Race Wars: The debate on the importance of race as a method of classification

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?”

Attachment	Size
Kaari's 1st Web Paper.txt	7.07 KB