Throughout the video, Race: The Power of Illusion, it describes how the human eye identifies race by physical appearance, which includes skin color, hair texture, and body shape. However, in this video, we learn that genetics can tell us something completely different. Our genetics can help determine that an individual can have a genetic makeup of more than one race. Alan Goodman, an anthropologist, said the following, “to understand why the idea of race is a biological myth requires a major paradigm shift.” I do agree with his statement. Our society is so focused on race and that a person’s skin color automatically associated them to one specific race. After watching this video, I believe that this is false. People have genetic makeups of
Additionally, there is a substantial lack of real evidence that the divisions between groups that we often specify as “races” actually have specific genetic identities. The extreme presence of ambiguity central to races, and the plentiful variations within these races point towards evidence that even two randomly selected citizens of European descent could be more genetically related to a person of Asian descent than they are to each other.
However, the video Race: The Power of Illusion presents significant evidence refuting the biological theories of race. Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory instructor Scott Bronson and several high school students from different ethnicities conducted personal genetic research exploring biological race theory. Students’ typed their blood, compared skin tones and took DNA samples. After sending the samples to a genetics lab, Bronson asked students whom they might expect to be more genetically similar to in the workshop. The consensus of the students was that they would each be genetically comparable to others in the group with similar physical attributes.
In a film of “Race the Power of an Illusion, Part I The Difference Between Us”, it talked about the differences of races such as skin, eye, hair color. However, in our genetic, the human is not very different than we think but we had a similar genetic code. In the 1950s, the athlete champions were all black, and they were much better than any other. Maybe because of that some people think there are different structure bodies than other races. In this case, I think it could make sense that black people have better body structure than white. However, it is the wrong stereotype about skin color. The skin tone is continuously changing, and the reason why a human has different physical appearances is that of different genes we have. Depends on the
What if we lived in a world where there were no races? What if people were not discriminated against because of the color of their skin or because they are different from what we see as acceptable? This is what Kwame Anthony Appiah tries to examine in his essay “Race, Culture, Identity: Misunderstood Connections.” Appiah tries to point out that “American social distinctions cannot be understood in terms of the concept of race.” (102) That America is made up of so many different races that no race is the more superior or in other cases inferior to one another. America is defined by its cultural diversity; it is what makes America the nation that it is. It is the reason that we as Americans have freedoms other people
From a biological perspective, race is a social construct that has little bias in genetics. In the PBS documentary, episode 1: Race: The Power of Illusion, Microbiologist Pilar
The idea of race in society is truly that; an idea. However, one of the first things one notices about another human is their perceived race. Often, incorrect assumptions are made about a person, based on his race. In addition, many believe race can be determined by biological factors. However, there is no biological basis to race. Without a doubt, genes play a role in our skin, hair, and eye color; however, there are not certain genes present in an entire race and not another. Race is not clear cut; if one were to travel from either pole to the equator, a specific location could not be identified to separate any two races.
The principles of genetics and evolution show that race, biologically does not exist. The differences that appear in humans does not come from an allele that marks for a specific race. Usually most of the variations we see in humans comes from mutations that occur. The change in DNA is a major factor of variation in humans, it is something random which means certain attributes aren’t associated with a specific race. Another important thing to note is that all humans share the basic structure of DNA. This reinforces the idea that race is a social construct, not a reality of nature. Another main source of variation comes from gene flow (the movement of alleles to and from a certain location). Populations have always been moving from one place to another, and through this a trait can become more unique or more common. So there is less to do about
The “AAA Statement on Race” explains “...that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.” Our population is a melting pot of skin colors, hair textures, and facial features, yet these distinctions seem to separate us in the wrong way. These groups can give us vital medical information, such as races that are prone to heart disease, but we instead manipulate these groups to create deficient stereotypes. (Boyd and Silk: 388) Moreover, a certain number of races does not exist because every human is unique, therefore these stereotypes are just fabricated from our culture. There is more difference within groups than between groups. (Boyd and Silk: 389) Accordingly, this diversity should be respected instead of putting people against each other. “The differences between races are due to biological heritage.” (Boyd and Silk: 388) Just because we are similar in race does not mean we are the same type of people and fall into the same stereotypes. If there is more diversity within groups, dividing race into three or four groups is not accurate
This article written by Mark Nathan Cohen, who is an anthropology professor in the State University of New York; talks about how race does not define human diversity. In the article, he also mentions that in school students learn the definition of race based on “biological variation” and not based on their culture. The professor Cohen says that studies on human family tree that were based on their genetic analysis of traits do not show any relation of who those traits belong to. He gives an example by stating that even skin color is not a god indicator of who it relates to because the “traits occur independently in several different branches of the human family.”
