Changes

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of [[racial grouping|grouping races]], vary by culture and over time, and are often [[Controversy|controversial]] for scientific as well as [[social identity|social]] and [[identity politics|political]] reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural kinds or socially constructed, and the degree to which observed differences in ability and achievement, categorised on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of [[racial grouping|grouping races]], vary by culture and over time, and are often [[Controversy|controversial]] for scientific as well as [[social identity|social]] and [[identity politics|political]] reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural kinds or socially constructed, and the degree to which observed differences in ability and achievement, categorised on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.

Some argue that although "race" is a valid [[taxonomy|taxonomic]] concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.<ref>S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, C D M Royal, G E Bonney, P Furbert-Harris, G M Dunston & C N Rotimi, 2004 "Conceptualizing human variation" in ''Nature Genetics''  36, S17 - S20 [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html Conceptualizing human variation]</ref>  Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from [[custom]], have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.<ref>For example this statement expressing the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological Association at [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm their webpage]: "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them."</ref>  Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal gradation]]."  Many anthropologists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are [[social construction|social construct]]s,<ref name="Society in Focus">{{cite book | last = Thompson | first = William | authorlink = | coauthors = Joseph Hickey | year = 2005 | title = Society in Focus | publisher = Pearson | location = Boston, MA| id = 0-205-41365-X}}</ref><ref name="Gordon64" /><ref name="AAAonRace" /><ref name="Palmie07" /><ref name="Mevorach07" /><ref>Daniel A. Segal ''[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0268-540X%28199110%297%3A5%3C7%3A%27EAORP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage 'The European': Allegories of Racial Purity]'' Anthropology Today, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Oct., 1991), pp. 7-9 doi:10.2307/3032780</ref><ref>Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "[http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/POST_WWII.PDF#search=%22stanley%20marion%20garn%22 Post World War II"]. 2005. August 28, 2006.</ref> whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification, although in a modified form based on [[DNA]] analysis.<ref>http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm</ref><ref>http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007</ref><ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06E2D81331F933A15750C0A9659C8B63</ref><ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm</ref>

Some argue that although "race" is a valid [[taxonomy|taxonomic]] concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.<ref>S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, C D M Royal, G E Bonney, P Furbert-Harris, G M Dunston & C N Rotimi, 2004 "Conceptualizing human variation" in ''Nature Genetics''  36, S17 - S20 [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html Conceptualizing human variation]</ref>  Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from [[custom]], have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.<ref>For example this statement expressing the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological Association at [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm their webpage]: "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them."</ref>  Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal gradation]]."  Many anthropologists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are [[social construction|social construct]]s,<ref name="Society in Focus">{{cite book | last = Thompson | first = William | authorlink = | coauthors = Joseph Hickey | year = 2005 | title = Society in Focus | publisher = Pearson | location = Boston, MA| id = 0-205-41365-X}}</ref><ref name="Gordon64" /><ref name="AAAonRace" /><ref name="Palmie07" /><ref name="Mevorach07" /><ref>Daniel A. Segal ''[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0268-540X%28199110%297%3A5%3C7%3A%27EAORP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage 'The European': Allegories of Racial Purity]'' Anthropology Today, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Oct., 1991), pp. 7-9 doi:10.2307/3032780</ref><ref>Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "[http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/POST_WWII.PDF#search=%22stanley%20marion%20garn%22 Post World War II"]. 2005. August 28, 2006.</ref> whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification, although in a modified form based on [[DNA]] analysis. [http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm][http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007][http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06E2D81331F933A15750C0A9659C8B63][http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm]== ==History ==

== History ==

===Etymology===

===Etymology===

Not until the [[16th century]] did the word "race" enter into the [[English language]], from the [[French language|French]] "''race''" - "race, breed, lineage" (which in turn was probably a [[Loanword|loan]] from the [[Italian language|Italian]] "''razza''").  Meanings of the term in the 16th century included "wines with a characteristic flavour", "people with common occupation", and "generation". A meaning of "tribe" or "nation" emerged in the [[17th century]].  The modern meaning, "one of the major divisions of mankind", dates to the late [[18th century]], but it never became exclusive (note the continued use of the expression "the human race").  The ultimate origin of the word is unknown; suggestions include [[Arabic language|Arabic]] ''[[Rho (letter)|ra'is]]'' meaning "head", but also "beginning" or "origin".

Not until the [[16th century]] did the word "race" enter into the [[English language]], from the [[French language|French]] "''race''" - "race, breed, lineage" (which in turn was probably a [[Loanword|loan]] from the [[Italian language|Italian]] "''razza''").  Meanings of the term in the 16th century included "wines with a characteristic flavour", "people with common occupation", and "generation". A meaning of "tribe" or "nation" emerged in the [[17th century]].  The modern meaning, "one of the major divisions of mankind", dates to the late [[18th century]], but it never became exclusive (note the continued use of the expression "the human race").  The ultimate origin of the word is unknown; suggestions include [[Arabic language|Arabic]] ''[[Rho (letter)|ra'is]]'' meaning "head", but also "beginning" or "origin".