Definition of race
Definition of raceThe word �race� is defined as one of the group of populations constituting humanity. Upon a first glance, the word seems easy enough to understand. However, what are these groups, and how does one categorize them? Who fits where, and why? These questions among others arise when thinking of race. Does race really exist? Genetically, a race may be defined as a group with gene frequencies differing from those of the other groups in the human species, although the genes in question make up a tiny percentage of the total human genome. The term race is inappropriate when applied to national, religious, or cultural groups, nor can the biological criteria of race be equated with mental characteristics (intelligence, personality, and character). Races arose in response to mutation, selection, geographic adaptation, and genetic drift; racial differentiation occurred relatively late in history. In the 19th and early 20th century, Joseph Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain attributed cultural and psychological values to race, proposing theories of racial superiority, an approach that culminated in the vicious racial doctrines of Nazi Germany. By limiting the criteria to certain physical characteristics, anthropologists at one time agreed on the existence of three relatively distinct groups of people, namely Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid, distinguished by such traits as skin color, hair type and color, shape of body, head, and facial features, and blood traits. Today, however, there is no scientific basis whatsoever for a general classification of races according to a scale of relative superiority, and racial prejudices and myths are no more than a means of finding a scapegoat when the position of individuals and the cohesion of a group are threatened. Anthropologists stress the heterogeneity of world population, and many reject the concept of race outright. This concept is not understood by most, and must be emphasized to people around the world. This would create unity the world over simply by pointing out that race does not exist.
In order to fully understand this concept, the history of the word �race� must be analyzed. Throughout history, it is a matter of observation that people are not alike in appearance; there are variations in the external physical characteristics transmitted wholly or partially from parent to child. It goes as far back as the Old Testament, which one already finds the belief that the physical and mental differences between individuals and groups alike are congenital, hereditary, and unchangeable. The Book of Genesis contains passages apparently assuming the inferiority of certain groups to others. However, the word �race� was first used in the 17th century with the discovery of the New World. However, the modern definition was created in order to define �differences� in humans. Europeans imposed these meanings and definitions according to their own historical understandings and perceptions of the world around them (Smedley 37). Somewhere along the line, they began to use the word race to define these, although the word race was still vague. Oftentimes, these �races� were ranked in order of superiority, mostly Anglo-Saxon being at the top. The word 'race' then developed into the word as we now know it and is defined in numerous other languages. The modern definition of race, �a local geographic or global human population distinguished by genetically transmitted characteristics and/or any of the major biological definitions of man distinguished by physically evident features, e.g. Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid� developed at a time of discovering new people. These actions were leading to social competition for the government-dominant white Europeans. This led to the need for divisional boundaries to protect Europeans from the other �races� and put themselves on a plateau above others. Essentially, these categories were created to keep the top on top and the bottom on the bottom.
While it is clear that there is only one human species, there are no objective reasons for splitting or lumping at any lower taxonomic level (I.e., subspecies, races, and varieties). From the earliest accounts of travelers noting differences in physical characteristics of peoples from disparate parts of the world, attempts have been made to classify these different groups within the prevailing ideology. As far back as Homer in 1200-850 BC, racial classifications have existed. In Iliad and Odyssey, he acknowledges variability between Aethiopians, people at the eastern and western edges of the known world, and Cubit-men, African pigmies. From there, racial classifications have existed in many forms. People such as Hippocrates and Aristotle both created views of different groups of people. These ancient racial classifications led to Da Vinci and Versailles creating opinions regarding relation of groups and skull shapes. Eventually, 18th Century ideology came about and so was the debate of Monogenism versus Polygenism. Following this concept, races are ranked based on various criteria judged to assess intelligence or moral standards. Such rankings are highly subjective and loaded with potential for ethnocentric abuse, with the highest rank always being reserved for the race of the anthropologist doing the ranking. One such man was Linnaeus, who viewed the task of classification as one of attempting to understand the natural laws of world groups. Blumenbach is another such famous anthropologist who developed racial classification based on cranial shape and size. Samuel Morton, convinced of inferiority of African populations, later attempted to measure cranial capacity and proceeded to rank the averages and base them on racial differences. Many others of the time also insisted brain size was the main difference, going as far to state men�s brains being at a higher capacity than women�s. These famed anthropologists and scientists further prove how desperate they want a proven difference between races. These social beliefs unfortunately still carry forth today, although new scientific biological evidence proves otherwise.
