1. The concept of race has little or no basis in biology, genetics, anthropology, or any other science. Now, "race" can be a malleable word and used in some contexts -- well removed from common understandings of the term -- is argued by some to have some relevance in some fields. But overall, the scientific consensus is "race" doesn't exist except as a socio-political construct.
2. Race is actually 1) a social construct that is 2) poorly descriptive of the phenomenon it seeks to describe and 3) has a long history of devastating consequences for individuals.
2. Race is actually 1) a social construct that is 2) poorly descriptive of the phenomenon it seeks to describe and 3) has a long history of devastating consequences for individuals.
Note: I apologize in advance for a lengthy rant with many citations. I created similar threads on the old forums, but they are gone with the wind. I have litterally hundreds of relevant links, but will try to contain myself -- especially in this first post.
EVIDENCE:
The following are consensus documents from various fields of science.
Position Paper of the NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME CENTER (doc):
This position paper outlines pertinent scientific findings from the fields of anthropology, human genetics, sociology, and epidemiology; our conclusions based on those findings; implications for science, medicine, and society; and our recommendations for moving forward.
Findings
1. The biological variation of the human species exhibits gradients of differentiation, not subdivisions into homogeneous, discontinuous units.
2. The within-versus the between-group variation is greater in the so-called “races” of traditional anthropology (e.g., Mongoloid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid). Therefore the majority of variation within the human species is found between individuals and not groups.
3. The ancestry of maternal (mtDNA) and paternal (Y chromosome DNA) lineages crosscut the group (“racial”) boundaries suggested by anatomical traits like skin color and hair form.
4. Combinations of physical traits used to define groups are not obligatorily linked to each other or to health, disease, or other unobservable traits.
5. The demographic units of human societies (and of the U.S. census) are the products of social, cultural, or political rules, not the forces of biological evolution.
Conclusions
1. Modern extant humans do not fracture into races (subspecies) based on the modern phylogenetic criteria of molecular systematics. Thus,
a. The social and demographic units of human societies are not races, and
b. The racial taxa (groups) of classical anthropology are not races.
2. The biological “boundaries” between any human divisions (groups, populations, nationalities) are arbitrary and largely dependent on what traits are chosen for emphasis.
3. Group differences in health parameters have not been shown to be encoded in the human genome as part of an evolutionary pattern of divergence of humans.
4. Gene-environment interactions may be more important in explaining group differences in health and disease.
Implications
1. The non-existence of human races (subspecies) does not mean the non-existence of racism - the structured systematic oppression of groups defined by ancestry or physical traits and/or conceptualized as being fundamentally different. Racism must be addressed, especially as it relates to health and disease.
2. Individuals cannot be treated as representative for all those who physically resemble them, or have some degree of shared continental ancestry, or are placed in the same group.
3. Group differences in health or disease cannot be understood as solely related to membership in genetically-defined groups.
4. There is a need for a paradigm shift in the conceptualization and application of human genetic variation relative to our understanding of group definition and health outcomes. This shift will require new approaches to methodology, training, policy, and priorities.
Findings
1. The biological variation of the human species exhibits gradients of differentiation, not subdivisions into homogeneous, discontinuous units.
2. The within-versus the between-group variation is greater in the so-called “races” of traditional anthropology (e.g., Mongoloid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid). Therefore the majority of variation within the human species is found between individuals and not groups.
3. The ancestry of maternal (mtDNA) and paternal (Y chromosome DNA) lineages crosscut the group (“racial”) boundaries suggested by anatomical traits like skin color and hair form.
4. Combinations of physical traits used to define groups are not obligatorily linked to each other or to health, disease, or other unobservable traits.
5. The demographic units of human societies (and of the U.S. census) are the products of social, cultural, or political rules, not the forces of biological evolution.
Conclusions
1. Modern extant humans do not fracture into races (subspecies) based on the modern phylogenetic criteria of molecular systematics. Thus,
a. The social and demographic units of human societies are not races, and
b. The racial taxa (groups) of classical anthropology are not races.
2. The biological “boundaries” between any human divisions (groups, populations, nationalities) are arbitrary and largely dependent on what traits are chosen for emphasis.
3. Group differences in health parameters have not been shown to be encoded in the human genome as part of an evolutionary pattern of divergence of humans.
4. Gene-environment interactions may be more important in explaining group differences in health and disease.
Implications
1. The non-existence of human races (subspecies) does not mean the non-existence of racism - the structured systematic oppression of groups defined by ancestry or physical traits and/or conceptualized as being fundamentally different. Racism must be addressed, especially as it relates to health and disease.
2. Individuals cannot be treated as representative for all those who physically resemble them, or have some degree of shared continental ancestry, or are placed in the same group.
3. Group differences in health or disease cannot be understood as solely related to membership in genetically-defined groups.
