Science And Race Reaction Paper

The aim of this paper is to define race, how people of diverse races relate – e.g. their interactions – how things have changed over time, and the impact this has on the different races today. It seeks to establish the real meaning of race, how we view and deal with it, and how this is a continuous process that is changing with time. Race is not an ancient idea, but rather a modern concept. For many centuries, race has been the cause of holocausts like the Jewish Holocaust and slavery. The race issue can be viewed from different perspectives. In recent years, people have used traits like skin color to define a person’s race, even forming perceptions of their intelligence, sexuality, and temperament, even though scientists have, for long, agreed

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.

Race is a hot topic in our world. We all think we know what race is. After all, we are constantly being bombarded with it whether it be from media, politics, or sports. The truth is that race does not revolve around the idea of biological traits or characteristics. It is a modern concept that we as a society have created to divide people into categories. I will argue that race is socially constructed from a biological, political history, and sociological standpoint, and how it may impact other areas of our society.

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.”

One of the most prevalent themes throughout the world’s history is the dispute over race and racial differences. But, there is a problem: the majority of the population doesn’t have a clear understanding of what race is. Race is a socially constructed grouping of people that was created in order for people to differentiate themselves from one another and has many sources of influence. While most people believe race is determined by biological characteristics (hair type, skin color, eye shape, etc.), this is not true. To make things more complicated, there is no cut and dry definition to race. Authors of Race and Ethnicity in Society, Elizabeth Higginbotham and Margret Anderson, claim that there are seven different distinct ways to define race. They begin with the popular belief of biological characteristics, and, as mentioned before, through social construction. They go on to note that race can be formed from an ethnic group, from social class rank, from racial formation by institutions, and also can form from one’s self-definition (Higginbotham & Anderson, 2012, p. 13). All of these ways to define race have been seen throughout our history, and many of them have caused problems for minorities, especially in the United States.

However there is no discernible difference in genotype between perceived ‘races’, as the variation observed in the morphologies and cultural patterns of geographically distinct groups are physical markers that are interpreted through social practice.1 Renowned geneticists, Francis Collins and Craig Venter after initially mapping the human genome, announced in June 2000 that 99.9% of humans are genetically identical despite perceived race.2 Subsequently, evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, then further substantiated that within that 0.1% of difference, 85% of phenotypical variation was prominent inside geographically distinct groups, while only 15% occurs between them.3 It has been proposed by academics such as Naomi Zack, that to continue to refer to race as a purely biological notion is detrimental to social understanding as it reinforces a false notion.4 Although observable difference between groups does exist as variation caused by the evolutionary process of random drift and adaption5, these differences are phenotypical and only become salient to racial philosophy when interpreted socially. DeSalle and Tattersall explain that variation is driven by environmental influence on genotype, highlighting that insights into cultural practice are more productive in discussions about difference. A case study provided by DeSalle and Tattersall uses the example of lactose intolerance, explaining that, “Among norther European populations, only about 1 to 15 percent

Though race is theoretically rejected as a biological category in anthropological research, differences in phenotypes have created culturally constructed categories that are largely used to racially mark “white people”, as well as other “races”, in our society (Shanklin). Ethnicity is often wrongly

The term “race” has been given different meanings throughout the years and, now, it is used to signify the differences in physical characteristics that humans possess and, therefore, it creates stratification and inequality. However, the Haviland text states that “The concept of race has no biological basis. Therefore, race is seen as a cultural construct” (Haviland et. al. 2014). Joe R. Feagin and Clairece Booher Feagin support this statement in their textbook: Racial and Ethnic Relations. To understand the concept of race, it is important to be aware of the origin of the word. According to the Feagin text, the meaning of race has changed through the centuries. Back in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, race was a word intended for “descendants of a common ancestor, emphasizing linkages” (Feagin and Feagin, 2012: 5). This means that the word “race” was intended to recognize family ties, it did not take physical characteristics into consideration, only descendants; it was not utilized to separate people by their

Is race-thinking an inevitable product of the fact of human diversity? Before attempting to address this question, we must first deconstruct and define the terms race-thinking as well as race. Race-thinking, as Paul C. Taylor defines the term, occurs when human beings assign “generic meaning to human bodies and bloodlines” (16); it concerns itself with the “kinds, called races, and... about individuals, who thereby have racial identities (18). The concept of race is an elusive term to define, especially since philosophers, biologists, and sociologists may define the term via different methods. Michael Hardimon, a philosopher at UC San Diego, defines the logical core of the concept of race by imposing a set of three theses that constitutes and

The title of the paper intends to raise awareness about the large number of historians and activists still struggling to clearly define their understanding of racial identities. Given the complex use of the term “race” in biology, in everyday life, and in the social sciences, this does not come as a surprise. However, without properly addressing issues of historical and present understandings of race, both scholars and activists run the risk of reinforcing rather than challenging racial misconceptions.

We are still consumed with the notion that there is some possible generalization that can used to determine who belongs and who doesn’t, to a certain category of ethnicity. Throughout the process of natural selection, uninhibited love and the freedom of choice, we humans continue to cloud the reality for the concept of race. This social construction of race no longer holds as a scientific factor. Physical features such as skin color and eyes and hair have been proven scientifically to be components of the location of environment. These traits were

The first thing to insist on in discussion of ‘race’ is that there is just one ‘race’, the human race. Human biology does not divide people into different ‘races’; it is racism (and sometimes its counter arguments) that insists on this division.

Due to the way natural selection and evolution take place, human variation occurs outside of the static racial categories that has persisted throughout history. These categories are based on variable physical traits that give no reliable information about the group as a whole. The idea that these categories are biologically meaningful is not only false, but can be harmful as well. When racial paradigms are applied in the real world, the results are sometimes harmful. Understanding that racial categories are arbitrary in a biological sense is beneficial to society as a

Using this new scientific approach, the current accepted cultural notion of race ought to shift. One can no longer base or classify one ‘race’ from another based on phenotypic occurrences. Genes hold the key. By understanding how genes connect us all except for a few minute differences of superficial appearance, demonstrates that race as a social construction is no longer useful. Scientific American gives us tangible evidence when it states “individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population” (81). Someone who shares your same cultural traditions based on geographical location can differ genotypically more than someone from another region. The utility of race was once to separate and control the ‘different

Due to scientist’s interest in human genetic variation, human racial classification became a focus of scientific investigation by evolutionary biologists attempting to categorize individual humans based on presumed patterns of biological difference. Scientists had hoped to classify humans in the same way that they classified other species. These scientists attached hierarchical titles to these categorizations; they claimed that differences in skin color, physiognomy, and geography were associated with scientifically measurable differences in character, aptitude, and temperament (Smedley, 1998). However, studies supporting these claims have been unsound (Gould, 1981). Categorization of humans by racial and ethnic groups continues, as researchers must remain aware of this historical legacy of the science of heredity as the genomic era continues to develop (Bonham et al., 2005).