Although we often use race to classify, interact, and identify with various communities, there is a general consensus among scientists that racial differences do not exist. Indeed, biologists such as Joseph Graves state, "the measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small." Although we often ascribe genetics to the notion of race, there are no significant genetic differences between racial groups. Thus, there is no genetic basis for race. Our insistence and belief in the idea of race as biology, though, underlines the socially constructed nature of race. Racial groupings of people are based on perceived physical similarities (skin color, hair structure, physique, etc.), not genetic similarities. Nevertheless, we are inclined to equate physical similarities with genetics. Sociologists also use a temporality to argue that race is a social construct. The notion of race results from patterns from the signification of certain traits to different groups of people. However, these patterns (and societal notions of race) change over time. For example, the 20th century belief that "In vital capacity… the tendency of the Negro race has been downward" is certainly not commonplace among individuals today. Notions of race also differ across societies. Racial attitudes towards blacks, for example, are inherently different between the United States and Nigeria. These arguments all suggest that race is socially constructed. The lack of a universal notion of race means that it is not a natural, inherent, or scientific human trait. Rather, different societies use race to ordain their respective social
Reflecting directly on the cultural attitudes and sociocultural messages explained throughout this course, it is clear that race, gender, and sexuality are all socially constructed in one way or another. Contrary to popular belief, race is actually almost completely socially constructed, it is not biological. Further, a human’s DNA does not differentiate at all to create any specific race. However, society has categorized certain things, such as skin color, to determine the race of individuals. In simpler terms, there are not specific genes that parents pass on to their offspring that determine their race; society categorizes people into specific races when they are born based on their
In America, essentially everyone is classified in terms of race in a way. We are all familiar with terms such as Caucasian, African-American, Asian, etc. Most Americans think of these terms as biological or natural classifications; meaning that all people of a certain race share similarities on their D.N.A. that are different and sets that particular race apart from all the other races. However, recent genetic studies show that there’s no scientific basis for the socially popular idea that race is a valid taxonomy of human biological difference. This means that humans are not divided into different groups through genetics or nature. Contrary to scientific studies, social beliefs are reflected through racial realism. Racial realists believe that being of a particular race does not only have phenotypical values (i.e. skin color, facial features, etc.), but also broadens its effects to moral, intellectual and spiritual characteristics.
“Differentiated races are fixed either by nature or God. You cannot escape your racial classification (Weidman, 2006).” This is the fifth basic belief of ideology and instantly establishes a basis on why race has survived in the twentieth century. There will always be scientists, philosophers, doctors and historians examining the origins and the continuation of race. By examining their research we are able understand this color line and how it has impacted the twentieth century.
THESIS: Scientists and other intellectuals recognize the modern concept of "race" as an artificial category that developed over the past five centuries due to encounters with non-European people. Even though people still attempt to organize humans into categories according to their race, these categories have been shown to have no scientific basis.
In the article “What is Race?” written by Ian F. Haney Lopez it says that when people use the term "race" they attach a biological meaning even though some scientist come to say that there is no biological foundation for race. But then there are still people who use "race" as a socially constructed concept. Even though race doesn’t have a biological meaning it does have a social meaning which has been legally constructed. There also isn’t any gene determination of one’s race.
Biologically race is defined by a shared set of genetic characteristics and physical features. The problem with society is that
Biological advancements such as Darwinism and Mendelian genetics had a profound impact on the study of race in the scientific community. These new concepts eventually led some scientists to question the validity of traditional notions about race. The resulting debates continue even today. The idea of race, especially in citizens of this country, evokes strong feelings because of the enormous social implications associated with racial identity. The social connotations of racial categories have had a profound influence on the way scientists understand human variation. Early ideas of race were colored by these connotations, and they still play a critical role in the way we understand race today. This paper will explore, with an emphasis on historical context, the current debates over whether to continue to inlude race in scientific, and especially medical, studies.
