Changes

The term '''race''' refers to the concept of dividing people into [[population]]s or [[Group (sociology)|group]]s on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry.<ref name="AAPA">[http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race] America Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA)</ref> The most widely used human racial [[Category (taxonomy)|categories]] are based on visible [[Trait (biological)|trait]]s (especially [[skin color]], [[face|facial features]] and hair texture), and self-identification.<ref>Bamshad, Michael and Steve E. Olson. [http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departments/science/bio/evol_pop_dyn/does_race_exist.pdf "Does Race Exist?"], ''Scientific American Magazine'' ([[10 November]] [[2003]]).</ref>

The term '''race''' refers to the concept of dividing people into [[population]]s or [[Group (sociology)|group]]s on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. [http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race] America Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA). The most widely used human racial [[Category (taxonomy)|categories]] are based on visible [[Trait (biological)|trait]]s (especially [[skin color]], [[face|facial features]] and hair texture), and self-identification. [http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departments/science/bio/evol_pop_dyn/does_race_exist.pdf "Does Race Exist?"], ''Scientific American Magazine''.

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. [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 ==

Some argue that although "race" is a valid [[taxonomy|taxonomic]] concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. 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] 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." 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 ("Society in Focus)  ISBN 0-205-41365-X [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 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 ==

===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".

=== Race in ancient civilizations ===

=== Race in ancient civilizations ===

Given visually complex social relationships, humans presumably have always observed and speculated about the physical differences among individuals and groups. But different societies have attributed markedly different meanings to these distinctions. For example, the [[Ancient Egypt|Ancient Egyptian]] sacred text called ''[[Book of Gates]]'' identifies four [[ethnicity|ethnic]] categories that are now conventionally labeled "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians", but such distinctions tended to conflate differences as defined by physical features such as skin tone, with [[tribe|tribal]] and [[nation]]al identity.  [[Classical civilization]]s from [[Ancient Rome|Rome]] to [[Ancient China|China]] tended to invest much more importance in [[family|familial]] or tribal affiliation than with ones physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). [[Ancient Greek]] and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible [[biologic]]al differences among peoples known to them.  Such categories often also included fantastical human-like beings that were supposed to exist in far-away lands.  Some Roman writers adhered to an [[environmental determinism]] in which [[climate]] could affect the appearance and [[character]] of groups (Isaac 2004). But, in many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances became full members of a [[society]] by growing up within that society or by adopting that society's [[culture|cultural]] [[norm (sociology)|norms]] (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990). [[Medieval]] models of "race" mixed [[Graeco-Roman|Classical]] ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from [[Shem]], [[Ham]] and [[Japheth]], the three [[sons of Noah]], producing distinct [[Semitic]] ([[Asia]]n), [[Hamitic]] ([[Africa]]n), and [[Japhetic]] ([[Europe]]an) peoples.

Given visually complex social relationships, humans presumably have always observed and speculated about the physical differences among individuals and groups. But different societies have attributed markedly different meanings to these distinctions. For example, the [[Ancient Egypt|Ancient Egyptian]] sacred text called ''[[Book of Gates]]'' identifies four [[ethnicity|ethnic]] categories that are now conventionally labeled "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians", but such distinctions tended to conflate differences as defined by physical features such as skin tone, with [[tribe|tribal]] and [[nation]]al identity.  [[Classical civilization]]s from [[Ancient Rome|Rome]] to [[Ancient China|China]] tended to invest much more importance in [[family|familial]] or tribal affiliation than with ones physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). [[Ancient Greek]] and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible [[biologic]]al differences among peoples known to them.  Such categories often also included fantastical human-like beings that were supposed to exist in far-away lands.  Some Roman writers adhered to an [[environmental determinism]] in which [[climate]] could affect the appearance and [[character]] of groups (Isaac 2004). But, in many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances became full members of a [[society]] by growing up within that society or by adopting that society's [[culture|cultural]] [[norm (sociology)|norms]] (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990). [[Medieval]] models of "race" mixed [[Graeco-Roman|Classical]] ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from [[Shem]], [[Ham]] and [[Japheth]], the three [[sons of Noah]], producing distinct [[Semitic]] ([[Asia]]n), [[Hamitic]] ([[Africa]]n), and [[Japhetic]] ([[Europe]]an) peoples.

=== Scientific concepts of "race" ===

=== Scientific concepts of "race" ===

The first scientific attempts to classify humans by categories of race date from the 17th century, along with the development of European imperialism and colonization around the world. The first post-[[Graeco-Roman|Classical]] published classification of humans into distinct races seems to be [[François Bernier]]'s ''Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent'' ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in 1684.

The first scientific attempts to classify humans by categories of race date from the 17th century, along with the development of European imperialism and colonization around the world. The first post-[[Graeco-Roman|Classical]] published classification of humans into distinct races seems to be [[François Bernier]]'s ''Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent'' ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in 1684.

Discussions of race, how humans might be divided on an [[infraspecies]] basis, are made more complicated because race research has taken place on at least two scales (global and national) and from the point of view of different research aims. Evolutionary scientists are typically interested in humanity as a whole; and taxonomic racial classifications are often either unhelpful to, or refuted by, studies that focus on the question of global human diversity. Policy-makers and applied professions (such as law-enforcement or medicine), however, are typically concerned only with [[genotypic]] or [[phenotypic]] variation at the national or sub-national scale, and find taxonomic racial categories useful.

Discussions of race, how humans might be divided on an [[infraspecies]] basis, are made more complicated because race research has taken place on at least two scales (global and national) and from the point of view of different research aims. Evolutionary scientists are typically interested in humanity as a whole; and taxonomic racial classifications are often either unhelpful to, or refuted by, studies that focus on the question of global human diversity. Policy-makers and applied professions (such as law-enforcement or medicine), however, are typically concerned only with [[genotypic]] or [[phenotypic]] variation at the national or sub-national scale, and find taxonomic racial categories useful.

These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since [[2002]]: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design. While Rosenberg et al. studied individuals from populations across the globe without concentrating on particular geographical areas, Serre & Pääbo chose individuals for study from remote and discrete regions. By sampling individuals from major populations on each continent, Rosenberg et al. find evidence for genetic "clusters" (i.e., groupings that might plausibly be equated to earlier races). In contrast, Serre & Pääbo find that with respect to geography human genetic variation is continuous and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal]]," which denies the presumed clear assignability of all individuals to traditional racial categories. The research interest of Rosenberg et al. is medicine (i.e., [[epidemiology]]), whereas the research interest of Serre & Pääbo is human evolution. Tang et al. studied genetic variation within the [[United States]] with an interest in whether race/ethnicity or geography is of greater utility to epidemiological research. Tang et al. find that race/ethnic membership (or membership in one of the genetic "clusters" of Rosenberg et al.) is of greater utility within the United States that is one's corrent geographical location. Further recent research<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v77n3/42406/brief/42406.abstract.html "An Algorithm to Construct Genetically Similar Subsets of Families with the Use of Self-Reported Ethnicity Information"], Andrew D. Skol, Rui Xiao, Michael Boehnke, and Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 366 Investigators, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in ''Am. J. Hum. Genet.'', 77:346-354, 2005.</ref> correlating self-identified race with [[population genetics|population genetic]] structure<ref>[http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software/structure2_1.html Structure 2.1]</ref> echoed the conclusions in Tang. Indeed, the contrasting conclusions between global and national levels of analysis were predicted by Serre & Pääbo:

These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since [[2002]]: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design. While Rosenberg et al. studied individuals from populations across the globe without concentrating on particular geographical areas, Serre & Pääbo chose individuals for study from remote and discrete regions. By sampling individuals from major populations on each continent, Rosenberg et al. find evidence for genetic "clusters" (i.e., groupings that might plausibly be equated to earlier races). In contrast, Serre & Pääbo find that with respect to geography human genetic variation is continuous and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal]]," which denies the presumed clear assignability of all individuals to traditional racial categories. The research interest of Rosenberg et al. is medicine (i.e., [[epidemiology]]), whereas the research interest of Serre & Pääbo is human evolution. Tang et al. studied genetic variation within the [[United States]] with an interest in whether race/ethnicity or geography is of greater utility to epidemiological research. Tang et al. find that race/ethnic membership (or membership in one of the genetic "clusters" of Rosenberg et al.) is of greater utility within the United States that is one's corrent geographical location. Further recent research<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v77n3/42406/brief/42406.abstract.html "An Algorithm to Construct Genetically Similar Subsets of Families with the Use of Self-Reported Ethnicity Information"], Andrew D. Skol, Rui Xiao, Michael Boehnke, and Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 366 Investigators, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in ''Am. J. Hum. Genet.'', 77:346-354, 2005.</ref> correlating self-identified race with [[population genetics|population genetic]] structure [http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software/structure2_1.html Structure 2.1] echoed the conclusions in Tang. Indeed, the contrasting conclusions between global and national levels of analysis were predicted by Serre & Pääbo:

