Kaari Pitts
Professor Grobstein
10/02/06
Web Paper # 1

Race Wars:  The debate on the importance of race as a method of classification
       How do we as humans characterize and categorize ourselves? Do we look at 
ourselves as one race, that is, the human race?  Or do we look at ourselves as a multitude 
of races of which people can belong based on varying characteristics, such as geographic 
origin, facial features and skin color? During the Tuesday lab of Biology 103, the 
students were asked to make an observation of two planets, Nearer and Farther.  
Without using scientific tools, the students were expected to categorize the findings on 
the through observation, noting size, color and height.  
        In lab, while observing the apparent diversity of the two planets, my group 
began to think not only about the multitude of diversity within the plant world that we 
were able to visually observe, but the diversity visually apparent within humans as well.  
When our group presented to the class, Professor Grobstein asked the students to 
observe and classify the number of “races” and/or “groups” that we could visually 
observe within the classroom.  Out of 18 girls, the majority either said that there were 18 
different and distinct groups in the room or that there was only one group present, of 
which we were all members. Only two girls said that there were four— distinct groups 
which was based on physical observations such as skin color and physical characterizes.  
This led me to question why there is no consensus about how humans should be 
characterized, and why there are so many debates regarding the importance or 
unimportance of identifying race as a viable method for human classification.  
       The argument regarding the importance of race as a viable form of categorization 
spans many professional fields such as anthropology (physical and cultural), sociology 
and biology.  Within the discipline of genetics, the two main arguments are that, 1) race 
is not important because there is more genetic variation within races rather then 
between them and 2) the categories of self-identified ethnicity and race and/or ancestor 
geographic ancestry is both valid and useful. This argument supports the belief that the 
correspondence between “clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data…implies that 
genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.” 
       According to the December 20, 2002 New York Times article, “Gene Study 
Identifies 5 Main Human Populations, Linking Them to Geography”, scientists  studied 
the DNA of 52 human groups, were able to effectively place the majority of the worlds 
population within five major geographical areas---Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and 
the Americas. By scanning the human genome, scientists were able to find a relationship 
among the patterns and the number of ancestry informative markers, a short segment of 
DNA that distinguished the five major geographical groups.  “‘What this study says is 
that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person 
comes from… [and] the[se] regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race.” 
       What is most interesting about this study is that, it draws a correlation and thus a 
relationship between race and the closest geographic region that a person is originally 
from.  Although the scientists are not arguing that race is evident within genes, and as a 
result it dismisses the notion of race solely determined by visual observations such as 
skin color and facial features, which could be determined by natural selection.  In 
addition however, as stated within Science magazine, “self-reported population ancestry 
likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry”.  One’s race and ancestral 
geographic origin are usually linked, therefore how can it be problematic to categorize 
by race, if there is a proven relationship between many valid visual observations and 
geographic origin.
       This is particularly relevant and is a useful tool within the medical profession, 
especially regarding diseases which certain racial groups are more susceptible to various 
genetic diseases than other geographical groups such as sickle cell anemia for African-
Americans and people from the Mediterranean, Ty Sacs or Eastern Europeans Jews 
among other diseases that target specific geographic populations. By understanding the 
relationship between ancestral geographic origin, self identified race, and ancestry 
informative markers, scientists are able to effectively identify disease, prescribe 
medicine and inform populations about their respective degree/levels of susceptibility.
       For many, these patterns of variation found within the five main geographical 
groups support the usage of “traditional racial categories”.  However, this argument can 
be problematic as it excludes historically mixed groups such as many Hispanics and 
some African-Americans who can have up to 30% of European ancestry. According to 
Times Online, article “Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin”, race is 
often used to predict whether patients will respond to particular drugs. While this can 
be true on average, it leads to generalizations that deny useful medicines to millions 
who do not meet ethnic stereotypes.” The article also argues that race is a social contrast 
and that there is not enough variation within the genes of humans to argue that there are 
different races.  Scientists argue that genetically, race cannot prove intelligence or 
behavior, that is, one cannot argue that different races have a genetic propensity for 
different activities/behaviors.  It is also argued that organizing people by race, will only 
lead to support and strengthen the claims and ideologies of racist hate groups, that 
support the theories of eugenics. 
       The debate about organize human populations rages on, and it seems to have 
little to no end in sight.  As an African-American woman, I feel uncomfortable with 
regarding race as a invalid notion of categorization, although I agree with claims which 
argue that categorization by race based solely on behaviors, skin color or social norms, 
could potentially serve to further divide people. Nevertheless, humans will continue to 
organize people based on visual observations, and if has been proven that these visual 
observations support genetic evidence, of corresponding genetic ancestry, then 
shouldn’t we use the evidence that has been provided for us? Therefore, I believe that 
using race as a method of organizing populations is an effective argument, one that can 
potentially help millions and millions of people. 
       
References: 

Bamshad, Michael and Olson, Steve .“Does Race Exist?” November 10, 2003. Scientific 
America.com

Henderson, Mark. “Gene Tests Prove That We Are All The Same Under The Skin” 
October 27, 2004. TimesOnline

Wade, Nicholas. “Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations, Linking Them to 
Geography” December 20, 2002.  New York Times.

Wikipedia.com “What is Race?”
 
 
 
 


3