Utilisateur
no definite number
based on their differing physical traits
no, it was created politically/historically to justify colonialism and white peoples own idea of their superiority.
a hierachial concept, that's why we couldn't divide race based on eye colour because there are eye colours shared between white people and people of colour
yes Just because race as a concept is not biological but socially constructed doesn’t make it not real.
White people didn’t want to be labelled by their race indicating that they considered themselves the default, although other races are constantly labelled by their race. These groups with more power are able to decide what’s normal and normalized in society
Social category: individuals don’t usually ever have control over the categories they are put in by society
Collective identity: how you identify yourself considering all aspects of yourself.
Categorization is rarely universal, gender is the most common category. Race is not the same because it is particularly not that old of a concept
Biology is innate but culture is learned, no matter what your biology is where ever you are raised is where you adopt your culture.
Race is a category of organisms belonging to the same species biologically (producing fertile offspring)
There are distinct groups because of geographic distance (barrier to mating).
Category’s that weren’t able to be seen by the naked eye were not used as markers of race and also markers that overlap with other races.
indicates that racial classifications was always meant to be something that every can participate in and not just scientists
false, these groups of characteristics were made to be objective, this criteria had to be met to be said race
Shape of the skull is dismissed now as a marker because it can change during a humans life during growth.
These markers are arbitrary and not universally used, there is no sole marker because then there would be a large population in between races.
1. Human variation is often continuous and not discrete (skin colour can change with moving around- close to/far from equator).
2. races dont covary, there isn’t a consistent, predictable relationship between different traits (such as skin color, facial features, etc.) that would clearly define "race" in a biological sense.
3. greater polymorphic variation within populations
in 16-18th centuries, pre European colonialism.
the criteria differed and didn’t have the same connotations, sometimes a person was able to change their category which isn’t how race works. (Ex. Greeks vs barbarians) (ex. egyptian men being depicted darker than woman)
family, lineage, breed
new (more systermatic) meaning came from colonization and slavery
yes, but they din't encounter them as much till the european exploration- prior to this categories were more based on religion
depicted the hierarchy of everything in existence (natural hierarchy created by god.) Devil, minerals and rocks, plants, animals, humans, angels,more angels and god.
not all humans are equal to one another, king, aristocrats, middle class and working class people- this was assumed to be a natural hierarchy, people were born to be in the class they were in.
Considered noble savages because they lived out of civilization and were not under the influence of the corrupt ideals that exist within society but are still considered untamed. This differs from europeans who lived in a more civilized manner but still brought about wars due to the ideals within their society.
The romantics saw nature as wild and unpredictable, not something that could be tamed while others saw nature as idealized, something that is controlled, peaceful and existing in harmony.
Monogenesis: all humans come from the same Adam and Eve (but some degenerated)
Polygenesis: different groups of humans had their own Adam and Eve
These debates were not just from intellectual curistory but knowing if they were human or not helped them justify killing them (if they weren’t human) and if they were then to save them/convert them to Christian’s.
a European coming in contact with a native man, initially views that native man as inferior but then teaches the native man his own customs and practices,essentially “civilizing” him
(18th century): classification of plants and animals, binomial nomenclature, 7 level system. Also an optional level, that there is geographical variety in species (race then was considered subspecies)
Americanus (red), Europeaus (white), asiaticus (yellow), after (black), another 5th race of homosapiens monstrous (mythical creatures)
(18th century France)- makes the use of the word race as a variety within species more popular, believed a single origin of human kind
Johann friedrich blumenbach
18th century
The term Caucasian was used for people from Europe, Middle East, North Africa. This was the original/default race and everyone else degenerated from it.
Darwin was an abolitionist (abolotion of slavery) and monogenist (common origin of humans) in the 19th century.
Through the experiments in Galápagos Islands the ideas of the origins of biological variety were thought about. Evolution by natural selection. These ideas were supported by Alfred Russel Wallace
He proposed that biological evolution does not have a purpose and happens spontaneously and is not a progress
some features helps you survive in that time in space and others don’t, then these people with these traits become more sucessful and reproduce and these genes spread through the population.
scientific racism
late 19th and 20th century,, humans can be divided into specific biological races; these races are fixed and a key in understanding human variation (through specific markers and distinctive, cultural, social and moral traits).
Making race a biological construct essentializes, making it seem like the innate nature of humans, how it was intended to be…
in scientific racism they push that idea that culture, the way a society behaves, economically, socially, politically is
all biological.
the late 19th century, Darwin’s ideas on species was twisted to be used for scientific racism.
Slavery was abolished in the mid 19th century Also the same time of “jim crow” laws in USA (segregation), new system devised to keep them seperate.
out of Darwin’s ideas and apply those biological ideas onto society, people who are more capable and survive, more adaptable are superior, “Survival of the fittest”- Herbert Spencer.
