Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is Race is biologically determined
Racial Stereotypes and their Effects
Is Race is biologically determined
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is Race is biologically determined
Michaela Wheatley Race: Social Categorization, Not Biological (must go through and complete intent citation) There is but one race, the human race. The English term ‘race’ is believed to originate from the Spanish word raza, which means ‘breed’ or ‘stock’, according to ___(find the source used in the article under the file AJHGv77p519)_____. People use race to define other groups, the separation of groups are based largely on pigmentation of the skin and physical features. Race is truly only skin deep, there are no true biological separations between two ‘racial’ groups. Scientifically speaking there is more variation between single local groups than there is between two large, global groups; the human variation is constantly altering. The majority of today’s anthropologists agree that race is a form of social categorization, not the separation of groups based on biological characteristics that has been used throughout human history. According to Alan Goodman, a Hampshire College biological anthropology professor, it is “an old ideology that tends to separate us out”. The use of race has been used throughout human history as a means of grouping the population. Grouping of the world’s population can be seen as far back as the Roman empire, though the form of grouping used during that time was believed to be based on tribal or familial associations. Alongside Rome, the use of grouping based on familial relation could be seen in ancient cultures as far east as China. An example of ‘racial’ separation can be seen in on of the worlds most widely read books, the Bible. In the Bible there is a clear separation between those who are Jews and those who were gentiles. The separation of groups in this time period is based off of religio... ... middle of paper ... ...ion that race is socially affected rather than biologically determined (Chang). Race has also been claimed to be biologically based because of commonality of disease being linked to certain groups. Such diseases include Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews and thalassemia in Mediterranean and some other populations. However the separation of groups for medical use doesn’t have much value in the modern world. Differences between groups previously were noticeable due to the frequency of populations not mixing, but now the increase in migration and multicultural relationships resulting in mixed ‘race’ children is leading to the collapse of the traditional genetic variations. Since multiple races are in the ancestral history of mixed offspring, no one ‘race’ can be identified (Lewontin). (Illness and Intelligence not based on race) (Anthropological application) (Conclusion)
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
Culture, Not Race, Explains Human Diversity, Mark Nathan Cohen, Chronicle of Higher Education, April 17, 1998, pp.B4-B5. The term race refers to a biological subdivision of a species. At one time, scientists held that there were as few as three such subdivisions in the species Homo sapiens: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Mark Anthony Cohen points out that this is an antiquated view, yet it lingers as a common belief in society. Mark Nathan Cohen makes an interesting point in his article “Culture, Not Race, Explains Human Diversity”. While the article does deal wholly in the realm of the opinion, it is supported by numerous scientific facts. In fact, Cohen’s usual method of drawing in a reader is to make a blanket statement and then “beef it up” with several scientific facts.
Race, which is another characteristic of demographic data, is a modern occurrence. It is being questioned and more than likely not a valid determinant. Our textbook in chapter five states, “racial identity or race consciousness is both controversial and pervasive. When early explorers in the 15th and 16th centuries came across people who were different from them a debate began which groups were “human” and which were “animal” (pg. 191).
In a society where one can get on a plane and be halfway around the world in a day, it is likely that everyone has encountered someone who looks different from them, whether it is skin color or other physical features. Some people of course look more alike than others and that is where skin color has been used as a tool to differentiate people from different parts of the world. However, this has led to many horrific situations of racism in the past that resulted in slavery and genocides throughout the world. Race as relating to humans can be defined as “a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock” or “a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics” or even “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits” (Merriam Webster Online). With all of these varying definitions of race it is easy to see how problems arise because of it. So what is race based medicine? Race based medicine is “the practice of using race or ethnic origin as a distinguishing feature of populations or individuals seeking health” (Cohn 552). This practice can be seen in the clinic, especially with certain diseases like sickle cell anemia which is more prevalent in black populations, cystic fibrosis which is increasingly common in people of north European descent, and finally Tay-Sachs disease which is highly associated with Ashkenazi Jewish populations (Collier 752). As with many topics there are people that have taken a stand on either side of the race based medicine debate. There are those scientists who are on the side that “understanding the unique patterns of genes across patient populations defined by race will help identify population...
In America, essentially everyone is classified in terms of race in a way. We are all familiar with terms such as Caucasian, African-American, Asian, etc. Most Americans think of these terms as biological or natural classifications; meaning that all people of a certain race share similarities on their D.N.A. that are different and sets that particular race apart from all the other races. However, recent genetic studies show that there’s no scientific basis for the socially popular idea that race is a valid taxonomy of human biological difference. This means that humans are not divided into different groups through genetics or nature. Contrary to scientific studies, social beliefs are reflected through racial realism. Racial realists believe that being of a particular race does not only have phenotypical values (i.e. skin color, facial features, etc.), but also broadens its effects to moral, intellectual and spiritual characteristics.
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).
If race was “real”, then racial classifications would be constant all around the world, but someone considered black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil. In addition, racial categorizations in census forms vary widely between countries and across time in the same country. It is important to note that, in 2003, as part of the Human Genome Project, researchers concluded that “3 billion base pairs of genetic letters in humans were 99.9 percent identical in every person”. Which leads me to say that race is a social construct. It is important to explore this further to better understand the capacity race has to affect other parts of life.
Race has no biological meaning. There is only one human race; there are no subspecies, no single defining characteristic, traits, or even gene, separates one “race” from another. Instead of being a biological concept, race is a social construct, and a relatively modern one at that. It was created to give light-skinned Europeans an advantage by making the white race superior and all others inferior. Throughout its history, the concept of race has served this purpose well.
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.
Social categorization is described as the natural classification process, which people use in placing others into some social groups (Abrams & Hogg, 2006). Typically, based on the human nature, social categorization occurs instinctively, without even the people’s awareness. As social creatures, people are sure to interact with others in different communal settings. As a result, they end up meeting with people of all categories ranging from different color, size, gender, shape, and sexuality among others (Ambady & Skowronski, 2008). From a generalized point of approach, social categorization is debatably the process where the people think of others as either man or woman, old or young, tall or short, black or white. Typical of any categorization,
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.”
The concept of race is an ancient construction through which a single society models all of mankind around the ideal man. This idealism evolved from prejudice and ignorance of another culture and the inability to view another human as equal. The establishment of race and racism can be seen from as early as the Middle Ages through the present. The social construction of racism and the feeling of superiority to people of other ethnicities, have been distinguishably present in European societies as well as America throughout the last several centuries.
Although we often use race to classify, interact, and identify with various communities, there is a general consensus among scientists that racial differences do not exist. Indeed, biologists such as Joseph Graves state, "the measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small." Although we often ascribe genetics to the notion of race, there are no significant genetic differences between racial groups. Thus, there is no genetic basis for race. Our insistence and belief in the idea of race as biology, though, underlines the socially constructed nature of race. Racial groupings of people are based on perceived physical similarities (skin color, hair structure, physique, etc.), not genetic similarities. Nevertheless, we are inclined to equate physical similarities with genetics. Sociologists also use a temporality to argue that race is a social construct. The notion of race results from patterns from the signification of certain traits to different groups of people. However, these patterns (and societal notions of race) change over time. For example, the 20th century belief that "In vital capacity… the tendency of the Negro race has been downward" is certainly not commonplace among individuals today. Notions of race also differ across societies. Racial attitudes towards blacks, for example, are inherently different between the United States and Nigeria. These arguments all suggest that race is socially constructed. The lack of a universal notion of race means that it is not a natural, inherent, or scientific human trait. Rather, different societies use race to ordain their respective social
Race is a term that references on differences such as, facial characteristics, skin color, and other related characteristics. Race is not in reference to genetic make up. A feature of race as a social construct is that it down plays the extent to which sectors of population may form a discrete ethnic group. Based on specific characteristics race makes up a person and differs within groups. In other words race is a large group of people distinguished from others on the basic of a common heritage or physical trait.
Social perception is 1.“the cognitive process that helps us form impressions of those around us and subconscious attitudes towards other people based their defining characteristics which help to comprehend a situation and gauge our behaviour accordingly. Social perception can be the mental progression of picking up clues and signals from others that help us form an early stage of what they may be like. Our brains may rely on stereotypes or previous similar experiences to build a picture of what to expect from any given social encounter”