{{quotation|It is worth noting that the colonization history of the United States has resulted in a "sampling" of the human population made up largely of people from western Europe, western Africa, and Southeast Asia. Thus, studies in which individuals from Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia are [distinguished]... might be an adequate description of the major components of the U.S. population.}}

{{quotation|It is worth noting that the colonization history of the United States has resulted in a "sampling" of the human population made up largely of people from western Europe, western Africa, and Southeast Asia. Thus, studies in which individuals from Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia are [distinguished]... might be an adequate description of the major components of the U.S. population.}}

Three main components of the U.S. population having been drawn from remote parts of the world, the long clinal bridges between the groups that exist in Eurasia have disappeared and those populations seem rather starkly isolated when examined in their new environment.

Three main components of the U.S. population having been drawn from remote parts of the world, the long clinal bridges between the groups that exist in Eurasia have disappeared and those populations seem rather starkly isolated when examined in their new environment.

===Race as subspecies===

===Race as subspecies===

With the advent of the [[modern synthesis]] in the early 20th century, many biologists sought to use evolutionary models and populations genetics to develop more rigorous definitions of "race."  An early attempt was to identify races as subspecies (a subspecies is a clearly distinguishable group forming all or part of a [[species]]). A ''monotypic'' species has no races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:

With the advent of the [[modern synthesis]] in the early 20th century, many biologists sought to use evolutionary models and populations genetics to develop more rigorous definitions of "race."  An early attempt was to identify races as subspecies (a subspecies is a clearly distinguishable group forming all or part of a [[species]]). A ''monotypic'' species has no races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:

These criticisms have coincided with the rise of [[cladistics]]  

These criticisms have coincided with the rise of [[cladistics]]  

A [[clade]] is a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Every creature produced by sexual reproduction has two immediate lineages, one maternal and one paternal.<ref>http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/an.2006.47.2.7?journalCode=an accessed June 2007</ref>  Whereas [[Carolus Linnaeus]] established a taxonomy of living organisms based on anatomical similarities and differences, [[cladistics]] seeks to establish a taxonomy &mdash; the [[phylogenetic tree]] &mdash; based on genetic similarities and differences and tracing the process of acquisition of multiple characteristics by single organisms.  Some researchers have tried to clarify the idea of race by equating it to the biological idea of the [[clade]]:

A [[clade]] is a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Every creature produced by sexual reproduction has two immediate lineages, one maternal and one paternal. http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/an.2006.47.2.7?journalCode. Whereas [[Carolus Linnaeus]] established a taxonomy of living organisms based on anatomical similarities and differences, [[cladistics]] seeks to establish a taxonomy &mdash; the [[phylogenetic tree]] &mdash; based on genetic similarities and differences and tracing the process of acquisition of multiple characteristics by single organisms.  Some researchers have tried to clarify the idea of race by equating it to the biological idea of the [[clade]]:

A [[phylogenetic tree]] like the one shown above is usually derived from [[DNA]] or [[protein]] [[DNA sequence|sequences]] from populations. Often [[mitochondrial DNA]] or [[Y-chromosomal Adam|Y chromosome]] sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths. These single-locus sources of DNA do not [[genetic recombination|recombine]] and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents, and tracing either mitochondrial DNA or non-recombinant Y-chromosome DNA explains how people in one place may be largely derived from people in some remote location. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of [[chimpanzee]]s and humans, which is believed to have originated in [[Africa]]. Horizontal distance corresponds to two things:

A [[phylogenetic tree]] like the one shown above is usually derived from [[DNA]] or [[protein]] [[DNA sequence|sequences]] from populations. Often [[mitochondrial DNA]] or [[Y-chromosomal Adam|Y chromosome]] sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths. These single-locus sources of DNA do not [[genetic recombination|recombine]] and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents, and tracing either mitochondrial DNA or non-recombinant Y-chromosome DNA explains how people in one place may be largely derived from people in some remote location. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of [[chimpanzee]]s and humans, which is believed to have originated in [[Africa]]. Horizontal distance corresponds to two things: