1. In modern times, anthropologists have come to realize that race is not a genetic difference between humans, and that we are all the same, yet differ by geographic origin. These geographic differences are what make humans appear different, which has yielded unnecessary and often tragic results in the past. Now, anthropologists study skin color and other “racial” differences to help identify humans for potential diseases or in crime scene investigation. In the paper written by Yann C. Klimentidis, Geoffrey F. Miller and Mark D. Shriver, Hispanic and Native American populations were surveyed and studied to find how their believed genetic background differs from their actual genetic background. The results of their work could be used to better …show more content…
understand how race is viewed socially to oneself, and in medical applications if diseases are common in one genetic composition or another. 2. Multiple sources of information were required for the anthropologists to understand the difference between perceived race and genetic race. First, a sample of 170 Hispanics, Native Americans, and mixed ethnicity students from university of New Mexico was obtained through emailing the students. Next, to test for genetic background, all students had their cheeks swabbed to acquire a cell sample that could be analyzed for DNA sequences unique to certain geographical areas. In order to test the results of the cheek swab against something, genetic information was also obtained from 177 Native Americans from the Maya Cheyenne Pima and Pueblo tribes. To understand the social side of race identification, the anthropologists had all of the students take a survey. In this survey, the students were asked to check a box that had the race they identified with beside it. The second part of the survey asked students “What would you say your ethnicity is (if you could describe it any way you wanted)?” followed by a blank so that they could write any answer. At the end of the survey, the group was asked “on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being pure Native American by blood/genetics, and 0 being no Native American ancestry by blood/genetics, what would your estimate be as to your degree of Native American ancestry?” to which students responded in 5% increments from 0-100% Native American. After students had identified their race through both genetic testing and self-reflection, a narrow-band spectrophotometer was used to measure skin pigmentation of individuals on both their forehead and the inside of their upper arm (to account for tan skin vs untanned skin). 3.
A variety of statistical tests were synthesized to analyze all the data acquired in the methods section. Initially, a Mann-Whitney test is used to display the results of the self-identified race vs the genetic test of race, which showed that most individuals underestimated the percent of their respective genetic heritage. For comparing actual percentage of Native American genetics in individuals who claimed to be Hispanic, R squared tests were performed. In general, if Native American heritage was self-identified, it showed up in some amount on the individual’s genetic test. The survey that asked student to identify their own races yielded similar results; most students were accurate with their self-identifications. Next, the authors compared self-estimate Native American admixture with genetic admixture with a Spearman correlation model. The results were mostly positive, with individuals again being able to somewhat accurately predict their genetic background. However, there were many individuals that predicted that they were no parts Native American, while their genetic testing revealed up to 75% Native American genetic relation. The authors explain that there is a bias; because the tests were done on a proportion of 0-100%, there could be individuals that are over 100% or under 0% genetically Native America, leaving them undefined and not in the graph. Finally, skin pigmentation of the upper arm was more useful in analysis than forehead pigmentation, as in an area with …show more content…
less tanning, is more accurate of true skin tone. Using results from the pigmentation test, percent relation to Native Americans could be roughly determined. 4.
In the discussion section the authors suggest that their study reveals that Hispanics and Native Americans “underestimate” their amount of mixing with other ethnic groups. This point is solidified by the results of the genetic testing compared to the student’s self-prediction of their own genetics, as some students thought they had 0% genetics shared with Native Americans when in reality all had some. The author’s analysis adequately answered the research question and provided information and insight to social vs actual representation of race in current times. In the conclusions section of the paper, the authors state that “This study demonstrates that the relationship between genetic and socially based measures of identification can be confounded by historical, cultural, social and perhaps phenotypic factors.” This sentence alone sums up the idea of the paper well, showing that the social side of race can be based truly on just appearance for most individuals and not actual genetic heritage. In areas where disease is more predisposed to certain genetic factors, presumption that an individual is more likely to get a disease based on physical appearance can likely be incorrect. At the end of the conclusion, the authors, like in many other scientific papers, state that more research is needed to have a more precise and viable
conclusion. 5. Throughout writing this paper and analysis of “Genetic admixture, self-reported ethnicity, self-estimated admixture, and skin pigmentation among Hispanics and Native Americans” I have learned about modern anthropological surveying techniques and how often complex statistics are used in high level scientific works. Recently in class we learned about social premonitions of race and how humans are all genetically the same, but small visible differences are visible based on the geography of one’s descent. This paper provided more backbone and evidence of the social aspect of racial difference and identification, as well as how much information on humans has been attained in general. I was impressed that we have enough understanding of genetics and DNA to be able to take samples from 2 large groups and narrow down strands of proteins until we can determine how genetically different or similar 2 individuals are based a piece of flesh on a Q-tip. The writer’s methods seemed flawless and thorough, with little to nothing overlooked. The only thing I can think of that would have added another layer to this study would have been to survey more people from across the county, not just New Mexico. However, that would have cost a lot more with results that would have inevitably been less than groundbreaking. 6. I did not know the words: a. Mann-Whitney U test: A nonparametric test of the null hypothesis that two samples come from the same population against an alternative hypothesis that they do not. b. Dihybrid admixture model: A model that contains results from 2 different areas, comparing them in a singular graph c. LEADMIX analysis: A program used to analyze genetic drift using genetic data d. Biallelic: pertaining to both alleles of a single gene, allele meaning different forms of a gene.
