Race-- What is It?

Here's another discussion post from my Anthro class. I hope to startle my (very) young classmates with it. My info came mainly from last semester's class "Perspectives in Diversity," taught by Dr. J.Q. Adams at Governors State University in University Park IL. It might startle you, too. I can't wait to see the responses, in class and out.

Race does not exist. The term is a “social construct,” a concept invented to serve a social purpose.
 

Biologically, all human beings, Homo sapiens, are the same. Variations in skin color and other superficial attributes are present, but the bone structure and all internal organs are the same. If you need a blood transfusion, your blood type has to match but the donor could be Caucasian, Asian, Native American or Black. If you need an organ transplant, tissue type must match but the heart or liver will work from a Swede, an Eskimo or a Masai tribesman. A surgeon can’t tell the “race” of a patient on the table by what the insides look like.

I’m going to say it again. Race does not exist. The term is a “social construct.”

The National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.htm  has determined, using “cutting-edge genetic and computational technologies to analyze historical patterns in DNA from participants around the world to better understand our human genetic roots”¹, that all humans living on Earth today originally came from Africa. Variations are all the result of adaptation to different habitats and reproductive habits.²

See what they’ve found here: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

One more time because this is so revolutionary:
Race does not exist. The term is a “social construct.”

If “Race” is a “social construct,” then why did man invent it? My speculation is that it arose from the need for ancient societies to survive. In order for a group to survive with a finite amount of resources, a distinction had to be made between “us”--entitled to the protection and nurturing of the group--and “them.”--not only not entitled to the protection and nurturing of the group, but possibly dangerous to “us.” This tendency to classify people between “us” and “them” continues to the present day for similar perceived reasons. Race is not the only way that “them” is defined. Socioeconomic status, culture, language and even age enter into the equation. Is this distinction still necessary today? I don’t think so.

I fervently hope and pray that I live long enough to see a world of “individuals” arise, where each person is evaluated according to themselves, not their color, culture or status.

¹ https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.htm

²Owen, Jana “Lecture Notes” Week 6, ANT-101-W02-1SP sorry, Blogger readers, I'm not going to quote the extensive material on how human variations arise from Professor Owen's lecture. :-)

The joke's on me...

This semester I'm taking a couple of 100 level classes because I took Psychology and Anthropology back in the 70s. It's interesting to have mostly 18-20 year olds in class. I posted this in the Anthro when it seemed that my classmates had no idea what constitutes "reliable" sources:

I hope that it’s not out of line to start a whole new thread, but this doesn’t quite fit with a response to any one thread in this discussion. It does fit in the discussion.

Other ideas and opinions that we’ve discussed here got me thinking about the use of the “Scientific Method” in Anthropology. I went in search of the source of one of my favorite quotes so that I could cite it properly. “The plural of anecdote is not data.” Bear in mind that I am transitioning from a “hard” science, Medical Laboratory Technology, where this statement is true.

I found more questions than answers. That pleased me, since I love questions. It also frustrated me, since I wanted an answer.

Google sent me to a “wiki” (collaborative) site first and I found conflicting information. Not only was the origin of the quote debatable, but the second wiki contributor (screen name Joram) actually said that the original statement was really the opposite. “The plural of anecdote is data.” (boldface mine)¹ So here I was, confronted by information that conflicted with what I thought was right. It even cited a source that I would consider credible and trustworthy, linguistlist.org. I had even used that source for last week’s paper exploring sociolinguistics.

So, “bazinga!” The joke is now on me. I kept looking.

The third entry (from screen name “Nubian Goddess”) in the wiki brought up some additional considerations about the Scientific Method. The most interesting to me was “The truth is that neither data nor anecdotes prove anything. Scientific theories are never, ever, ever proven. They can only be disproven.”¹  I followed the link she provided to an interesting article on that perspective.²

Though that article was posted on another wiki (wikis are not appropriate academic sources and I’m only using them here to illustrate the path as it developed), it presented some food for thought about the questions of “proof” and “certainty.” It also introduced me another academic field that I never knew existed, “Philosophy of Science.” Who knew that these fields could coexist? I went to that page in the wiki.³  I found more links to more sources and they were all fascinating. Some were from credible sources and some were not.

By then it was late. I was tired. I had forgotten what the original reason was that I wanted to post a response using my then-favorite-now-questionable quote.

I left the laptop off this morning. I had paid good money for Thinking Anthropologically and thought maybe it was time to do something besides skim through it. Sure, there haven’t been any “assignments” in it. It’s just the secondary text for the class. I had debated even buying it.

“Double-bazinga!” There was everything I had wondered about concerning scientific methods in Anthropology—and more.

What’s the moral of the story? I’ll put it in question form. How much time do you have to “chase rabbits” for classwork? If you had to guess, would you trust “Nubian Goddess” or Salzman & Rice for credible information? Is there a good reason for Thinking Anthropologically to be required for this course?

To extend the questions into “real” life, who do you trust for credible information? Your Aunt Gladys can advise you on all manner of knitting techniques. You love her dearly and would trust her with your life. Would you ask her how to set up your wi-fi network? Your preacher is a good man (or woman) who really loves God. Will you ask him how to crossmatch blood for a transfusion? There are a lot of very interesting shows on, for instance, the History Channel. Are these shows simple entertainment, food for thought or accepted fact for you? Do you do any deeper research on a show’s subject? (A few of us have, and that’s neat.) Where do you get credible information on any subject?

I fell into the trap of “chasing rabbits” last night. I can’t resist giving advice based on that experience. Read the book, folks. Avoid the “bazinga!”

¹ http://askville.amazon.com/original-source-quote-plural-anecdote-data/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1415780

² “Scientific Proof (idea)” by (screen name) Pimephalis http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=scientific%20proof%20%28idea%29

³ “Philosophy of Science and Certainty” by (screen name) cabin fever   http://everything2.com/title/Philosophy+of+Science+and+Certainty