4. There is a need for a paradigm shift in the conceptualization and application of human genetic variation relative to our understanding of group definition and health outcomes. This shift will require new approaches to methodology, training, policy, and priorities.
Here is an open letter published in Genome Biology 2008, 9:404 from a a multidisciplinary group of Stanford faculty (excerpts) (emphasis in original):
Statement 1: We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity ... [W]e emphasize that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, we abhor any use of genetic data to reinforce the idea of between-group difference in order to benefit one group to the detriment of another.
Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries [3,5,13,14]. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution [14-17]. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.
...Statement 4: We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. Diverse populations identified as 'Hispanic', for example, are heterogeneous and have distinct ancestries and social histories [20]. We recognize that social experiences and conditions inform racial identity, making such identity a poor proxy for genetic ancestry.
...Statement 7: We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group Although a broad range of associations between genetic markers and human traits - including diseases - is emerging, any accompanying correspondence with race or ethnicity is statistical. Although certain relatively rare genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, are found in higher frequencies in some human populations, the result of population bottlenecks or environmental pressure, these diseases are also found in other populations. Overemphasizing the genetic contribution to complex human disease or behavioral traits can promote not only racism, but also a naive genetic essentialism - the notion that genes determine health status or behavior [28-30]. Such essentialism is particularly dangerous in clinical translation, where a focus should be maintained on the individual rather than the group [31].
Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries [3,5,13,14]. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution [14-17]. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.
...Statement 4: We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. Diverse populations identified as 'Hispanic', for example, are heterogeneous and have distinct ancestries and social histories [20]. We recognize that social experiences and conditions inform racial identity, making such identity a poor proxy for genetic ancestry.
...Statement 7: We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group Although a broad range of associations between genetic markers and human traits - including diseases - is emerging, any accompanying correspondence with race or ethnicity is statistical. Although certain relatively rare genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, are found in higher frequencies in some human populations, the result of population bottlenecks or environmental pressure, these diseases are also found in other populations. Overemphasizing the genetic contribution to complex human disease or behavioral traits can promote not only racism, but also a naive genetic essentialism - the notion that genes determine health status or behavior [28-30]. Such essentialism is particularly dangerous in clinical translation, where a focus should be maintained on the individual rather than the group [31].
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION STATEMENT ON "RACE" (excerpts):
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them....
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them....
(For more information, the AAA website, RACE: Are we so different? is highly recommended).
National Cancer Institute, Statements from the President's Cancer Panel: The Meaning of Race in Science--Considerations for Cancer Research (emphasis in original):
Race is not a biologically determined classification. Race is a product of our social and political history. Therefore, concluded Dr. Harold Freeman, Chair of the President's Cancer Panel, "we need to look at race not as a biological indicator, but as an indicator of what happens to people socially." This assessment underscored a day of interesting and lively debate on issues of race, racism, and the use of racial classifications in cancer research and for all of science.
Making the day's deliberations somewhat unique were the diverse perspectives brought to bear on the issue of race in science--the presidentially-appointed, three member Panel, convened a group of nationally recognized experts in such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, philosophy, biology, genetics, and epidemiology to present testimony. Across all disciplines present, it was agreed that the biological concept of race is no longer tenable. Rather, race is a social construct which is a product of this Nation's social and political history. Supporting this conclusion, data were presented to the Panel showing that substantially more genetic variation is found within "races" than between them. Also, in response to changing concepts of what constitutes race, the revised UNESCO Statement on the Biological Aspects of Race, developed by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, was shared publicly for the first time. It concluded, in essence, that the concept of a biological basis for racial classification is no longer acceptable. ....
Making the day's deliberations somewhat unique were the diverse perspectives brought to bear on the issue of race in science--the presidentially-appointed, three member Panel, convened a group of nationally recognized experts in such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, philosophy, biology, genetics, and epidemiology to present testimony. Across all disciplines present, it was agreed that the biological concept of race is no longer tenable. Rather, race is a social construct which is a product of this Nation's social and political history. Supporting this conclusion, data were presented to the Panel showing that substantially more genetic variation is found within "races" than between them. Also, in response to changing concepts of what constitutes race, the revised UNESCO Statement on the Biological Aspects of Race, developed by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, was shared publicly for the first time. It concluded, in essence, that the concept of a biological basis for racial classification is no longer acceptable. ....
American Association of Physical Anthropologists Statement on Biological Aspects of Race:
1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth's geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time. Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations.
2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.
3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.
5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.
Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.
6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.
7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth's environments in general, but to none in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been based on culture and not on genetic improvement.
Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.
8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes.
9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.
10. There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance.
11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.
2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.
3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.
5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.
Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.
6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.
7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth's environments in general, but to none in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been based on culture and not on genetic improvement.
Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.
8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes.
9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.
