Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Semana 6 Marks (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Naaomy Duque
    13 views7 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views7 pages

    Semana 6 Marks (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Naaomy Duque

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    Semana 42 Science 30 ae and Race Jonathan Marks ese his specety in molecular anthroplogy (se Selection 161, Jon Mars isin ferent nthe question of man biodiversity and rae. be 158 -Jou (Oncof therost dificult concepts to understand within ‘Blounthropology isthe fact that, although the human gpedes duplaja biological diversity with regional op- ‘Tstions showing genetic and phenotypic diferences, tht diverlty cannot be scientifically divided into 2 iBiven umber of subspecies or races. Race, in other Fronds, does not exst for our species on » biological Jevel: Rather, race isa cultural classification. But the fonfasion of biological Variation and cultural eate- pories has been used to establish maintain, and justify arious chores ofsocal stratification for example, by Taking the assertion that diferent racial groups differ {mental slits, In this selector Jonathan Masks ex- plaing why race i not a useful biological concept. He Eso describes the nature of human biodiversity and fdesues the lasue of variation among populations in {intelligence and mental potentials ‘rom the standpoint of biological arhropology, there are two gener contlbutions we can make othe discourse of tacwin America, The fist iso understand the empirical pat= {emf ological or genic versity among indigenous hi ‘Ban populations, ait reltion to structured behavioral reultral aration, The second velves demonstrating that he focur on human bclgia varnion in Amerian owiety represen simply one more example of how biology Fasbece fury enue into consis of sca isos Soe mean ofall jusying» poston. RACE AS AN EMPIRICAL ISSUE ‘Teaching that racial categories lac biological validity can be ae much of a challenge os teaching in the 17¢h Century that the earth goes around the sun—when From Arron aval Sete, Noverbr-Deee 96, Yo {Nor ppt Copyright © ey fortan Ma. ‘epee pean Sage Penns in ‘As you rend consider he following questions: 1. Isthe human species divisible into discrete racial ‘proups? What isthe evidence for Mark's answer fo that question? low can we tell whether 8 difference observed between two poptations is based on genetic iferences? ‘What is the evidence fr a biological diference ia Cognitive ability among human populations? In this regaed, what the distinction Marks makes ‘between pecformence and ability and why isit Important to te pic ofthe article? ‘What was the eugenics movement? Have its basic sumptions beer veried scientifically? ‘What does Marks mean when he says, “Racial problems arenotracial"? anyone can plainly see the sun rise, traverse a path long the sky, and set beyond the opposing horizon. How can something tat seems s0 obvious be denied? “Of course, that isthe way ll gest scientific break troughs appear, by denying folk wistom and replac: {ng it with # mote sophisticated and analytic interpre- tation of the same dts. We can break down race into our separate empirial isoues, each of which has been comprehensively answered by anthropology in [the ‘prenteth) century. 1s the Human Specie Naturally Divisible into 1 Small Number of Reasonably Discrete Groupe? ‘Whether we exsmnize people’ bodies or sample their igenes, the patern fa we encounter is Very concor- {Sane People are simar to those from geographically nearby and ferent from those fer anny, We refer 10 ‘us pater a lina a cline bing simply a geographic 158 ‘gadient of a particular biological feature (Huxley, 1835; Livingstone, 1902). ‘Dividing human populations into small number of digeete groups results in associations of popula ‘ons and divisions between populations that are arbi> trary not nafural. Africa, for example is home to tall, thin people in Kenya (Nilotc), short people in Zaire (Pygmies), and peoples in southern Africa who are sulfcenty diferent from our physical stereotypes of ‘Afscans ie, West Arians) a to have caused an ear~ ler generation to speculate on whether they had some southeast Asian ancestry (iematn, 1978), Asfar as we [enon all are biologically ciferent al are indigenously “Afvican, and to establish a single category (Aftican/ Black/ Negroid) to encompass them all reflects an arbi- trary decision about human diversity, one that snot at all dictated by nature ‘Farther, grouping the peoples of Africa together as a single entity and dividing them from the peoples of Europe and the Near Enst (European /White/Casca- oid) imposes an exceedingly unnatural distinction at the boundary between the two groups. Infact, the “At- ean” peoples of Somalia are far more similar tothe ‘peoples of, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran—which are close {fo Somaliathan they are to the Ghanaians on the ‘western side of Africa, And the Irn and Saudis are themselves mote similar to the Somalis than to Norwe- "Thus associating the Ghanaians and Somalis on {ne hand and Saudis and Norwegians on the other {generates an artificial pater that is contradicted by ‘empirical studies of human biology. "The reason why this cna pater exists les in the processes of microevolutonin the human species. Nat- Ina selection adapte people o their environment, yet ‘environments generally change gradually ver geogra- pphy-—eonsequenty, adaptive diferences in the hus aan species might be expected fo track that pattern. In fudition, people interbeed with people nearby, who in tum interbreed with people nearby, and over the Tong run this reinforces the gradual nature of biological Gisfinctions among populations. Indeed, the “isola- tion’ of traditional nigenous peoples is feature that has been consistently overestimated in the history of ‘anthropology —all peoples trade, and where goods flow, a0 do genes (Terrell & Stewart, 1996; Wolf, 1972) "We know very litle about the ime frame in which ‘these clines originate, but geneticand paleontological tvidence points toa recent ergin forthe genetic diver ‘Sty within our species Far example, we find two ran- domly chosen chimpanzeas or gorillas to be consier- ably snore different genetically than two randomly Chosen humans, even though chimps, gorillas, and hue ‘mans diverged