This variation has no substantial ties to skin color, but does show genetic variation from different geographical locations in the world. These variations are not categorized in groups of what people call race, but rather ethnicity. Ethnicity, defined by Stephen Cornell, is a sense of common ancestry based on cultural attachments, past linguistic heritage, religious affiliations, claimed kinship, or some physical traits. Race, as most people catoragize it, encompuses many ethnicitys. Ethnicities are local populations, this makes sense that they would tend to have less genetic variation compared to each other then the rest of the world as they would share genetic adaptations resulting from the environment they live in. This can include skin color, but can also
The clash between the Native Americans and the colonists did not start off tumultuous. In the early days of the exploration and settlement of the New World they lived in peace. The Indians taught them how to farm and live off the land. In a strange land the colonists made an ally. However, the subsequent turn of events was inevitable. Perhaps the chaos that ensued could have been postponed but there was never going to be a peaceful cohabitation between the colonists and the indigenous people. There were so many vast differences between the religious views and ultimate goals of the two groups. The Native Americans had established trade relationships with various tribes, they had their own religions, and their way of life was a stark contrast to that of the colonists. The worldview of the respective peoples was foreign to the other and the idea of a holistic and unbiased approach to the life of others was foreign.
The Spanish and English cultures were scarcely similar and notably different because of the interaction with indigenous people and the timing in which the interactions occurred. The Spanish and English were very different in how they interacted with the indigenous people. The Spanish main reason for coming to North America was to spread Catholicism. In the Catholic church if two people were both Catholic then the two people would receive the sacrament of marriage. After marriage the two would create a Catholic of their own. This had created 5 new races of people. The races of humanity was then looked at as social classes. The highest social class was a full white European, then a mestizos, which was a someone who was European and an Indian, followed by Indians, African slaves, and lastly a Zambos,
Native Americans and Europeans were the begging of the new world. Their differences are more than similarities, whether by the religion, culture, race, and gender. Native Americans and European spoke two different languages, and lived in two different ways. The reason why Native Americans were called Indians, because when Columbus landed in America he thought that he was in India, so he called them Indians. Native American were nomadic people, some of them were hunter and some were farmers. Europeans were much more developed than Native Americans, and had more skills. Also, there were differences in holding positions between Native American women and European women. The cultural differences led to a bloody bottle
The way of behaving or thinking, beliefs, custom, or arts in a particular society is known as culture. There are many different cultures in todays society, however some parts are alike while other parts are more diverse. American culture versus Hispanic culture has some similarities and differences. Whether its food, religion, language, politics, marriages, sports, family, hobbies, or technology; Americans share some of the same things as Hispanics.
Compare and Contrast Between Hispanic Culture and American Culture I. Introduction The Hispanic population has experienced incredible growth in the past decade in the United States of America. In 2006 it was estimated that the Hispanics cover 11% of the population in North America. Their origin is in Mexico and the few Spanish speaking countries in the Caribbean. American culture is derived from people who originated from the European nations like Italy and the Great Britain.
Giles, E. and Elliot, O 1962. Race Identification from Cranial Measurements. Journal of Forensic Sciences.7: 147-157.
