Race Is Not A Factor In Anthrolpology Essay, Research Paper

The differences humans have are an asset to the human race as a species. Much of out differences are a result of our well adaptation to the environments we live in. However, the issue of what race one is has been used to be a categorizing and most of the time a predestining factor in society, usually in negative ways. Certain human beings have been thought of as inferior than other human beings simply based on the uncontrollable factor of one s skin color.

The belief of superiority/inferiority based on physical characteristics has been naturalized into our society. And most people do not know that the physical characteristics that are visible, things like skin color, are but 0.01% of all genetic make up. Really, when we think of race, it has more to do with social race than biological race, for humans are not so biologically distinct from other humans (Kottak 2000:139). The concept of race that most Americans have is a social construct that changes with different cultures (Kottak 2000:139).

One could look at different cultures to see racial definition as a cultural phenomenon in action. We learned in class a perfect example of this. In the United States, when asked to label certain pictures of persons in a race, most Americans classified people in but four or five groupings. When the people of Brazil were asked to do the same more questions were asked and there were more racial categories. Questions about as the economic status of the person in the picture, which town they were born in and such was considered important by the Brazilians to label the person in the picture.

One reason for the economic status questions is that in Brazil the higher the economic status of the person, the lighter they are thought to be, even though their skin color may be very dark (Kottak 2000: 147). Now in the United States all the money in the world does not change how others perceive one s race. Also in Brazil there have been reported as many as 500 different racial classifications by the people. And even people in the same family may be categorized as different races just based on phenotype (visible physical characteristics) alone.

Another example to show that race is a social construct is the way Americans label racially mixed children. A child of a black mother and a white father would be labeled as black, though the genetic material of both parents are found equally in the child (Kottak 2000: 139). This is called hypodescent, the placing of a mixed child in the minority group. One prime example of this is the One Drop rule. Where if there was even one black ancestor in the lineage one was considered black, though the person s skin color may be white.

Anthropologists cannot look at simple skin color and facial characteristics as defining biological differences because people cannot be categorized into specific races so easily (Kottak 2000: 149). There is still the idea floating around today of the different races being Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid, based mostly on skin color. What is does not take into consideration is there are many peoples who do not fit exactly into one or the other. Take the people in India, their skin color is dark, however their facial characteristics are closer to the Europeans. And even in each category lies so many physical differences, like within Africa; there are so many physical differences such as height (Rensberger 1996: 3) and there are so many different degrees in skin tone as well.

Another factor as why anthropologists cannot classify people into races is that physical characteristics of people that are believed to show unchanging genetic attributes can change according to the environment (Kottak 2000: 153). A famous example of that is the Franz Boas experiment where he measured heads of immigrants and their children. The latter had changes in their skull form, which were more round than their parents. It could not have been a change in genes for they married within their own nationality nor the location of the child s birth for some were born in Europe and had grown up in the United States. The reason for this had to have been the changes in food.

There are some personal observations I have seen about this phenomenon of the environment affecting phenotypical characteristics. In Korea, people have been getting taller over the generations. The most dramatic changes starting over the late 1970 s or so. The only explanation of this I can see is that since then the people of Korea have had more access to more protein and calcium (i.e. milk). When their economic status became greater and trade became more open there was a greater quality and quantity of food than before. With more food, the new generations are taller, something one can clearly see while walking through the city of Seoul.

There seems to be no such thing as pure races (Rensberger 1996: 5). The majority of anthropologists now have come to the understanding that there are or were no such thing as a pure race, though even through most of the 20th century it was widely believed there were. All throughout human history where people have traveled and met new people there have been intermarriage and interbreeding. The Kennewick Man, for example, though touted by many pro-Aryan groups to be their white brother to have first have been in America, probably was a multiracial man (Johansen 1999: 43). The people who traveled around Asia and Europe to the Americas most probably mixed together. So as far back as humans go, they have been mixing together for some time now. It is most improbable that there have been a people who were so isolated to have never come in contact with another group and with that the idea of a pure race is also improbable.

To fully understand the concept of race, one must know something about the history. Racism is a relatively new invention (Sanjek 1994:2). It originated with the European colonization of the known world. That is not to say there was no classifying system at all. There did exist notions of ethnocentrism and social systems. There was slavery, and discrimination of people who were not of one s culture. However, there was no so called scientific all encompassing system that placed people in such an ethnographic order till the end of the 1400s. Though thoughts of cultural superiority existed, the Greeks being a good example, skin color did not have much to do with it. They considered themselves more cultured and intelligent than their whiter and darker neighbors in Europe (Sanjek 1994: 3). Darkness of skin did not decide who was superior or inferior. Religion played a larger part in that.

In India, the lowest caste called the Untouchables was not considered inferior because they were darker skinned than the Brahmins. They were considered inferior because they dealt with meat and leather and such, which are thought unclean in Hindu religion (Sanjek 1994: 3). During the 1400 s and before, the question was whether one was Christian, Jew or Muslim for who was inferior or superior, not who was black, white or yellow. One could change one s station (i.e. going form slave to free man) my switching religions in some cases, skin color was not an indicator of some inherent inadequacy.

When slavery emerged and colonization by the Europeans was rampant, ideas of race and race order emerged more and more. The inferiority of certain races was used to accommodate those already standing views of ethnocentrism (Sanjek 1994: 5). As the maltreatment of other cultures wore on and on, the natural inferiority of those enslaved peoples grew to be a naturalized thought. It was believed that these peoples were so ill equipped to take care of themselves and that was the reason that they were so easy to enslave (Sanjek 1994:5).

The claim that the African peoples were not even human could be seen as some justification to use them as slaves (Rensberger 1999: 7). After all, no one wants to believe that they are knowingly hurting another human being. Dehumanizing peoples could be seen as a way to relive the guilt of using humans like cattle. Now anthropologists know that capability does not rely on skin color. Tests have been done on the intellectual ability of different groups who are in the same socio-educational background and it showed that there was no significant difference in the results (Resenberger 1994: 7).

Race has no factor in capability nor in intellect, it does not have so much standing even in physical characteristics for people can not be neatly divided. Humans have as a group change and adapt and are continually still changing. In even twenty years, America will not look the same as it does today, and it will be much harder to categorize which race the average American is.

Bibliography

Kottak, Conrad, Race, in Anthropology: The Exploration of Human Diversity, 8th ed., pp.136-158. 2000 (CP)

Rensberger, Boyce, Forget the Old Labels: Here s a New Way to Look at Race, Anthro Notes National Museum of Natural History Bulletin for Teachers, 18(1): 1-7. 1996 (CP)

Sanjek, Roger, The Enduring Inequalities of Race, in Race, Gregory and Sanjeck,

Eds., pp. 1-17. 1994. (CP)

Video: Skin Deep: The Science of Race

352