossible because science has not provided the answers to some of these differences. Also, because of deluded past and present studies on racial groups, society cannot deny that every individual is different and that the extent of the differences cannot be measured by IQ tests, skull measurements, or any current genetic research. Simply, racial profiling is a futile and unnecessary task. As Keita (1997) puts it, “races in this conception confirm to a Platonic type; they exist by definition and are bounded distinct entities that are viewed as fundamental entities.” Since humans are all biologically similar and can all interbreed, the isolation that the social construct of race creates is an uninformed (and unenlightened) view of existence.
Many anthropologists seem to think of race as an indicator of region rather than discrete separate units of the human lineage. In fact, suggestions have been made to describe race as “ancestry” (Smay et al 2000.) As of yet, there is no perfected way to discovery ancestry and although there have been attempts, no precise method has been found (Sauer 1993.) Sauer (1993) discusses the use of racial classifications in Forensic Anthropology in which he asserts that "we ought to be able to do better than estimate a major race," when classifying humans. If isolating a group of people to identify remains is useful, how much more useful would it be to further isolate where in that group the remains are from? Sauer asks that in an attempt to explain human variation we should "put racial categories aside, consider them as the folk taxonomies they are and study human biological variation on its own terms." It is essential that scientific studies move from viewing race through the lenses of black and white into a much more objective view of human diversity.
Through the study of racial morphology, the idea of racial divergence of homo sapiens sapien’s evolutionary history is raised. This is a term used to describe the “fissioning...into discrete units” of this group in the Pleistocene era. Many of the genetic studies of race have been conducted using blood-group antigens and mitochondrial DNA comparatively against these groupings (Keita et al 1997.) There are basically three biological groups recognized throughout the scientific community, Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. The studies on these groups have failed to show conclusively when and where these groups diverged and, on the issue of diversity, have proved that in-group diversity is wider spread than the diversity between groups (Keita et al 1997.) Another explanation for biological variation can be seen in the short, compact statures of individuals in cold climates as compared to the tall, skinny stature of individuals in cold climates. Studies on Eastern or Western Central American short statured people “belong to the same race but are as different from each other in some loci as they are from peoples of the other side of the world,” (Keita et al 1997.) The idea that, genetically, humans are less isolated than originally thought is not a novel one, as illustrated in Berg et al (2005):
“The recency of our common ancestry and continued gene flow among populations have resulted in less genetic differentiation among geographically distributed human populations than is observed in many other mammalian species. Nevertheless, differences in appearance have contributed to the development of ideas about ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ that often include the belief that significant inherited differences distinguish humans.”
Keeping historical, genetic, and cultural factors in mind, it is easy to understand a tendency to relate biology and race, but based on the evidence, race as a morphological trait is inconclusive."
Mukhopadhyay et al (1997) describes the immergence of anthropology through “19th Century European natural history traditions, with their focus on the classification and comparison of human populations and their search for indicators of ‘mental capacity.’” The debate over mental capacity has led to racial discrimination in science and society that is constantly perpetuated through the ideologically constructed view of major races and their relative worth to society. Statistically, being black in the US means that this individual occupies the lowest social economic status, worst health, and one of the most undesirable of the social groups in the US. This racial stigma that preys on scientific evidence for racial typography and classification is irrational and ethically wrong. The answer on how to stop the abuse of science to further the cause of racist groups is not clear-cut but several solutions have been presented by researchers. Mukhopadhyay et al (1997) state that “developing and publicly articulating a unified anthropological voice on race will require open dialogue across ethnic groups and between physical and cultural anthropologists.” The idea presented here is that by redefining what race is and the “obvious differences” between humans will lead to the redefine the public conception of race and replace its current definition, which is the result of historical ideals and cultural practices.
In the quest to discover reality and how individuals fit into the scheme of existence one aspect that seems to be omnipresent is race, or the desire to group individuals based on indiscrete and largely theoretical physical features. Sauer, (1993) “with minor fluctuations, the idea that our species can be portioned reasonably into four major groupings has withstood the Industrial and American Revolutions, the institution and dissolution of American slavery, the world wars, the rise of civil-rights consciousness, the 20th Century explosion of modern biology, and even the new physical anthropology.” Race is used every day to classify, understand individuals, it is used a bias to grasp facts, to catch criminals and identify their victims. As a tool, it is outdated, almost to the point of ineffectiveness. As an idea, it is also outdated, disproved by biologists, taxonomists, geneticists, and yet it is still debated fiercely. The variation between these races are largely circumstantial and based on a system of classification that has been 200 years in the making (Sauer1993.) “Linnaeus could not have understood the range and complexity of biological variation as it is known today. Not enough was known about the world. Nor could he have been aware of the complex array of mechanisms that effect biological variation,” (Sauer1993.)
References Cited
Kate Berg; Vence Bonham; Joy Boyer; Larry Brody; Lisa Brooks; Francis Collins; Alan Guttmacher; Jean McEwen; Max Muenke; Steve Olson; Vivian Ota Wang; Rodriguez; Laura Lyman; Nadarajen Vydelingum; Esther Warshauer-Baker (2005) The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research American Journal of Human Genetics, Oct 2005 v77 i4 p519 (14) University of Chicago Press
Ruth K Freinkel, David T Woodley (2001) The Biology of the Skin p. 114 Mar 15, 2001, Taylor & Francis
S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles (1997) The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence American Anthropologist Sep 1, 1997American Anthropological Association
Linnaeus, C.
1757 Systema Naturae. Stockholm.
Professor Carol C. Mukhopadhyay, Professor Yolanda T. Moses (1997) Reestablishing "Race" in Anthropological Discourse American Anthropologist Sep 1, 1997 American Anthropological Association
Smedley, Audrey, Smedley, Brian D. (2005). Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real : Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race American Psychologist, January 2005 Vol. 60(1), pp. 16-26 American Psychological Association
Sauer, Norman J. (1993). Applied Anthropology and the concept of race: A legacy of Linneaus. In Race, Ethnicity and Applied Bioanthropology NAPA Bulletin 13. C.C. Gordon, ed. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
Smay, Diana Professor Armelagos, George (2000). Galileo Wept: A Critical Assessment of the Use of Race in Forensic Anthropology, Transforming Anthropology July 1st
American Anthropological Association
Corey S. Sparks, Richard L. Jantz (2003) Changing Times, Changing Faces: Franz Boas's Immigrant Study in Modern Perspective American Anthropologist June 2003 Vol. 105, No. 2, pp. 333-337 American Anthropological Association
Yokota M. (2005) Head and facial anthropometry of mixed-race US Army male soldiers for military design and sizing: a pilot study. Appl Ergon 2005 May; 36(3): 379-83.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments