Changes

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]

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 ==

==History ==

===Etymology===

===Etymology===

{{quotation|A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses.  It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).}}

{{quotation|A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses.  It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).}}

Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing."  Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992).

Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing."  Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992).

The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ∼90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within every human group, and ∼10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002).

The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ∼90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within every human group, and ∼10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002).

===Race and models of human evolution===

===Race and models of human evolution===

In a recent article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson have called attention to the fact that although the concepts of cline, population, and ethnocity, as well as humanitarian and political concerns, have led many scientists away from the notion of race, a recent survey showed that physical anthropologists were evenly divided as to whether race is a valid biological concept.  Noting that among physical anthropologists the vast majority of opposition to the race concept comes from population geneticists, any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution.  They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race. <ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 232-234</ref>  

In a recent article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson have called attention to the fact that although the concepts of cline, population, and ethnocity, as well as humanitarian and political concerns, have led many scientists away from the notion of race, a recent survey showed that physical anthropologists were evenly divided as to whether race is a valid biological concept.  Noting that among physical anthropologists the vast majority of opposition to the race concept comes from population geneticists, any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution.  They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race. <ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 232-234</ref>  

====The multiregional model====

====The multiregional model====

The multi-regional hypothesis consists of several models of human evolution that all posit that the human races evolved from separate populations of ''H. erectus'' over the past million years.  Carleton Coon, an early advocate of this model, suggested that the independent evolution of ''H. sapiens'' in different parts of the world accounts for the existence of geographically and genetically distinct races - in short, that multiregional evolution was tantamount to multiracial evolution, the simultaneous but independent evolution of different races <ref>Carleton Coon (1962) ''The Origins of Race''</ref>  Current advocates of this model, primarily Milford Wolpof and his associates, have argued that the simultaneous evolution of ''H. sapiens'' in different parts of Europe and Asia would have been possible only if there was a degree of gene flow between archaic populations, and have rejected Coon's idea of multiracial evolution. <ref>Thorne, Alan, and Milford Wolpoff (1992) "The Multiregional Evolution of humans" in ''Scientific American, April 76-93; Smith, Fred and Frank Spencer, eds (1984) ''The Origin of Modern Humans''</ref> Frayer et al. (1993) cite as evidence anatomical continuity in the fossil record in South Central Europe (Smith 1982), East Asia and Australia (Wolpoff 1993) (anatomical affinity is taken to suggest genetic affinity). They argue that very strong genetic similarities among all humans do not prove recent common ancestry, but rather reflect the interconnectedness of human populations around the world, resulting in relatively constant gene flow (Thorne and Wolpoff 1992).  They further argue that this model is consistent with clinal patterns of phenotypic variation (Wolpoff 1993).  The most important element of this model for theories of race is that it allows a million years for the evolution of ''Homo sapiens'' around the world; this is more than enough time for the evolution of different races.

The multi-regional hypothesis consists of several models of human evolution that all posit that the human races evolved from separate populations of ''H. erectus'' over the past million years.  Carleton Coon, an early advocate of this model, suggested that the independent evolution of ''H. sapiens'' in different parts of the world accounts for the existence of geographically and genetically distinct races - in short, that multiregional evolution was tantamount to multiracial evolution, the simultaneous but independent evolution of different races <ref>Carleton Coon (1962) ''The Origins of Race''</ref>  Current advocates of this model, primarily Milford Wolpof and his associates, have argued that the simultaneous evolution of ''H. sapiens'' in different parts of Europe and Asia would have been possible only if there was a degree of gene flow between archaic populations, and have rejected Coon's idea of multiracial evolution. <ref>Thorne, Alan, and Milford Wolpoff (1992) "The Multiregional Evolution of humans" in ''Scientific American, April 76-93; Smith, Fred and Frank Spencer, eds (1984) ''The Origin of Modern Humans''</ref> Frayer et al. (1993) cite as evidence anatomical continuity in the fossil record in South Central Europe (Smith 1982), East Asia and Australia (Wolpoff 1993) (anatomical affinity is taken to suggest genetic affinity). They argue that very strong genetic similarities among all humans do not prove recent common ancestry, but rather reflect the interconnectedness of human populations around the world, resulting in relatively constant gene flow (Thorne and Wolpoff 1992).  They further argue that this model is consistent with clinal patterns of phenotypic variation (Wolpoff 1993).  The most important element of this model for theories of race is that it allows a million years for the evolution of ''Homo sapiens'' around the world; this is more than enough time for the evolution of different races.

====The out of Africa model====

====The out of Africa model====

Archaic ''H. sapiens'' are believed by some to have evolved 400,000 to 600,000 years ago.  According to the Out of Africa Model, developed by Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews, modern ''H. sapiens'' evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago and then migrated to Europe and Asia, where it replaced existing hominid species.<ref>Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews  (1988) "Genetic and Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Modern Humans" in ''Science'' 239: 1263-1268</ref> This time scale &mdash; considerably less than the million years for geographically separate human evolution posited by the Multiregional Model &mdash; leaves less time for genetic divergence among human populations, and thus suggests that humans around the world are more closely related than the Multiregional model would suggest.  The Out of Africa Model has gained support by recent, though controversial, research by molecular biologists working with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (this is DNA found in the cytoplasm, rather than nucleus, of cells).  Cann et. al. argue that mtDNA mutates at a faster rate than nuclear DNA and thus facilitates the study of human diversity; moreover, it is inherited solely from the mother and does not recombine, so "it is a tool for relating individuals to one another."  Working with a sample of 145 placentas taken from individuals from five geographic regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, "Caucasians" &ndash; North Africa, Europe and the Middle East &ndash; aboriginal Australians and Aboriginal New Guineans), they constructed a tree representing relations among 133 different types of mtDNA, and argued that the tree is "a genealogy linking maternal lineages in modern human beings to a common ancestral female.  After assessing different trees (i.e. different ways of organizing the results) they reached two significant conclusions: first, that all were descended from a woman from Africa, i.e. that humans evolved in Africa (supporting the Out of Africa model).  Second, they concluded that each non-African population had multiple origins, representing different lineages.  Based on known figures for the rate of mtDNA mutation, Cann et. al. calculated that modern Humans may have left Africa during one of two periods: 90,000-180,000 years ago, or 23,000-105,000 years ago.  Moreover, humans colonized Australia 40,000 years ago, New Guinea 30,000 years ago, and the New World 12,000 years ago.<ref>Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, Allan C. Wilson (1987) "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution" in ''Nature'' 325: 31-36)</ref><ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 237</ref>  According to Lieberman and Jackson, the Out of Africa Model has several implications for any understanding of races as biological phenomena.  First, "the shallow time dimensions minimize the degree to which racial differences could have evolved."  Second, it does present a major distinction between African and Eurasian groups, which "could be used to emphasize biological differences, and thereby provide support for the race concept." <ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 235</ref>    They also observe that "racial stratification is used for initial grouping, and inherent bias is introduced from the very beginning of data collection and interpretation.<ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 238</ref>

Archaic ''H. sapiens'' are believed by some to have evolved 400,000 to 600,000 years ago.  According to the Out of Africa Model, developed by Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews, modern ''H. sapiens'' evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago and then migrated to Europe and Asia, where it replaced existing hominid species.<ref>Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews  (1988) "Genetic and Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Modern Humans" in ''Science'' 239: 1263-1268</ref> This time scale &mdash; considerably less than the million years for geographically separate human evolution posited by the Multiregional Model &mdash; leaves less time for genetic divergence among human populations, and thus suggests that humans around the world are more closely related than the Multiregional model would suggest.  The Out of Africa Model has gained support by recent, though controversial, research by molecular biologists working with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (this is DNA found in the cytoplasm, rather than nucleus, of cells).  Cann et. al. argue that mtDNA mutates at a faster rate than nuclear DNA and thus facilitates the study of human diversity; moreover, it is inherited solely from the mother and does not recombine, so "it is a tool for relating individuals to one another."  Working with a sample of 145 placentas taken from individuals from five geographic regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, "Caucasians" &ndash; North Africa, Europe and the Middle East &ndash; aboriginal Australians and Aboriginal New Guineans), they constructed a tree representing relations among 133 different types of mtDNA, and argued that the tree is "a genealogy linking maternal lineages in modern human beings to a common ancestral female.  After assessing different trees (i.e. different ways of organizing the results) they reached two significant conclusions: first, that all were descended from a woman from Africa, i.e. that humans evolved in Africa (supporting the Out of Africa model).  Second, they concluded that each non-African population had multiple origins, representing different lineages.  Based on known figures for the rate of mtDNA mutation, Cann et. al. calculated that modern Humans may have left Africa during one of two periods: 90,000-180,000 years ago, or 23,000-105,000 years ago.  Moreover, humans colonized Australia 40,000 years ago, New Guinea 30,000 years ago, and the New World 12,000 years ago.<ref>Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, Allan C. Wilson (1987) "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution" in ''Nature'' 325: 31-36)</ref><ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 237</ref>  According to Lieberman and Jackson, the Out of Africa Model has several implications for any understanding of races as biological phenomena.  First, "the shallow time dimensions minimize the degree to which racial differences could have evolved."  Second, it does present a major distinction between African and Eurasian groups, which "could be used to emphasize biological differences, and thereby provide support for the race concept." <ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 235</ref>    They also observe that "racial stratification is used for initial grouping, and inherent bias is introduced from the very beginning of data collection and interpretation.<ref>Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in ''­American Anthropologist'' Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 238</ref>

===Race as lineage===

===Race as lineage===

 

Work by molecular biologists such as Cann et. al.<ref>Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, Allan C. Wilson (1987) "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution" in Nature 325: 31-36) </ref> on mtDNA has led some scientists, such as Johnson et. al., to a new definition of race as lineage; after constructing a phylogeny of mtDNA types, Johnson et. al. suggested that "the three central types are among those most likely to have been present prior to the formation of the extant human races".<ref>Johnson Mj; Wallace Dc; Ferris Sd; Rattazzi Mc; Cavallisforza Ll (1983) “Radiation Of Human Mitochondria Dna Types Analyzed By Restriction Endonuclease Cleavage Patterns” ''Journal Of Molecular Evolution'' 19 (3-4): 255-271</ref>.  Although most molecular biologists avoid making, or question, using this data to support racial classifications, this view has gained some traction among research in biomedicine, such as Risch et. al.<ref>Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. & Tang, H. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race, and disease. Genome Biol. 3, 1−12 (2003)</ref> and Burchard et. al. <ref>Burchard, E. G. et al. The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1170−1175 (2003).</ref>   

Work by molecular biologists such as Cann et. al.<ref>Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, Allan C. Wilson (1987) "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution" in Nature 325: 31-36) </ref> on mtDNA has led some scientists, such as Johnson et. al., to a new definition of race as lineage; after constructing a phylogeny of mtDNA types, Johnson et. al. suggested that "the three central types are among those most likely to have been present prior to the formation of the extant human races".<ref>Johnson Mj; Wallace Dc; Ferris Sd; Rattazzi Mc; Cavallisforza Ll (1983) “Radiation Of Human Mitochondria Dna Types Analyzed By Restriction Endonuclease Cleavage Patterns” ''Journal Of Molecular Evolution'' 19 (3-4): 255-271</ref>.  Although most molecular biologists avoid making, or question, using this data to support racial classifications, this view has gained some traction among research in biomedicine, such as Risch et. al.<ref>Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. & Tang, H. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race, and disease. Genome Biol. 3, 1−12 (2003)</ref> and Burchard et. al. <ref>Burchard, E. G. et al. The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1170−1175 (2003).</ref>   

However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races".{{Fact|date=June 2007}} Genetic lineages have in common with older notions of race the idea of biological relatedness.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}  Unlike older notions of race, however, they are not connected to claims about human behavior or character.  Nadia Abu el-Haj has thus argued that "postgenomics does seem to be giving race a new lease on life."  Nevertheless, Abu el-Haj argues that in order to understand what it means to think of race in terms of genetic lineages, one must understand that  

However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races".{{Fact|date=June 2007}} Genetic lineages have in common with older notions of race the idea of biological relatedness.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}  Unlike older notions of race, however, they are not connected to claims about human behavior or character.  Nadia Abu el-Haj has thus argued that "postgenomics does seem to be giving race a new lease on life."  Nevertheless, Abu el-Haj argues that in order to understand what it means to think of race in terms of genetic lineages, one must understand that  

:Race science was never just about classification.  It presupposed a distinctive relationship between "nature" and "culture," understanding the differences in the former to ground and to generate the different kinds of persons ("natural kinds") and the distinctive stages of cultures and civilizations that inhabit the world.

:Race science was never just about classification.  It presupposed a distinctive relationship between "nature" and "culture," understanding the differences in the former to ground and to generate the different kinds of persons ("natural kinds") and the distinctive stages of cultures and civilizations that inhabit the world.

Abu el-Haj argues that genomics and the mapping of lineages based on junk DNA liberates "the new racial science from the older one by disentangling ancestry from culture and capacity."  As an example, she refers to recent work by Hammer et. al., which aimed to test the claim that present-day Jews are more closely related to one another than to neighboring non-Jewish populations.  Hammer et. al found that the degree of genetic similarity among Jews shifted depending on the locus investigated, and suggested that this was the result of natural selection acting on particular locii.  They therefore focused on the nonrecombining Y chromosome to "circumvent some of the complications associeted with selection" <ref>Hammer, M.F., A.J. Redd, E.T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T. karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheimer, M.A. Jobling, T. Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonne-Tamir (2000) "Jewish and Middle Eastern Non-jewish Populations Share a Common pool of Y-Chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes" in ''Proceedings of the National Cacademy of Sciences'' 97(12): 6769-6774</ref>.  As another example she points to work by Thomas et. al., who sought to distinguish between the Y chromosomes of Jewish priests (in Judaism, membership in the priesthood is passed on through the father's line) and the Y chromosomes of non-Jews.<ref> Thomas, M. K. Skoprecski, K. Ben-Ami, H. Parfitt, T. Bradman, and D.B. Goldstein (1988) "Oriigins of Old Testament priests" in ''Nature'' 394(6689): 138-140</ref>Abu el-Haj concluded that this new "race science" calls attention to the importance of "ancestry" (narrowly defined, as it does not include all ancestors) in some relgions and in popular culture, and peoples' desire to use science to confirm their claims about ancestry; this "race science," she argues is fundamentally different from older notions of race that were used to explain differences in human behavior or social status:

Abu el-Haj argues that genomics and the mapping of lineages based on junk DNA liberates "the new racial science from the older one by disentangling ancestry from culture and capacity."  As an example, she refers to recent work by Hammer et. al., which aimed to test the claim that present-day Jews are more closely related to one another than to neighboring non-Jewish populations.  Hammer et. al found that the degree of genetic similarity among Jews shifted depending on the locus investigated, and suggested that this was the result of natural selection acting on particular locii.  They therefore focused on the nonrecombining Y chromosome to "circumvent some of the complications associeted with selection" <ref>Hammer, M.F., A.J. Redd, E.T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T. karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheimer, M.A. Jobling, T. Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonne-Tamir (2000) "Jewish and Middle Eastern Non-jewish Populations Share a Common pool of Y-Chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes" in ''Proceedings of the National Cacademy of Sciences'' 97(12): 6769-6774</ref>.  As another example she points to work by Thomas et. al., who sought to distinguish between the Y chromosomes of Jewish priests (in Judaism, membership in the priesthood is passed on through the father's line) and the Y chromosomes of non-Jews.<ref> Thomas, M. K. Skoprecski, K. Ben-Ami, H. Parfitt, T. Bradman, and D.B. Goldstein (1988) "Oriigins of Old Testament priests" in ''Nature'' 394(6689): 138-140</ref>Abu el-Haj concluded that this new "race science" calls attention to the importance of "ancestry" (narrowly defined, as it does not include all ancestors) in some relgions and in popular culture, and peoples' desire to use science to confirm their claims about ancestry; this "race science," she argues is fundamentally different from older notions of race that were used to explain differences in human behavior or social status:

:As neutral markers, [junk DNA] cannot generate cultural, behavioral, or, for that matter, truly biological differences between groups .... mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers relied on in such work are not "traits" or "qualities" in the old racial sense.  They do not render some populations more prone to violence, more likely to suffer psychiatric disorders, or for that matter, incapable of being fully integrated - because of their lower evolutionary development - into a European cultural world.  Instead, they are "marks," signs of religious beliefs and practices .... it is via biological noncoding genetic evidence that one can demonstrate that history itself is shared, that historical traditions are (or might well be) true."<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224-225</ref>

:As neutral markers, [junk DNA] cannot generate cultural, behavioral, or, for that matter, truly biological differences between groups .... mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers relied on in such work are not "traits" or "qualities" in the old racial sense.  They do not render some populations more prone to violence, more likely to suffer psychiatric disorders, or for that matter, incapable of being fully integrated - because of their lower evolutionary development - into a European cultural world.  Instead, they are "marks," signs of religious beliefs and practices .... it is via biological noncoding genetic evidence that one can demonstrate that history itself is shared, that historical traditions are (or might well be) true."<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224-225</ref>

===Summary of different definitions of race===

===Summary of different definitions of race===

|-

|-

| Essentialist || Hooton (1926) || "A great division of mankind, characterized as a group by the sharing of a certain combination of features, which have been derived from their common descent, and constitute a vague physical background, usually more or less obscured by individual variations, and realized best in a composite picture."

| Essentialist || Hooton (1926) || "A great division of mankind, characterized as a group by the sharing of a certain combination of features, which have been derived from their common descent, and constitute a vague physical background, usually more or less obscured by individual variations, and realized best in a composite picture."

===Races as social constructions===

===Races as social constructions===

Even as the idea of "race" was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, the shortcomings of the concept were apparent. In the Old World, the gradual transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups emphasized that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them," as Blumenbach observed in his writings on human variation (Marks 1995, p. 54). As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term ''population'' to talk about genetic differences, [[History|Historians]], [[cultural anthropology|anthropologists]] and [[social sciences|social scientists]] have re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or [[social construct]], in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others. As Stephan Palmie has recently summarized, race "is not a thing but a social relation" <ref name="Palmie07">Palmie, Stephan (2007) "Genomics, Divination, 'Racecraft'" in ''American Ethnologist'' 34(2): 214</ref>; or, in the words of Katya Gibel Mevorach, "a metonym," "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference." <ref name="Mevorach07">Mevorach, Katya Gibel (2007) "Race, Racism and Academic Complicity" in ''American Ethnologist'' 34(2): 239-240</ref>  As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: history and social relationships will.  For example, the fact that in many parts of the United States, categories such as [[Hispanics in the United States|Hispanic]] or [[Latino]] are viewed to constitute a race, while others view "Hispanic" as referring to an [[Ethnicity|ethnic group]], has more to do with the changing position of Hispanics in U.S. society, especially in the context of [[The civil rights movement]] and [[United States immigration debates|the debate over immigration]].   

Even as the idea of "race" was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, the shortcomings of the concept were apparent. In the Old World, the gradual transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups emphasized that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them," as Blumenbach observed in his writings on human variation (Marks 1995, p. 54). As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term ''population'' to talk about genetic differences, [[History|Historians]], [[cultural anthropology|anthropologists]] and [[social sciences|social scientists]] have re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or [[social construct]], in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others. As Stephan Palmie has recently summarized, race "is not a thing but a social relation" <ref name="Palmie07">Palmie, Stephan (2007) "Genomics, Divination, 'Racecraft'" in ''American Ethnologist'' 34(2): 214</ref>; or, in the words of Katya Gibel Mevorach, "a metonym," "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference." <ref name="Mevorach07">Mevorach, Katya Gibel (2007) "Race, Racism and Academic Complicity" in ''American Ethnologist'' 34(2): 239-240</ref>  As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: history and social relationships will.  For example, the fact that in many parts of the United States, categories such as [[Hispanics in the United States|Hispanic]] or [[Latino]] are viewed to constitute a race, while others view "Hispanic" as referring to an [[Ethnicity|ethnic group]], has more to do with the changing position of Hispanics in U.S. society, especially in the context of [[The civil rights movement]] and [[United States immigration debates|the debate over immigration]].   

====Race in the United States====

====Race in the United States====

The immigrants to the New World came largely from widely separated regions of the Old World—western and northern Europe, western Africa, and, later, eastern Asia and southern Europe. In the Americas, the immigrant populations began to [[miscegenation|mix]] among themselves and with the [[indigenous peoples of the Americas|indigenous inhabitants of the continent]]. In the United States, for example, most people who self-identify as African American have some European ancestors—in one analysis of genetic markers that have differing frequencies between continents, European ancestry ranged from an estimated 7% for a sample of Jamaicans to ∼23% for a sample of African Americans from New Orleans (Parra ''et al.'' 1998). Similarly, many people who identify as European American have some African or Native American ancestors, either through openly interracial marriages or through the gradual inclusion of people with mixed ancestry into the majority population. In a survey of college students who self-identified as [[White people|white]] in a northeastern U.S. university, ∼30% were estimated to have less than 90% European ancestry.<ref name="Shriver03">Shriver ''et al.'' 2003</ref>

The immigrants to the New World came largely from widely separated regions of the Old World—western and northern Europe, western Africa, and, later, eastern Asia and southern Europe. In the Americas, the immigrant populations began to [[miscegenation|mix]] among themselves and with the [[indigenous peoples of the Americas|indigenous inhabitants of the continent]]. In the United States, for example, most people who self-identify as African American have some European ancestors—in one analysis of genetic markers that have differing frequencies between continents, European ancestry ranged from an estimated 7% for a sample of Jamaicans to ∼23% for a sample of African Americans from New Orleans (Parra ''et al.'' 1998). Similarly, many people who identify as European American have some African or Native American ancestors, either through openly interracial marriages or through the gradual inclusion of people with mixed ancestry into the majority population. In a survey of college students who self-identified as [[White people|white]] in a northeastern U.S. university, ∼30% were estimated to have less than 90% European ancestry.<ref name="Shriver03">Shriver ''et al.'' 2003</ref>

In the United States since its early history, Native Americans, African-Americans and European-Americans were classified as belonging to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person’s appearance, his fraction of known non-White ancestry, and his social circle.^[[#2|2]] But the criteria for membership in these races diverged in the late 19th century. During Reconstruction, increasing numbers of Americans began to consider anyone with "[[one-drop theory|one drop]]" of "Black blood" to be Black.^[[#3|3]] By the early 20th century, this notion of invisible blackness was made statutory in many states and widely adopted nationwide.^[[#4|4]] In contrast, [[Amerindians]] continue to be defined by a certain percentage of "Indian blood" (called ''[[Blood quantum laws|blood quantum]]'') due in large part to [[American slavery ethics]]. Finally, for the past century or so, to be White one had to have "pure" White ancestry. (Utterly European-looking Americans of Hispanic or Arab ancestry are exceptions in being seen as White by most Americans despite traces of known African ancestry.)

In the United States since its early history, Native Americans, African-Americans and European-Americans were classified as belonging to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person’s appearance, his fraction of known non-White ancestry, and his social circle.^[[#2|2]] But the criteria for membership in these races diverged in the late 19th century. During Reconstruction, increasing numbers of Americans began to consider anyone with "[[one-drop theory|one drop]]" of "Black blood" to be Black.^[[#3|3]] By the early 20th century, this notion of invisible blackness was made statutory in many states and widely adopted nationwide.^[[#4|4]] In contrast, [[Amerindians]] continue to be defined by a certain percentage of "Indian blood" (called ''[[Blood quantum laws|blood quantum]]'') due in large part to [[American slavery ethics]]. Finally, for the past century or so, to be White one had to have "pure" White ancestry. (Utterly European-looking Americans of Hispanic or Arab ancestry are exceptions in being seen as White by most Americans despite traces of known African ancestry.)\

 

Efforts to sort the increasingly mixed population of the United States into discrete categories generated many difficulties (Spickard 1992). By the standards used in past censuses, many millions of children born in the United States have belonged to a different race than have one of their biological parents. Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories (such as "mulatto" and "octoroon") and "blood quantum" distinctions that became increasingly untethered from self-reported ancestry. A person's racial identity can change over time, and self-ascribed race can differ from assigned race (Kressin ''et al.'' 2003). Until the 2000 census, Latinos were required to identify with a single race despite the long history of mixing in Latin America; partly as a result of the confusion generated by the distinction, 32.9% (U.S. census records) of Latino respondents in the 2000 census ignored the specified racial categories and checked "some other race". (Mays ''et al.'' 2003 claim a figure of 42%)

Efforts to sort the increasingly mixed population of the United States into discrete categories generated many difficulties (Spickard 1992). By the standards used in past censuses, many millions of children born in the United States have belonged to a different race than have one of their biological parents. Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories (such as "mulatto" and "octoroon") and "blood quantum" distinctions that became increasingly untethered from self-reported ancestry. A person's racial identity can change over time, and self-ascribed race can differ from assigned race (Kressin ''et al.'' 2003). Until the 2000 census, Latinos were required to identify with a single race despite the long history of mixing in Latin America; partly as a result of the confusion generated by the distinction, 32.9% (U.S. census records) of Latino respondents in the 2000 census ignored the specified racial categories and checked "some other race". (Mays ''et al.'' 2003 claim a figure of 42%)

====Race in Brazil====

====Race in Brazil====

Compared to 19th-century United States, 20th-century [[Demographics of Brazil|Brazil]] was characterized by a relative absence of sharply defined racial groups. According to anthropologist Marvin Harris (1989) this pattern reflects a different history and different [[social relations]].  Basically, race in Brazil was "biologized," but in a way that recognized the difference between ancestry (which determines [[genotype]]) and [[phenotypic]] differences. There, racial identity was not governed by a rigid descent rule. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only a limited number of categories to choose from. Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in conformity with all the possible combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum, and no one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. That is, race referred to appearance, not heredity.

Compared to 19th-century United States, 20th-century [[Demographics of Brazil|Brazil]] was characterized by a relative absence of sharply defined racial groups. According to anthropologist Marvin Harris (1989) this pattern reflects a different history and different [[social relations]].  Basically, race in Brazil was "biologized," but in a way that recognized the difference between ancestry (which determines [[genotype]]) and [[phenotypic]] differences. There, racial identity was not governed by a rigid descent rule. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only a limited number of categories to choose from. Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in conformity with all the possible combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum, and no one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. That is, race referred to appearance, not heredity.

== Political and practical uses of race ==

== Political and practical uses of race ==

===Race and racism===

===Race and racism===

 

During [[the Enlightenment]], racial classifications were used to justify [[slavery|enslavement]] of those deemed to be of "inferior", non-White races, and thus supposedly best fitted for lives of toil under White supervision. These classifications made the distance between races seem nearly as broad as that between species, easing unsettling questions about the appropriateness of such treatment of humans. The practice was at the time generally accepted by both scientific and lay communities.

During [[the Enlightenment]], racial classifications were used to justify [[slavery|enslavement]] of those deemed to be of "inferior", non-White races, and thus supposedly best fitted for lives of toil under White supervision. These classifications made the distance between races seem nearly as broad as that between species, easing unsettling questions about the appropriateness of such treatment of humans. The practice was at the time generally accepted by both scientific and lay communities.

=== Race and intelligence ===

=== Race and intelligence ===

Researchers have reported differences in the average [[IQ]] test scores of various ethnic groups. The interpretation, causes, accuracy and reliability of these differences are highly controversial. Some researchers, such as [[Arthur Jensen]], [[Richard Herrnstein]], and [[Richard Lynn]] have argued that such differences are at least partially genetic. Others, for example [[Thomas Sowell]], argue that the differences largely owe to social and economic inequalities. Still others have such as [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Richard Lewontin]] have argued that categories such as "race" and "intelligence" are cultural constructs that render any attempt to explain such differences (whether genetically or sociologically) meaningless.