10. There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance.
11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.
MORE EVIDENCE
Here are a few peer-reviewed scientific articles to press home the point:
"An apportionment of human DNA diversity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 29, 1997 vol. 94 no. 9 4516-4519 (pdf) (abstract quoted, full text linked):
It is often taken for granted that the human species is divided in rather homogeneous groups or races, among which biological differences are large. Studies of allele frequencies do not support this view, but they have not been sufficient to rule it out either. We analyzed human molecular diversity at 109 DNA markers, namely 30 microsatellite loci and 79 polymorphic restriction sites (restriction fragment length polymorphism loci) in 16 populations of the world. By partitioning genetic variances at three hierarchical levels of population subdivision, we found that differences between members of the same population account for 84.4% of the total, which is in excellent agreement with estimates based on allele frequencies of classic, protein polymorphisms. Genetic variation remains high even within small population groups. On the average, microsatellite and restriction fragment length polymorphism loci yield identical estimates. Differences among continents represent roughly 1/10 of human molecular diversity, which does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome.
"How social status shapes race," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 16, 2008 vol. 105 no. 50 19628-19630 (pdf) (full text linked, quote from abstract):
We show that racial perceptions are fluid; how individuals perceive their own race and how they are perceived by others depends in part on their social position. Using longitudinal data from a representative sample of Americans, we find that individuals who are unemployed, incarcerated, or impoverished are more likely to be seen and identify as black and less likely to be seen and identify as white, regardless of how they were classified or identified previously. This is consistent with the view that race is not a fixed individual attribute, but rather a changeable marker of status.
Since at least the 19th century, the dominant understanding of race has been that racial divisions are rooted in biological differences between human populations (1). For the past 50 years or more, social scientists have challenged that notion, claiming that races are instead created through social processes and subject to economic and political calculation (2). However, even in disciplines where race is viewed as socially defined, most empirical studies continue to treat race as a fixed attribute of a particular individual (3). We examine two conceptions of race—how individuals are racially classified by others and how they identify themselves—and find that both change over time. Further, we show that this temporal variation is related to the individuals' social position: People who are unemployed, incarcerated, or impoverished are more likely to be classified and identify as black, and less likely to be classified and identify as white, regardless of how they were classified or identified previously. This study is the first to examine changes in racial classification using a representative longitudinal sample, and our findings suggest that race is not a fixed characteristic, but rather a flexible marker of social status.
Since at least the 19th century, the dominant understanding of race has been that racial divisions are rooted in biological differences between human populations (1). For the past 50 years or more, social scientists have challenged that notion, claiming that races are instead created through social processes and subject to economic and political calculation (2). However, even in disciplines where race is viewed as socially defined, most empirical studies continue to treat race as a fixed attribute of a particular individual (3). We examine two conceptions of race—how individuals are racially classified by others and how they identify themselves—and find that both change over time. Further, we show that this temporal variation is related to the individuals' social position: People who are unemployed, incarcerated, or impoverished are more likely to be classified and identify as black, and less likely to be classified and identify as white, regardless of how they were classified or identified previously. This study is the first to examine changes in racial classification using a representative longitudinal sample, and our findings suggest that race is not a fixed characteristic, but rather a flexible marker of social status.
"Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 118 Issue 4, Pages 393 - 398, Published Online: 11 Jul 2002(abstract):
number of analyses of classical genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms have shown that the majority of human genetic diversity exists within local populations (85%), with much less among local populations (5%) or between major geographic regions or races (10%). Previous analysis of craniometric variation (Relethford [1994] Am J Phys Anthropol 95:53-62) found that between 11-14% of global diversity exists among geographic regions, with the remaining diversity existing within regions. The methods used in this earlier paper are extended to a hierarchical partitioning of genetic diversity in quantitative traits, allowing for assessment of diversity among regions, among local populations within regions, and within local populations. These methods are applied to global data on craniometric variation (57 traits) and skin color. Multivariate analysis of craniometric variation shows results similar to those obtained from genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms: roughly 13% of the total diversity is among regions, 6% among local populations within regions, and 81% within local populations. This distribution is concordant with neutral genetic markers. Skin color shows the opposite pattern, with 88% of total variation among regions, 3% among local populations within regions, and 9% within local populations, a pattern shaped by natural selection. The apportionment of genetic diversity in skin color is atypical, and cannot be used for purposes of classification. If racial groups are based on skin color, it appears unlikely that other genetic and quantitative traits will show the same patterns of variation.
"Science, Race and Politics," PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMAZING MEETING 4 | 26 JANUARY 2006 | JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION(pdf) (excerpts quoted):
Scientific evidence overwhelming shows that biological differences in human populations the result of continuous variations of
individual characteristics which form gradations from one population to the next. There are no clusters or genetically linked characteristics which form well-bounded discrete human groups. Characterizations of “race” are thus purely social constructs. Even these divisive social distinctions are created and perpetuated very differently by various cultural groups. Thus, the history of “race” as a concept represents the creation of social categories for purposes of cultural subjugation and are not grounded in the empirical evidence of human biological variations.
individual characteristics which form gradations from one population to the next. There are no clusters or genetically linked characteristics which form well-bounded discrete human groups. Characterizations of “race” are thus purely social constructs. Even these divisive social distinctions are created and perpetuated very differently by various cultural groups. Thus, the history of “race” as a concept represents the creation of social categories for purposes of cultural subjugation and are not grounded in the empirical evidence of human biological variations.
"Racial Profiling in Medical Research," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 18 May 3, 2001(excerpts):
Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification. ...Any attempt to establish lines of
division among biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective.
division among biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective.
"Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians," Genetics 161: 269–274 (May 2002)(pdf) (full text linked, abstract quoted):
The worldwide pattern of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variation is of great interest to human
geneticists, population geneticists, and evolutionists, but remains incompletely understood. We studied
the pattern in noncoding regions, because they are less affected by natural selection than are coding regions.
Thus, it can reflect better the history of human evolution and can serve as a baseline for understanding the
maintenance of SNPs in human populations. We sequenced 50 noncoding DNA segments each 500 bp
long in 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. An analysis of the data suggests that the sampling
scheme is adequate for our purpose. The average nucleotide diversity () for the 50 segments is only
0.061% 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high
(0.115% 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between
Africans and Eurasians (0.096% 0.012%). From available data for noncoding autosomal regions (total
length 47,038 bp) and X-linked regions (47,421 bp), we estimated the -values for autosomal regions
to be 0.105, 0.070, 0.069, and 0.097% for Africans, Asians, Europeans, and between Africans and Eurasians,
and the corresponding values for X-linked regions to be 0.088, 0.042, 0.053, and 0.082%. Thus, Africans
differ from one another slightly more than from Eurasians, and the genetic diversity in Eurasians is largely
a subset of that in Africans, supporting the out of Africa model of human evolution. Clearly, one must
specify the geographic origins of the individuals sampled when studying or SNP density.
geneticists, population geneticists, and evolutionists, but remains incompletely understood. We studied
the pattern in noncoding regions, because they are less affected by natural selection than are coding regions.
Thus, it can reflect better the history of human evolution and can serve as a baseline for understanding the
maintenance of SNPs in human populations. We sequenced 50 noncoding DNA segments each 500 bp
long in 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. An analysis of the data suggests that the sampling
scheme is adequate for our purpose. The average nucleotide diversity () for the 50 segments is only
0.061% 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high
(0.115% 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between
Africans and Eurasians (0.096% 0.012%). From available data for noncoding autosomal regions (total
length 47,038 bp) and X-linked regions (47,421 bp), we estimated the -values for autosomal regions
to be 0.105, 0.070, 0.069, and 0.097% for Africans, Asians, Europeans, and between Africans and Eurasians,
and the corresponding values for X-linked regions to be 0.088, 0.042, 0.053, and 0.082%. Thus, Africans
differ from one another slightly more than from Eurasians, and the genetic diversity in Eurasians is largely
a subset of that in Africans, supporting the out of Africa model of human evolution. Clearly, one must
specify the geographic origins of the individuals sampled when studying or SNP density.
"Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2009 May;139(1):16-22(abstract only):
Phenotypic traits have been used for centuries for the purpose of racial classification. Developments in quantitative population genetics have allowed global comparison of patterns of phenotypic variation with patterns of variation in classical genetic markers and DNA markers. Human skin color shows a high degree of variation among geographic regions, typical of traits that show extensive natural selection. Even given this high level of geographic differentiation, skin color variation is clinal and is not well described by discrete racial categories. Craniometric traits show a level of among-region differentiation comparable to genetic markers, with high levels of variation within populations as well as a correlation between phenotypic and geographic distance. Craniometric variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world. Nonetheless, the boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species.
"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, No. 1, 16–26(pdf) (excerpts quoted):
The consensus among most scholars in fields such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, and other disciplines is that racial distinctions fail on all three counts—that is, they are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful. Yet even these counterarguments often fail to take into account the origin and history of the idea of “race.” This history is
significant because it demonstrates that race is a fairly recent construct, one that emerged well after population groups from different continents came into contact with one another.
significant because it demonstrates that race is a fairly recent construct, one that emerged well after population groups from different continents came into contact with one another.
The bottom line: Please stop the psuedo-scientific discussions of race -- such as "X is what race?" and particularly use of outdated and refuted notions like Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc. Racism is still a very real problem, because of the perception of race, but those of you who talk as if you "know" something about race based on science are making fools of yourselves.
