Introduction
It is human nature to want to collectivize people into groups such as social classes, socioeconomic groups and “races”. We categorize people into these races by looking at their physical traits and assuming their linkage to cultural attributes. It is fact that all modern day humans belong to the same polytypic group; Homo sapiens. Of course, there are hereditary differences among human beings, some of which relate to geography, however, none of these provide any support for the concept of human “races” or any form of racial classifications (Cartmill, 1998). Furthermore, race is linked to many other things, most notably, human identity. Because race is defined by physical characteristics, it is usually one of the first things one notices about another. (Smedley, 1998). Moreover, distinction between race and ethnicity has become more prevalent in many works, in an effort to separate the two. Race is an external classification, whereas ethnicity is an internal classification. (TSP) Overall, the concept of race has been extremely polarizing for the field of anthropology. To best understand this debate, we must analyze arguments and evidence on both sides.
Defining Race
In order to understand the impact of classifying people into racial groups, we must first look at the definition of the term. Race is a term with biological and social significance. The first definition is based on the idea that physical attributes, especially skin colour, are linked to culture (Lewis, Jurmain and Kilgore 2013, 72). The biological definition of race refers to “Geographically patterned phenotypic variation within a species” (Lewis, Jurmain and Kilgore 2013, 72). These traits that have traditionally used to define races are polygenic and therefore cannot be used to draw distinct boundaries between groups. Before World War II, studies focused primarily on visible phenotypic variation in geographically defined populations. Later studies shifted the focus to allele frequency and differences in DNA. Anthropologists in the 1950s coined the term “ethnicity” to refer to cultural factors, rather than nationality or “race”. In our modern world, one’s social identity is directly influenced by how they exemplify the traits typically associated with one’s race. Anthropologists now recognize that past concepts of race are no longer valid. It is simply impossible to group people together in a way that ensures that they share all of the same characteristics because there will always be individuals that do not conform to all aspects of a particular type.
Key Distinctions Between Ethnicity and Race
In today’s society, we have distinguished between ethnicity and race. Even still, they are often used interchangeably. Although both are systems for classifying people, there are some key distinctions. Ethnicity classifies people who are believed to share common descent based on cultural similarities. It is also considered a form of internal classification, which means it is more likely to be chosen by the individuals themselves. Race, on the other hand, classifies people who are believed to share common descent based on innate physical similarities. Racial categories also tend to be imposed on individuals or groups by others.
The Race Concept
While very few modern day anthropologists support the traditional view of splitting the human race into four to five major races, race identification continues to play a central part in forensic anthropology. Forensic anthropologists are only successful at identifying race 80% of the time. Successful assignment of race does not validate the race concept. Rather, it is a prediction that an individual belonged to a particular socially constructed racial group. (Sauer, 1992) In the 1960s, the idea of non-existence of human races was not widely accepted by the anthropology community. Brace and Livingstone (1964) advocated for the theory on the understanding that discordance of traits made defining race on the basis of more than one or two characteristics impossible. No human biologist would ever support this, therefore the race concept cannot be applied to humans. Many people opposed Brace and Livingstone, notably geneticist Dobzhansky who said “ If races did not exist, they would need to be invented. Since they do exist, they need not be invented, they need to be understood” (Sauer, 1992). By 1975, the no race view was rarely expressed in physical anthropology journals and studies. At the 1987 American Anthropology Association (AAA) meetings in Chicago, many anthropologists were surveyed about their opinions on the race concept. 50% of physical anthropologists agreed that races existed, compared to 29% of cultural anthropologists. However, we know that the modern day community of anthropology would eventually agree and conclude that there is no way to properly classify people into “races”.
(Lieberman, Stevenson and Reynolds, 1989)
The Case for the Race Concept
In order for anthropologists to make an educated and informed decision to agree or disagree with the race concept, they must first understand both arguments. Those who support the race concept generally say that racial categorization is simply another way of expressing the generally recognized fact that human biological variation is related to geography (Cartmill, 1998). Some scientists argue that patterns in our DNA reveal the existence of human racial groups. The racial categories are divided based on humankind’s familiarity due to societal history. (reference TSP) This is not to say that proponents of the race concept do not acknowledge that racial
classifications can be used to discriminate against people. Instead, they argue that the classifications are used to reflect certain facts of human biology. Furthermore, they can also be used for practical applications. For example, doctors can use racial groupings to be aware of the elevated probability of sickle-cell anemia in patients with African ancestry (Cartmill, 1998).
The Case Against The Race Concept
Biological anthropologists who oppose the idea of racial typology would argue that racial categories are biologically inconsistent. Because the main points of the race concept define races in terms of average physical characteristics of human populations limited by geography, biological anthropologists argue that this is not applicable to our modern day society, especially with global migration. Geography has little to do with the race concept in its actual application. This can be seen by examining North American populations. Cartmill (1998) says, “If North American "Blacks," "Whites," 'Asian-Americans," "Amerindians," and so on are racially different, then (since all these people inhabit the same geographical region) races are not geographically distinct. And if these people are not racially different, then (since the range of
their combined phenotypes encompasses roughly the whole range of variation in the human species) races are not phenotypically distinctive.” Anthropologists argue that this clearly shows that the race concept is irrelevant and inapplicable to the human race. Many studies have been conducted that show that the racial typologies and geographical patterns at most loci do not align. An example of this can be seen through the ABO blood system; the A allele reaches its highest frequencies in southern Australia, Europe, northeastern Asia, and the Arctic fringes of North America; the B allele in central Asia and West Africa; and the O allele in the New World, New Guinea, and northern Australia (Cavalli-Sforza, 1996). These findings are dissonant with geographical patterns associated with racial groups.
Race and Human Identity
As humans, we are inherently social beings. Because of this, much of our identity is based on what others perceive about us. Due to it being based on physical traits, race is often one of the first things someone notices about another. Race as a mechanism of social stratification and a form of human identity is a relatively new concept. Race has had an incredible impact on the lives of people everywhere, especially those who are considered “visible minorities” or “mixed race” (Smedley, 1998). Globally, across many disciplines, scholars are agreeing that “race” is a cultural invention and therefore, has no real correlation to human variations, but rather the definitions that society imposes on us. Our history of interacting with “aliens” dates back to the beginning of the human race. So what about society now has changed that we struggle to transcend these visible physical differences? In the eighteenth century, race was a form of social identification grounded in the interactions of different populations, especially in the New World. During times of colonization, the concept of race was used to justify the brutal and inhumane treatment of native peoples. Many people adopted an “Us” against “Them” mindset. In the United States, we see the same justification being used in reference to slavery. Even after the Civil War ended, race and racial ideology persisted. The consequences of racial ideology has created enormous problems for “visible minorities”. Race also became an indicator of social status. For those with mixed heritage, this was especially difficult. Oftentimes, these people struggle with identifying with either group. They do not feel as though they belong to anything. In the future, it is thought that many persons will come to recognize themselves as "universal" human beings, and there should be perhaps an early census category that proclaims this reality.
Human Races from a Genetic Perspectives
One cannot speak about human races without regard to the genetic and evolutionary dimensions. Race is often used synonymously with “subspecies”. This is incorrect because the term “subspecies” can also be defined as “a distinct lineage within a species” (Templeton, 1998). Through DNA analysis, we know that the human “races” do not have distinct lineages. We know that human evolution is characterized by coexisting populations in time with enough genetic contact to result in all of humanity sharing a common lineage. Therefore, it is not enough to define a subspecies based on genetic differentiation alone. (Templeton, 1998) Through Wright’s (1969) Fst statistic, we can quantify genetic differentiation to see how different humans truly are. Using this statistic, Wright found that the Fst value of humans is 0.156 (Barbujani et al. 1997). This value indicates that only 15.6% can be used to separate humans into “races”.
(Templeton, 1998)
Conclusion
The concept of race has been a highly debated topic for many decades. Once a core concept in the field of anthropology, it is now only supported by a very small fraction of the community (Lieberman, Stevenson and Reynolds, 1998). The concept of race itself came into effect during European imperial encounters. Before that, we lived simply as one race; the human race. Race has now become such a defining term for many people. Race is often linked to one’s identity. This being said, there is no suitable scientific basis for separating the human species into “subspecies”, a term often used interchangeably with race (Templeton, 1998). Although racial identification has had many practical uses, the concept of race based on physical characteristics and geographical patterns is discordant with many studies and sources of evidence. Overall, the vast majority of biological anthropologists agree that the concept does not have a firm base in theory and data as applied to the human species. (Lieberman, Stevenson and Reynolds, 1998). Therefore, according to extensive research, a system of classification that separates human races into four to five major groups is indeed a myth.