Race as a Biological Category Applicable to Humans
Race is a belief that people are categorized on the basis of hereditary physical and behavioral distinctions. Genetic research in the 17th to 18th century rejected the presence of biogenetically distinct groups (Mukhopadhyay& Henze, 2003). Researchers now argue that races are cultural influences representing unique behaviors and values placed on diverse societies in the aftermath of western European conquests starting in the 15th century. Researchers have generally been claiming for some time that race, as genetics, does not exist emphasizing on lack of genetic justification. Race is a significant cultural, political and economic phenomenon of nature, not a biological factor (Cameron & Wycoff, 1998). This notion is what many people mistakenly find to be the core of race of humans which according to them, explains the biological variations. Human evolution Science, is the only thing that can explain race. Modern molecular biology technologies have so much to offer in understanding the human evolution. This essay aims to refute the notion of race as a biological category applicable to humans.
First concept that biologists oppose is that human beings were initially separated, by natural world or God, into a small cluster of biologically distinct, specified species, subspecies, or races (Marks, 1996). Therefore, there are no pure or traditional races; there are no static, normal, lasting, or even high profile categories called races. There have never been any real races. Human species are history-specific combinations of human genetic traits. A significant amount of data has been gathered to justify this inference. The history of cumulative genetic variations claim that genetic lineages extend quickly to all of mankind. It suggests that human societies have already had a degree of genetic interaction with each other, and therefore, historically, it does not reveal any distinct evolutionary genetic traits within mankind.
Human beings refer in daily life, identify people of various races on the account of their external appearance. This is based on things like the color of skin, hair texture or facial appearances. This is the legacy of people who created the “truth” of race to fit their own preconceptions and got the real evidence completely wrong. Modern science teaches us that obvious variations between individuals in regards to skin color are historical incidents (Cameron & Wycoff, 1998). They show how our ancestors struggled with the exposure of the sunlight. A number of genes function together to define the skin color. The physical appearance as much as its genetically related is has a lot to do with geographical settings. A lot of individual deviations are non-consistent. The color of the skin or eye or hair is not associated with height or weight. And they are definitely not associated with more specific characteristics like intellect (Mukhopadhyay & Henze, 2003). Such issues are changing and growing in entirely different ways. Geographically dependent environmental factors contribute to persistent physical changes in the skin, hair and bone rather than concealed race-related distinctions. In addition, genetic mutations offer proof of the geographical distribution of peoples, these variations do not correspond with the physical characteristics correlated with racial groups.
Scientists have found that both the definition of race and racial characteristics are ambiguous, irrelevant, and incorrectly applied. In the United States racial distinctions, such as those used in the Census, are not accurate (Mukhopadhyay & Henze, 2003. The biological features used to identify races and establish racial differentiation are based on only a few obvious, trivial, genetic variations, like the skin color and hair texture. Genetic traits are not capable of supporting traditional race theories: for example, differences in skin color are subtle, not discreet; and blood-type anomalies exist regardless of the more obvious race-related mutations (Cameron & Wycoff, 1998). Race cannot be dependent on reproduction biology, because genes transferred from one generation to the next result in very particular physical features, not generic racial features possessed by all members of an assumed ethnic group. And ultimately, genealogy cannot be ground-breeding, because populations descending from a common ancestor can have similar genetic features, but they do not need to be compared with observable traits associated with a common ancestor (Marks, 1996). Biological sequences, which have allowed scientists to track the history of migration patterns and now allow people to locate their own origins, have created new ways of thinking about diverse populations. Racial definitions are therefore not valid as they are inaccurate, over time they are becoming unreliable. People cannot be categorized according to morphological traits since the parameters are too arbitrary and non-scientific
There is no compelling evidence that race, as a biological factor is directly linked to actions, to capaciousness, to personal and social associations, to cultural structures, or to the tendency to participate in some particular activity (Mukhopadhyay& Henze, 2003). For a number of years, certain group of people have been associated with having very different diseases. The notion of race-specific diseases is not true. With the emergence of the great Black athletes in the 1930s, there was an issue as to where they come from, and that there must be a reason why they became great, and that that cause must exist in nature instead of in society or tradition or situation. So one of the ties here is that there’s a changing connection between sports so intellect (Marks, 1996). In the early part of the century, when blacks were thought less talented, less resilient, or even a disappearing race because of their failure to cope with the burden of society, there was a strong perception that intellect was synonymous with athleticism, and that Europeans had the best of both. The prejudices that go into thinking that there are racial disparities in intellect are unreasonable. There is no connection between race and a human IQ.
Conclusion
Racism is partially based on the belief that race is biology; it is founded on genetics. Race is a culturally and socially unique way of thought, categorizing and handling human beings. It is about social distinctions within society, about social roles, about power and privilege. This has been and continues to be a specific form of philosophy for justifying social inclusion between people of diverse cultures, racial roots and origins. Social variations are becoming more common in biology. It’s not that the society triggering disparities in mortality, but because there are actual biological variations between races. The society should be educated on the true definition of race in order to deal with racial prejudice.
References
Cameron, S. C., & Wycoff, S. M. (1998). The destructive nature of the term race: Growing beyond a false paradigm. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76(3), 277-285.
Marks, J. (1996). Science and race. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 123-133.
Mukhopadhyay, C., & Henze, R. C. (2003). Using anthropology to make sense of human diversity. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 669-678.