This is interesting to me in that though everyone looks different, we are al vary similar at a the DNA level. Our differences are not so great. There are two historical perspectives on race and ethnicity among geneticist. One is that is a cultural and historical construct with no biological significance, meaning that there is entirely unique to a particular ethnicity. The other argument is that there are biological differences between different ethnicities. As the human genome was being sequenced, different frequencies of genes variants related to disease susceptibility, drug metabolism, and environmental response were found among different populations (). Even though there is a small difference in DNA from person to person, there is some biological distinction. The variations of these genes tend to be similar among certain
The PBS series “Race: The Power of an Illusion” effectively works to expose race as a social construct and deconstructs the false notions that race is a biological marker. The series first discusses that all human beings originated from Africa but dispersed about 70,000 years ago to various places in the world. As a result of this migration, people were spread to different locations throughout the world with different environmental conditions that affected their physical traits. It was many years after the migration in which people began to display these new physical traits such as slanted eyes, fair skin, and differing hair textures. While the series notes the physical changes that occurred during the migration it also emphasizes that race while it may seem apparent in skin color and other physical features has no real biological basis.
Sociologists say race is a social construct, which is the way society can view a group, and their perception of the group. Race is a big example of this, as people could have the same genetic make-up, but be different races. Two people can have the same eye color, and even common DNA through blood. If two brothers had kids, one with someone of Asian descent, and the other brother having a child with someone of Native American descent, the kids who are cousins, are made up of different races. Race is more socially agreed upon, than being of a biological nature. A prime example of this, is most people will same someone is Asian, but they can be descendent of ant country in Asia, while being categorized as Asian. When we look at people from Europe,
Race is not a biological reality because there are no indications of some biological DNA that would have a certain outcomes of a race. The variation in skin tone comes from the mix of certain races. For example, the mix of black and white would result a skin color of Latino. However, the mix of white and yellow (Asians) will most likely result a child having more essential characteristics of white people. It is impossible to classify humans into races because human is making a new race every single moment from the combination of two people who come from different races. Light skin and dark skin have a lot to deal with the temperature, latitude and langtitude of the region. It could be characterized by a regions, instead of ethnic groups. Race
I used to think that race was a social construct more of a biological reality until I read all these articles. They changed my perspective and I have come to realize different things. My opinion is now divided into two; I am in that middle point where I can see both ways of the argument as valid and reasonable and agree with both. First, I will explain why I think it is a biological reality, then, I will explain why it can also be a social construct, and lastly how have these debates shaped the views about the nature of ethnicity and consequently defined ethnic identity. We have to avoid viewing either explanation with a negative meaning. The negative history that comes attached to the word “race” is what I think makes us be defensive whenever we hear it and close ourselves up to any reasonable answer we might have to the question, is it a biological reality or a social construct?
If you would have asked me, "Do you believe race is biological or that is was socially constructed?", I would have responded with the same examples you may commonly receive from scientist or anthropologist; that race is in fact biological and deeply rooted and shared from generation to generation by DNA. However, through analyzing Pearson 's, Chapter 11 Race & Ethnicity we discover various examples in which history has built the shelves in which everyone is neatly categorized for its convenience even if not entirely in truth.