Race Vs Science

The PBS series “Race: The Power of an Illusion” effectively works to expose race as a social construct and deconstructs the false notions that race is a biological marker. The series first discusses that all human beings originated from Africa but dispersed about 70,000 years ago to various places in the world. As a result of this migration, people were spread to different locations throughout the world with different environmental conditions that affected their physical traits. It was many years after the migration in which people began to display these new physical traits such as slanted eyes, fair skin, and differing hair textures. While the series notes the physical changes that occurred during the migration it also emphasizes that race while it may seem apparent in skin color and other physical features has no real biological basis.

Scholars say that the term race should not be used because it does not have any basis in scientific fact and really has no use today. According to the AAA’s statement on race, there is 94% variance in genes of individuals within one “racial” group. Race has its basis in colonization, when trying to conjure reasons why some groups of people, i.e. Native Americans and Africans, had lower places in society than the white people. That’s why the groups of “races” are so broad and meaningless today. The concept of race is just used to spread prejudice and give so called “scientific reasons” to discriminate against another group. The term

There is also a great deal of research done on genetic differences versus perception. It was even proven that the concept of race is merely a social construct and not nearly as scientifically in-tune as many believe it is. A study conducted by Eric D’Arcy of Harvard University in 2002 on alleles revealed a substantial observation on genetic differences between races and a socially constructed perception. Scientists found that, while alleles that were region-specific did show up, they really only appeared and occurred in numbers barely enough to construct any sort of trademark. In fact, they were found only in about 1% of the people of that specific region.

What is race? Some people attach "race" to a biological meaning, yet others use "race" as a socially constructed concept. “Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them” (. So, it is clear that even though race does not have a biological meaning, it does have a social meaning - usually detrimental to our social harmony. Race is neither an essence nor an illusion, but

The idea of race in society is truly that; an idea. However, one of the first things one notices about another human is their perceived race. Often, incorrect assumptions are made about a person, based on his race. In addition, many believe race can be determined by biological factors. However, there is no biological basis to race. Without a doubt, genes play a role in our skin, hair, and eye color; however, there are not certain genes present in an entire race and not another. Race is not clear cut; if one were to travel from either pole to the equator, a specific location could not be identified to separate any two races.

Race is not an element of human biology (like breathing oxygen or reproducing sexually); nor is it even an idea (like the speed of light or the value of π) that can be plausibly imagined to live an external life of its own. Race is not an idea but an ideology. It came into existence at a discernable historical moment for rationality understandable historical reasons and is subject to change for similar reasons (101).

This article written by Mark Nathan Cohen, who is an anthropology professor in the State University of New York; talks about how race does not define human diversity. In the article, he also mentions that in school students learn the definition of race based on “biological variation” and not based on their culture. The professor Cohen says that studies on human family tree that were based on their genetic analysis of traits do not show any relation of who those traits belong to. He gives an example by stating that even skin color is not a god indicator of who it relates to because the “traits occur independently in several different branches of the human family.”

In the article, “What We Mean When We Say ‘Race Is a Social Construct’,” Ta-Nehisi Coates asserts the idea of race is being stereotyped by America and the ancestors of those Americans. He says race is not real, but people chose to make it a reality based on what society has made it out to be (Coates p.2-3). For instance he says, “If you’re a math guy, perhaps your instinct is to point out the problems in the interpretation of the data. My instinct is to point out that your entire experiment proceeds from a basic flaw...” (Coates p.3).

Race is a hot topic in our world. We all think we know what race is. After all, we are constantly being bombarded with it whether it be from media, politics, or sports. The truth is that race does not revolve around the idea of biological traits or characteristics. It is a modern concept that we as a society have created to divide people into categories. I will argue that race is socially constructed from a biological, political history, and sociological standpoint, and how it may impact other areas of our society.

The concept of race dates back to recent human history. Race is an integral part of life for individuals residing in the United States. However, this concept of “race”, that many Americans believe to be true, has no biological backing; it is merely a social construct. Looking at genetics, and even evolution it becomes clear that race is not real. But, even though race is not real, it can have very real consequences (such as racism). So in this sense race becomes a very real thing, as it affects millions of people living today. Race, biologically is not a real thing, but due to its impact, socially and culturally, it has become real.

The “AAA Statement on Race” explains “...that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.” Our population is a melting pot of skin colors, hair textures, and facial features, yet these distinctions seem to separate us in the wrong way. These groups can give us vital medical information, such as races that are prone to heart disease, but we instead manipulate these groups to create deficient stereotypes. (Boyd and Silk: 388) Moreover, a certain number of races does not exist because every human is unique, therefore these stereotypes are just fabricated from our culture. There is more difference within groups than between groups. (Boyd and Silk: 389) Accordingly, this diversity should be respected instead of putting people against each other. “The differences between races are due to biological heritage.” (Boyd and Silk: 388) Just because we are similar in race does not mean we are the same type of people and fall into the same stereotypes. If there is more diversity within groups, dividing race into three or four groups is not accurate

The English term ‘race’ is believed to originate from the Spanish word raza, which means ‘breed’ or ‘stock’ (Race). People use race to define other groups, this separation of groups is based largely on physical features. Features like skin color and hair don’t affect the fundamental biology of human variation (Hotz). Race is truly only skin deep, there are no true biological separations between two ‘racial’ groups. Scientifically speaking, there is more variation between single local groups than there is between two large, global groups; the human variation is constantly altering (Lewontin). The majority of today’s anthropologists agree that race is a form of social categorization, not the separation of groups based on biological

I used to think that race was a social construct more of a biological reality until I read all these articles. They changed my perspective and I have come to realize different things. My opinion is now divided into two; I am in that middle point where I can see both ways of the argument as valid and reasonable and agree with both. First, I will explain why I think it is a biological reality, then, I will explain why it can also be a social construct, and lastly how have these debates shaped the views about the nature of ethnicity and consequently defined ethnic identity. We have to avoid viewing either explanation with a negative meaning. The negative history that comes attached to the word “race” is what I think makes us be defensive whenever we hear it and close ourselves up to any reasonable answer we might have to the question, is it a biological reality or a social construct?

When describing Race they state that its roots are not within the biological realm. That Race is a social construct and cannot be defined genetically.

Race is a social construct that was created by the Europeans in order to minoritize different racial groups. In the reading by Bonilla-Silva, he defines race to be manmade, “This means that notions of racial difference are human creations rather than eternal, essential categories… racial categories have a history and are subject to change.” For example in a lecture by Dr. Aguilar-Hernandez, he stated that the Irish, Italians and Jews were called black before but are now considered white, Mexican-Americans were also considered white up until the 1980s. These ideas lead to the racialization of racial groups.