Researchers have reported differences in the average [[IQ]] test scores of various ethnic groups. The interpretation, causes, accuracy and reliability of these differences are highly controversial. Some researchers, such as [[Arthur Jensen]], [[Richard Herrnstein]], and [[Richard Lynn]] have argued that such differences are at least partially genetic. Others, for example [[Thomas Sowell]], argue that the differences largely owe to social and economic inequalities. Still others have such as [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Richard Lewontin]] have argued that categories such as "race" and "intelligence" are cultural constructs that render any attempt to explain such differences (whether genetically or sociologically) meaningless.

=== Race in biomedicine ===

=== Race in biomedicine ===

There is an active debate among biomedical researchers about the meaning and importance of race in their research. The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of [[disease]]s by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics. Some have argued that in the absence of cheap and widespread genetic tests, racial identification is the best way to predict for certain diseases, such as [[Cystic fibrosis]], [[Lactose intolerance]], [[Tay-Sachs Disease]] and [[sickle cell anemia]], which are genetically linked and more prevalent in some populations than others. The most well-known examples of genetically-determined disorders that vary in incidence among populations would be [[sickle cell disease]], [[thalassaemia]], and [[Tay-Sachs disease]]. [[Image:Sickle cell distribution.jpg|thumb|right|180px| distribution of the sickle cell trait]]

There is an active debate among biomedical researchers about the meaning and importance of race in their research. The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of [[disease]]s by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics. Some have argued that in the absence of cheap and widespread genetic tests, racial identification is the best way to predict for certain diseases, such as [[Cystic fibrosis]], [[Lactose intolerance]], [[Tay-Sachs Disease]] and [[sickle cell anemia]], which are genetically linked and more prevalent in some populations than others. The most well-known examples of genetically-determined disorders that vary in incidence among populations would be [[sickle cell disease]], [[thalassaemia]], and [[Tay-Sachs disease]]. [[Image:Sickle cell distribution.jpg|thumb|right|180px| distribution of the sickle cell trait]]

There has been criticism of associating disorders with race. For example, in the United States sickle cell is typically associated with black people, but this trait is also found in people of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern or Indian ancestry.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml sickle cell prevalence ]</ref> The sickle cell trait offers some resistance to [[malaria]]. In regions where malaria is present sickle cell has been [[Balancing selection|positively selected]] and consequently the proportion of people with it is greater. Therefore, it has been argued that sickle cell should not be associated with a particular race, but rather with having ancestors who lived in a malaria-prone region. Africans living in areas where there is no malaria, such as the East African highlands, have prevalence of sickle cell as low as parts of Northern Europe.

There has been criticism of associating disorders with race. For example, in the United States sickle cell is typically associated with black people, but this trait is also found in people of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern or Indian ancestry.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml sickle cell prevalence ]</ref> The sickle cell trait offers some resistance to [[malaria]]. In regions where malaria is present sickle cell has been [[Balancing selection|positively selected]] and consequently the proportion of people with it is greater. Therefore, it has been argued that sickle cell should not be associated with a particular race, but rather with having ancestors who lived in a malaria-prone region. Africans living in areas where there is no malaria, such as the East African highlands, have prevalence of sickle cell as low as parts of Northern Europe.

=== Race in law enforcement ===

=== Race in law enforcement ===

In an attempt to provide general descriptions that may facilitate the job of [[law enforcement officer]]s seeking to apprehend suspects, the United States [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] employs the term "race" to summarize the general appearance (skin color, hair texture, eye shape, and other such easily noticed characteristics) of individuals whom they are attempting to apprehend. From the perspective of [[law enforcement]] officers, it is generally more important to arrive at a description that will readily suggest the general appearance of an individual than to make a scientifically valid categorization by DNA or other such means. Thus in addition to assigning a wanted individual to a racial category, such a description will include: height, weight, eye color, scars and other distinguishing characteristics, etc. [[Scotland Yard]] use a classification based in the ethnic background of [[British society]]: W1 (White-British), W2 (White-Irish), W9 (Any other white background); M1 (White and black Caribbean), M2 (White and black African), M3 (White and Asian), M9 (Any other mixed background); A1 (Asian-Indian), A2 (Asian-Pakistani), A3 (Asian-Bangladeshi), A9 (Any other Asian background); B1 (Black Caribbean), B2 (Black African), B3 (Any other black background); O1 (Chinese), O9 (Any other). Some of the characteristics that constitute these groupings are biological and some are learned (cultural, linguistic, etc.) traits that are easily noticeable.