NitroMed’s study marks a growing movement that has begun to cite genetic makeup, specifically race-related genetic makeup, rather than environmental or other confounding factors as the source of disease. This shift in presumed cause of health-related problems raises many troubling implications. With race-based therapeutics comes the assumption that there are biological differences between races. The dangers of such implications are vast, the most pressing problem being the ambiguity of race, particularly with regard to genetic composition. Considerable studies have demonstrated the lack of genotypic correlations among members of a given race. Similarly, socioeconomic and other confounding variables have a profound impact on health and thus must be considered in the discussion of race-based therapeutics and research. This tension between social and biological conceptions of race is now at the forefront of discussion among scientific scholars seeking explanations for the relationship of disease and ethnicity (Foster 844).
In the early 1950’s BioAnthropologist Sherry Washburn published a paper entitled “The New Physical Anthropology” helping to redefine the field and maximize its scientific usefulness. The New Physical Anthropology urged the field to be focused less on categorization of human phenotypes into races, and more on the evolution of primates and ultimately human evolution. Washburn stated that Race is not a biological element of humankind, and that traits of a population do not indicate a type of person, we are all
In the past, races were identified by the imposition of discrete boundaries upon continuous and often discordant biological variation. The concept of race is therefore a historical construct and not one that provides either valid classification or an explanatory process. Popular everyday awareness of race is transmitted from generation to generation through cultural learning. Attributing race to an individual or a population amounts to applying a social and cultural label that lacks scientific consensus and supporting data. While anthropologists continue to study how and why humans vary biologically, it is apparent that human populations differ from one another much less than do populations in other species because we use our cultural, rather than our physical differences to aid us in adapting to various environments.
Race can be used as a way to link a person to their ancestry, which can lead doctors to critical information that can give their patient the best treatment they can. With all of the advances in medicine there is still no way to determine a patient’s specific genetics and be able to treat each person with respect to their unique genes. Doctors narrow down possible risk factors and medication interactions by categorizing patients, by gender, age, and race. Race is a general way f...
Why is it impossible to use biological characteristics to sort people into consistent races? Review some of the concepts such as “non-concordance” and “within-group vs. between group variation.”
Reflecting directly on the cultural attitudes and sociocultural messages explained throughout this course, it is clear that race, gender, and sexuality are all socially constructed in one way or another. Contrary to popular belief, race is actually almost completely socially constructed, it is not biological. Further, a human’s DNA does not differentiate at all to create any specific race. However, society has categorized certain things, such as skin color, to determine the race of individuals. In simpler terms, there are not specific genes that parents pass on to their offspring that determine their race; society categorizes people into specific races when they are born based on their
Briefly, ethnic identification is necessary to people’s psychological well-being but we can’t deny that the idea of races is a problematic concept. Race and Ethnicity are controversial terms that are defined and used by people in many different ways. Some persons say that an identity can’t be fixed that’s why a study published in the September/October issue of the journal Child Development and supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) proved that adolescents from multi-racial families tend to shift their reported racial category as they move from early adolescence to young adulthood. This experience incites us to think again about racial identification and assures that this issue is very debatable.
It is safe to say that the majority of my DNA passed down contains European. Particularly, the regions of Spain, Portugal, and Italy. It is overwhelming to find out information that you never thought of, or that is even possible. As a frequent traveler to the island, I noticed all the characteristics of the people there and was never able to understand why I looked and acted so different. From my perspective, the difference was because I went to America very young with only 11 months of age. I noticed that I hated the heat and that no matter how much time I am in the sun the outcome is always the same. A very bad sunburn that makes me look like a lobster. My cousins, on the other hand, are not as white in skin color they can be in the sun all day long without sunscreen and not get burn. These are some of the small differences. My father is the same in all his youth pictures he is white in color and has dirty blonde hair and light hazel eyes. When I was born, I had emerald green eyes and beach blonde hair. As the years passed my hair color got slightly darker, and my eyes changed as well. On the contrary, my sister was born with crystal blue eyes and brown hair and as she aged her eyes changed as well. My father's mother is very pale in color and is a natural born red head. Once in high school, I made the silly mistake of wanting to dye my hair blonde. To my surprise, my hair turned into a strawberry blonde color. It looked pink. My hairdresser later informed me that I had some natural red highlights that are barely even noticeable and that it was the reason why the color did not stick. I waited five years until my natural hair grew back and it's safe to say that I have never attempted to change it ever since. The more I found out about my family history, the more I understood why I have certain features and characteristics. The majority of Spaniards