The actual dictionary definition of the word �race� is relatively modern. Before the discovery of the New World, the word signified the head or chief, or a cut or scratch. All of these definitions are obviously quite different from the definition we know today. In origin, the modern definition was used to describe a group, whether it is people, animals or plants, which could be linked through a common history or origin. This concept was then used to define boundaries of groups of people, which obviously proved impossible due to lack of agreement among scientists, anthropologists, and society as a whole. There is obviously a thin line separating everyone in the world, and it remains impossible to put a true definition on the word race. Nevertheless, why did these definitions come about? Simply put, to put one�s own �people� above another�s. White Europeans were insistent on being the dominant group of humans, and found ways to back-up their reasoning behind it. It became an attempt to justify this alleged �superiority� scientifically on the grounds of innate biological characteristics. Doctrines of racial superiority have played also played an unprecedented role in the high policy of government. They have been the excuse for cruelty and inhumanity, they have served as a pretext for colonial expansion of Europe and for modern imperialism, sharpened race hatred, and implementing race into war. This racism involves the assertion that inequality is absolute and unconditional. Even in our nation�s heritage, there is no doubt whatsoever that the original settlers in New England were drawn from many different strata of English society and accordingly presented great physical differences among themselves. It was not until recently (September, 1997) that the American Anthropological Association finally released a statement stating that the US Government should phase out use of the term "race" in the collection of federal data because the concept has no scientific justification in human biology. Researchers no longer believe the races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents. Genes vary, they say, but not in ways that correspond to the popular notion of black, white, yellow, red or brown races. "Race has no basic biological reality," said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University biologist. "The human species simply doesn't come packaged that way." Instead, majorities of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s, have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. Scientists concede that people do look different, primarily because of the varied environments in which their ancestors lived. In addition, they agree that as a social concept, race matters a great deal. The color of a person's skin, the texture of his hair, or the shape of her eyes can be sources of love, pride and partnership - or fear, hatred and injustice. Why, despite these facts, do we still dispute these findings? Because of the scientific dogma of the 19th and much of the 20th century, which consisted of dividing groups of people into categories. The public accepted this notion for years and will not readily accept this explanation now. However, understanding the ways in which we classify human beings helps us to intelligently appreciate group differences -- and it clarifies what those differences do and do not mean. In addition, it enables us to distinguish between concepts such as population, ethnic group, and socioeconomic class. This awareness is a critical first step toward eliminating unfounded prejudices and overcoming negative stereotypes of others that look, and perhaps seem to act, different from ourselves.
Today, many scientists tell us that human races are unreal -- artificial divisions of human beings that have no basis in biology. Yet, most Americans are able to place a cross-section of individuals in the same ethnic or "racial" categories. If virtually everyone agrees on which "race" is which (with the exception, of course, of "mixed-race people"), then how can anyone say that "races" are a figment of our imagination. True, we can substitute "ethnicity" for "race", but the term "ethnic group" is also imprecise and fraught with problems. So should we disregard the "reality of races" and pretend that we are just one big happy family? Should we strive to recognize that we are a single subspecies -- Homo sapiens sapiens --, which means that there is only one race, the human race? On the other hand, should we just accept the fact that different groups of people look -- and according to some, act and think -- in different ways? How we think about race -- its existence or lack thereof -- affects how we view other people who are different from ourselves. The thought that one�s own family or �race� is better than any other is a belief of long standing. What is relatively new is the attempt to justify this alleged �superiority� scientifically on the grounds of innate biological characteristics.
The notion of �race� is so charged with emotional force that objective discussion of its significance in relation to social problems is extremely difficult. The fact is, race does not exist. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for this nonspecific classification of humans. Today anthropologists and scientists stress the heterogeneity of world population, and discard the concept of race outright. The elimination of this concept, through individual and group conviction, can exert a powerful influence and bring about a better spirit and better understanding in the relations of society.
Works Cited
Coon, Charleton S. The Origin of Races. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962.
Montagu, Ashley, ed. The Concept of Race. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1964.
Corcos, Alain. The Myth of Human Races. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1997.
Snyder, Louis L. The Idea of Racialism: Its Meaning and History. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc, 1962
Baker, John R. Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974
Montagu, Ashley. The Idea of Race. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965
Barzun, Jacques. Race: A Study in Superstition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965
Gossett, Thomas F. Race: The History of an Idea in America. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963
Biddiss, Michael D., ed. Images of Race. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc., 1979
American Anthropologist. 100.3 (1998)
Du Bois, W.E.B. Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward An Autobiography of a Race Concept. New York: Schocken Books, 1968
Comas, Juan. Racial Myths. Mexico: Unesco, 1958
Kuttner, Robert E. Race and Modern Science. New York: Social Science Press, 1967