In an attempt to provide general descriptions that may facilitate the job of [[law enforcement officer]]s seeking to apprehend suspects, the United States [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] employs the term "race" to summarize the general appearance (skin color, hair texture, eye shape, and other such easily noticed characteristics) of individuals whom they are attempting to apprehend. From the perspective of [[law enforcement]] officers, it is generally more important to arrive at a description that will readily suggest the general appearance of an individual than to make a scientifically valid categorization by DNA or other such means. Thus in addition to assigning a wanted individual to a racial category, such a description will include: height, weight, eye color, scars and other distinguishing characteristics, etc. [[Scotland Yard]] use a classification based in the ethnic background of [[British society]]: W1 (White-British), W2 (White-Irish), W9 (Any other white background); M1 (White and black Caribbean), M2 (White and black African), M3 (White and Asian), M9 (Any other mixed background); A1 (Asian-Indian), A2 (Asian-Pakistani), A3 (Asian-Bangladeshi), A9 (Any other Asian background); B1 (Black Caribbean), B2 (Black African), B3 (Any other black background); O1 (Chinese), O9 (Any other). Some of the characteristics that constitute these groupings are biological and some are learned (cultural, linguistic, etc.) traits that are easily noticeable.

According to Sauer, "The assessment of these categories is based upon copious amounts of research on the relationship between biological characteristics of the living and their skeletons."  Nevertheless, he agrees with other anthropologists that race is not a valid biological taxonomic category, and that races are socially constructed.  He argued there is nevertheless a strong relationship between the phenotypic features forensic anthropologists base their identifications on, and popular racial categories.  Thus, he argued, forensic anthropologists apply a racial label to human remains because their analysis of physical morphology enables them to predict that when the person was alive, that particular racial label would have been applied to them.<ref>Sauer, Norman J. (1992) "Foren Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them" in Social Science and Medicine 34(2): 107-111. </ref>

According to Sauer, "The assessment of these categories is based upon copious amounts of research on the relationship between biological characteristics of the living and their skeletons."  Nevertheless, he agrees with other anthropologists that race is not a valid biological taxonomic category, and that races are socially constructed.  He argued there is nevertheless a strong relationship between the phenotypic features forensic anthropologists base their identifications on, and popular racial categories.  Thus, he argued, forensic anthropologists apply a racial label to human remains because their analysis of physical morphology enables them to predict that when the person was alive, that particular racial label would have been applied to them.<ref>Sauer, Norman J. (1992) "Foren Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them" in Social Science and Medicine 34(2): 107-111. </ref>

==See also==

== Bibliography ==

* Abizadeh A (2001) [http://www.profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/abizadeh/Ethnicity.htm "Ethnicity, Race, and a Possible Humanity"] ''World Order'' 33.1: 23-34.

* Abizadeh A (2001) [http://www.profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/abizadeh/Ethnicity.htm "Ethnicity, Race, and a Possible Humanity"] ''World Order'' 33.1: 23-34.

* American Association of Physical Anthropologists (1996) AAPA statement on biological aspects of race. Am J Phys Anthropol 101:569–570

* American Association of Physical Anthropologists (1996) AAPA statement on biological aspects of race. Am J Phys Anthropol 101:569–570

* Wolpoff M, Hawks J, Frayer DW, Hunley K (2001) Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: a test of the replacement theory. Science 291:293–297

* Wolpoff M, Hawks J, Frayer DW, Hunley K (2001) Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: a test of the replacement theory. Science 291:293–297

* Yu N, Chen FC, Ota S, Jorde LB, Pamilo P, Patthy L, Ramsay M, Jenkins T, Shyue SK, Li WH (2002) Larger genetic differences within Africans than between Africans and Eurasians. Genetics 161:269–274

* Yu N, Chen FC, Ota S, Jorde LB, Pamilo P, Patthy L, Ramsay M, Jenkins T, Shyue SK, Li WH (2002) Larger genetic differences within Africans than between Africans and Eurasians. Genetics 161:269–274

===Official statements and standards===

===Official statements and standards===

=== Review articles ===

=== Review articles ===

* [http://scbe.stanford.edu/events/pdfs/genomebio.pdf Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease] - Neil Risch,''et al.''

* [http://scbe.stanford.edu/events/pdfs/genomebio.pdf Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease] - Neil Risch,''et al.''

* [http://www.fiu.edu/~biology/pcb5665/RACEgen.pdf Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race] - Michael Bamshad, ''et al.''

* [http://www.fiu.edu/~biology/pcb5665/RACEgen.pdf Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race] - Michael Bamshad, ''et al.''

* [http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16175499 The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research] -- The Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group of the National Human Genome Research Institute

* [http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16175499 The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research] -- The Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group of the National Human Genome Research Institute

[[Category: General Reference]]

[[Category: General Reference]]