Social darwinists were also classists and also discriminated against working class/impoverished/disabled white people.
early 20th century, critiqued scientific racism which at the time was widely establish. Specifically critiquing their tools for classifying race like the skulls as a race marker.
He studied the skulls of Italian and Jewish immigrants and saw a bigger difference between 1st and 2nd gen WITHIN each groups than the difference BETWEEN each groups, showing these biological variations couldn’t be used to classify people.
These immigrant parents might have difference in skull shape from their nutrition and from being lower/working class (environmental changes)
Boa’s ideas were not taken into consideration/ were not accepted.
eugenics
beliefs and practices aimed at preserving and improving (genetic) quality of humans). Encourages “superior” people to reproduce and discourage “inferior” people (sometime by force) to not having people
Francis Galton was a huge proponent of selective breeding/ eugenics.
The logical fallacy is that if they believed in the survival of the fittest which is a spontaneous concept then they shouldn’t have to choose for selective breeding but the superior people should spontaneously outlive the inferior people.
their idea of the hierarchy varied, they targeted Jewish people, Slavic people, Romani people
After world war 2, eugenics was challenged/ not approved because of nazi eugenics. Became not socially acceptable to promote scientific racism/ eugenics.
1950- UNESCO: still believed race was a biological fact but there were no superior or inferior races. No scientific evidence that one race is smarter and no genetic difference between aces in character.
-still believed different pops that make up seperate races but has no consensus ovet the number of races
the division of Asia, African, European was accepted.
statement challeneged scientifc racism but didn,t oppose race as a concept
the distinction between genotype and phenotype was first introduces and the idea that some genetic differences that exist aren’t shown in observable traits
the other half of the 20th century. new understanding of human biology showing that human variation doesn’t align with race as a concept, race as a biological fact is disproved.
from Africa, that is why Africans have so much variation because they have more time to genetically diversify.
statment on biological aspects of race, stated that pure race in the sense of genetically homogenous population doesn't exist within our human species, we cant split human into discrete geographic categories with a strict criteria.
Biological differences comes from hereditary factors and natural and social environments.
humans share the vast majority (99.9%) of our DNA in common
no it is factually not accurate
Human variation exists, this is a genetic variation but also affected by the environment. No strict way to judge hereditability. Traits can vary within the same family (among people who are genetically close).
true
categorization based on cultural traits (language,religion, culture) and shared ancestry.
Irish people, have low Celtic genes but identify as celts
determined by melanin production in skin.
inability to produce melanin (happens in all human groups).
distinct zones that show different features in a species. Skin colour showed a clear geographic pattern.
by exposure to ultraviolet light, skin colour is a complex trait and not easy to predict because it is controlled by major genes.
Women generally lighter than men, babies than adults, seniors than young people, skin colour variation is clinal (continous)
dark skin people near equator (higher sun intensity), lighter nearer the poles (true in animals too). Stands less true in Asia and the Americas.
necessary vitamin, comes through food or through sun, skin needs to be light enough for it work. Inuit people aren’t light skinned and have limited sunlight but get vitamin D through fish.
also dependent on melanin and dependent on age
Red hair is a specific allele on specie genes, 1-2% of humans. Blonde hair and red hair are recessive genes
was thought that racial mixing with people might dilute the population of people with “pure” traits. This does not work like this because even with mixing people can carry this recessive gene without displaying it.
no
no but brown is the most common
dependent on melanin but inherited in a More complex way than dominant vs recessive.
ex. Peacock feathers attract mates, increase reproductive success but isn’t helpful for the peacocks safety (more easily noticeable for predators). This same concept might apply to eye colour.
hair texture
Shows some geographic patterning (straight hair common in Asia and americas)- round shaft and helix shaped in Africa, slightly oval in Europe. Although hair texture varies among races, ages, generations etc.
epicanthic folds.
sometimes also varies/changes from childhood to adulthood, might be because the nose and cheeks develop and the eyes become less pronounced.
environemtnal factors (ex.nutrition)
yes based on climate, certain genetic adaptions concerning body volume and surface area.
bergmans rule: body size is larger in colder climates to keep the heat
Allens rules: extremities are shorter in cold climates
difficulty to find genetic markers that define race, the small amount of variation between groups, assuming racial advantages in sports, hoffmans beleifs of african americans inferiority, laws stopping interracial marriages, beleif of mendelian traits to support eugenics
people of native american, white and african american ancestry
no marker that groups together all black athletes that explains their superiority in the sport
genotype + environment
variants of the same gene ex. Blood types
sequence of nucleotides along a DNA strand, the differences in these sequences is what makes genetic variability
It happens on individual level, because genes are mixed between parents, but this only produces limited amount of diversity because it is mixing already preexisting genes. New variations are created through gene mutations. Mutations/changes in genetic material can be traced back in time and based on that we can talk about different regional/geographical groupings of humans.
in the mitochondria
only house 37 genes and inherited only from the mother (haploid) . mDNA should be identical to the mother for both son and daughter but there are mutations that can cause changes in mDNA that happen over time
haplogroups which show geographic patterning and reveal human migration patterns
“mitochondrial eve”
Fails as a marker of race but is a real way to explain human biological variation.