Jeffrey M. Fish’s article “Mixed Blood” gives evidence to race as a social construct rather than a biological entity. The first piece of evidence that insists that race is not biological is the fact that human are a single species. Despite having physical differences, all humans are able to mate with “others… and produce fertile offspring” (Fish 250). This evidence indicates the humans are more biological similar than we let on. Despite many beliefs that humans are separated by physical characteristic, through scientific evidence it is clear that we are one species. While many people point out that certain characteristics are shared by certain groups of people it is important to note that these differences are evolutionary characteristics that allowed our ancestors to survive in varied conditions (Fish 250). A common example of this is the differences in skin color of people indigenous to different parts of the world. A person with roots in Scandanavia, a cold area, is likely to have much lighter skill than a person whose ancestors were from an equatorial African nation. Fish also introduces the psychological factor of people of a particular race believing their race to have more variation. This is an interesting concept because it is heard throughout pop culture and daily life. This article explains the occurrence as being an environmen...
Broadly speaking, race is seen or is assumed to be a biologically driven set of boundaries that group and categorize people according to phenotypical similarities (e.g. skin color) (Pinderhughes, 1989; Root, 1998). The categorical classification of race can be traced back to the 16th century Linnaen system of human “races” where each race was believed to be of a distinct type or subspecies that included separate gene pools (Omi & Winant, 1994; Spickard, 1992; Smedley & Smedley, 2005). Race in the U.S. initially began as a general categorizing term, interchangeable with such terms as “type” or “species”. Over time, race began to morph into a term specifically referring to groups of people living in North America (i.e. European “Whites”, Native American “Indians”, and African “Negroes”). Race represented a new way to illustrate human difference as well as a way to socially structure society (Smedley & Smedley, 2005).
So what exactly is race? Most would say it’s all about biology and our chemical makeup when in reality, it’s not about that at all. There isn’t a single biological element specific to any of the so-called racial groups we’ve made up over the years. The people we would categorize as “black,” for example, have some of the most genetic variations than anyone else in the world. The color of their skin is merely an adaptation to climate and related entirely on how they lived in relation to the equator. Despite our many surface differences, we are one species. We aren’t like animals; subspecies aren’t a thing. All together we make up the human “race” and that is homo sapiens. Actually, humans are the most homologous of all the species in the world.
Race, in the sense that I will be addressing it, is popularly defined as: "1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics," or "2. Biology. a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies." (1) But what if we could not distinguish a more or less distinct group through genetically transmitted differences? Imagine how the definition of race would need to change if the very idea of a "geographically isolated population" become a rare occurrence? For too long, racial categories have had too forceful an impact on our understanding of human variation. Many findings i...
“Since the human genome has been mapped, debates within the scientific community about race have intensified. When you look at the human genome, you cannot find race…” (Freeman). Biological evidence suggests there are genetic codes for everything from eye and hair color to how tall someone will grow. Those genetic codes are based on inheritance and where family history has brought them. According to scientists there are no genetic codes that group humans into specific racial categories. According to the Department of Epidemiology and public health, “There is more genetic variation within than between races, and the genes responsible for morphological features such as skin color (which are the basis of racial groupings) are few.” (Senor, 327). It has been seen in numerous studies that genetically someone who identifies with the African- American race, has the potential to carry the same genetic markers as someone of the Caucasian race, or any other racial grouping. If race is not verifiable by scientific or biological means, then it’s origin must be from another
...lieve that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in genes that people inherit from their ancestors. Genes vary, but not in the popular notion of black, white, yellow, red and brown races. Many biologist and anthropologists have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. (4)
Through research of DNA samples, scientists have been able to declare that race is not biologically constructed due to the similarities between human genes. Nevertheless, in reality, people still emphasized on biological aspects such as skin color, or hair texture to categorize others into different races. This in turn, denied the true identity of race, which it is culturally constructed. Ethnicity, by definition is also culturally constructed, therefore it greatly resemble race. There is no real clear line to distinct the two.