Passed from father to son, only present in men
Y chromo adam
Can’t use as a racial marker because it is more numerous and can’t be seen by the naked eye
Mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam aren’t contemporary lived in different times/ different areas. Differing haplogroups can be considered one group from mDNA and another race from Y chromosome.
1/1000 alleles differences, very little diversity
we have less diversity because we haven’t existed for too long, for example in one chimpanzee social group there is more mdna diveirsty than the entire human species. Also because of bottle necks and when our populations were constricted it lowered our genetic diversity
chimpanzees 3-10 mil yrs ago
africa (1.5-2 mya)
200k years ago from Africa, around 10 k indivs for the entire species that we descended from
in africa than all other groups combined
complex portein in red blood cell which carries oxygen, small alterations to this protein has major effects.
a allele of hemoglobin and varies slightly. It cause Hb to stick together inside of red blood cell giving it a sickle shape.
cannot carry oxygen properly leading to anemia which can be serious and often lethal, this is a common mutation in certain geographical areas. It is common because it provides protection against malaria
sickle shaped cells cannot be attacked propely by malaria, people who have two HbS alleles have sickle cell anemia, but those who only inherit one will only be carriers of the allele but not have the full disease, this trait protects them from malaria.
yes in places where malaria is common, this trait isn’t racial but purely genetic and influenced by environment.
no, traits do not covary, phenotypes can vary within race
nature: product of genes/biology
nurture: environment and upbringing
Genetic determinism (hereditism); idea that humans are determined by their biology. It all comes from nature; innate differences.
Environmental determinism: argues for the dominant role of nurture and the environment
today we use the interactionist perspective. the consensus is that both nature and nurture interact in complex ways to influence everything from personality to intelligence, health, and social behaviors.
early 20th century by alfred binet for children
resulted that immigrants from Eastern Europe are “feeble minded” and also that people of colour specifically black people were also feeble minded
These IQ tests had a strong cultural bias, immigrants are unfamiliar with this culture/ had a language barrier and couldn’t excel on this test
“African Americans score 15 points lower than whites”, says this is because of biology and there is nothing to do that can “help” them
black people in 1980s- higher IQ than white people in 1950’s this wouldn’t be possible if IQ was race fixed.
Richard J hernstein and Charles Murray (20th century)
intelligence is highly dependent on socioeconomic factors and other aspects of nurture
ex. asian americans score highest now and african american score higher than in the past, demonstrates the role of socioeconomic factors and structural racism and the non genetic basis of IQ
Europeans “smart and inventive” and Africans “crafty and foolish”. Certain racial groups prone to criminal and immoral behaviour
Although this seems positive it is also used to explain why they had “ low intelligence"
It is an assumption that one race dominates in sports. There as clear champions that come from very different geographical areas. Champions from people from many distinct places but belong to the same “race”
idea that ones race affects sexuality, people of colours bodies sexuality and objectified
genetic susceptibility or resistance to certain disease exists as well as geographic patterning of some disease but this is not racial in nature. Most racial differences in health come from- socioeconomic status, access to good healthcare and nutrition.
In the late 20th century there were attempts to make it neutral but as a social construct it will always be purely hierachial
sometimes claimed that race doesn’t exist, although not biological, race affects people social, economic and political status.
In the US, it was emphasized that races shouldn’t mix. Any type of race mixing in your ancestry even just a “drop” of another race than white would make you be considered as that race.
eastern and southern europeans and jewish people
hard to make disappear, almost subconscious to us at this point hard to forget from the collective mind. It is also an important aspect of identity for many people
can be useful when describing societal issues but the concept brings about racism.
refers to policies or actions designed to address historical and systemic inequalities faced by marginalized groups (such as racial minorities, women, or people with disabilities).
emphasizes personal autonomy, self-reliance, and the idea that individuals should be judged and rewarded based on their own merits, actions, and achievements, rather than being seen through the lens of group identities (such as race, gender, etc.).
assimialting europeans who weren't considered white into american neighbourhoods
white people
“White is not scientifically determined but subjectively determined by the common man”. South Asians who naturalized were stripped of their citizenship.
two+ non white families threaten the prices of houses in certain neighbourhoods. “Integrated neighbourhood” seen as a financial risk
Certain property’s and neighbourhoods becomes restricted and exclusive to white people.
low income neighbourhoods, weren't given mortgages, mostly poc.
racial language taken out of these laws, non white families allowed to integrate into suburban neighbourhoods.
White people will sell there houses for less than market value to get out of neighbourhoods with black people in them, then these houses would be sold to non whites at inflated prices.
The economic downfall of integration is from white peoples leaving not from African Americans moving in. This is simply driven by fear.