from one another about 7 millon years go and are all consequenty the same age (Feris, Brown, Davidson, & Wilson, 191; Ruano, Rogers, Fer- SCIENCEANDRACE 159 _guson-Smith, & Kidd, 19921 Genetic diversity inthe ffuman species is surprisirgly ephemeral—only on the sele often of thousands of Years—and seems in Some large messure to havebeen replaced by cultural livery ‘The reason why Ameicans tend to see three “races” of people is simply an artifact of history and sististies, Immigrants fo America have come mostly from ports where seafaring vessel in earlier centuries could pick them up-henceournotion of African &- tually West African, and aur notion of Asian i actually Bint Asian (race, 1995) When we realize that people triginating from very diferent parts of the world are Tikey to look very diferentand combine that withthe fact that most Buropean ieunigrants eame from north- ‘central Europe tis not hard to se why we might per teive three types of people Ti there were lngeri-migrant presence in Ames- ica representing the rest ofthe world —western Asia, (Oceania, East or South Afsica, he Arctie—we would bbe more struck by our inability to elasify them easily ts representatives of thre groups. Perhaps the most ‘vious example involves tne people ofSouth Asia (in~ Gia and Pakistan), who ate darkly complected (ike ‘Aticane), facially resemble Europeans, and live on the continent of Asi! "To an earlier genertion, dividing humans into thre types harmonized well with a mythical history that saw humans as descended from Noah’ three sors. Although the far reaches ofthe continents were un Known to them, the ancient Hebrews ascribed the North Africans to the lineage of Ham, central and Southern Europeans tothe neage of Japhet and West ‘sans (inluding themselves) t the lineage of Shem, wafer tei families ater their tongues, in their lands, in ther nations" (Genesis 10:20), This origin myth Spread in the Roman Empire through the popularity of the Antiquities of the jens by Flavius Josephus (Han- ‘aford, 1996). “However, f there were thee geographic types of people in nature it is difcult to know in the light of rover knowledge what shey might epresent biohis- forall. Did one ancestal lineage (Ham) setle rear ‘Ghana, one (Shem settle ear Korea, and one (Japheth) sete neat Norway, their cescendants becoming rather stint from one another and remaining rather ho- smogenous as they sprane outward and mixed at the Fringes —os some ISth-cetury writers essentially be lieved? No; humans have always been living and evolving in the in-betweer places, and there no basis fon which to regard the most divergent peoples as somehow the most primordial “Act, our racial achetypes represent not some pure ancestorsbut symbokc representations ofthe most EGologically extreme peoples on earth, We may note in 460 HUMAN BIODIVERSITY this content that the father of biological dlasifiation, Linnaeus, defined Europeans as blond and blue-eyed. Tinsaeus, of course, was Swedish. But people with these features ae the most extreme Europeans, not the ‘most European, nor the most representative ‘Dividing and classifying are cultural acts and rep- ‘resent the imporition of arbitrary decisions on natural Datics, This is most evident in the legalities of ‘Gefining races, so that intermarriage between them ‘ould be prohibited —the miscegenation laws (Wright, 005). tn general single Black great grandparent was fificiont to establish a personas “Black” whereas seven white grest-grandparents were insufcient to es- tablish one a5" White” Here, race canbe seen a iner~ ited according toa symbolic or folk system of heredity, jn contrast to biological inheritance. Thus racial hered= ily 1s qualitative, all or nothing, whereas Biological heredity is quantitative and fractional Can We Compare People from Different Parts of the World? The primary basis of al cience is comparison. Peoples of the world dir fom ane another, and to under- Stand the nature of those differences we are abliged to ‘compare them. The socal jue overlying such com parisons, however, nacesiate considerably more in- trospection than would be taken for granted by a sci- ‘enti accustomed to comparing spiders or earthworms (tara, 1995) “The skin, haz face, and body form all vary across the world’ populations. In humans, these biological Aifferences are complemented and exaggerated by df= ferences in language, behavior, dress, and the other ‘components of the cumulative historical stream we call culture. The skeletal differences among the world’s ‘most different peoples are actually quite subse, how= ‘ever, so that although s trnined forensic anthropologist ‘can allocate madern remains into a small number of tiven categories, itis virally impossible to doso with Prehistoric remains (Caek, 196) “The fact that skeletal remains can be sorted into preexisting categories does nat mean that those cate- fories represent fundamental divisions ofthe human Epecies (Brace, 1995; Sauer, 1982). When asked to sort blocks of various sizes into large and small achilé ean doo easily and vepicably, but thats not a testimony to the existence of two kinds of blocks in the universe It is testament only tothe ease with which dstine ‘one can be imposed on gradients, By the 18th century, European sailors had demon- strated unambiguously that al known human pop tions were interfertile and were thus biologically a single taxonomic unit in spite ofthe perceptble difer- ‘ences among them. Indeed, reconciling the obvious Giferences among humans toa singe creative actin the Bible led 18thcertury European scientists (suc atfon) to the fist thenres of microevolution. On other hand, theories of multiple origins of diferent peoples (pelygenism, as opposed to monogenism) per- Sstedin the United States through the Ciel War, These biological theories haped to justify the subjugation of rnon-Whitesby emphasizing their biological separation (Stanton, 196), Inthe 1920, geneticists stil debated whether mce-creesing might be genetically harm ‘because ofthe apparently profound diferences among Jhuman populations (Davenpart & Stogaerda, 1909, Provine, 1973) Those differences are not so genetically substantial, however, for suck interbreeding among, human populations fas not shown evidence of biolog: scaly harmful effects (Shapiro, 196), ‘Are Consistently Detectable Differences between Human Po>uiations Genetic? ‘This ie quite possibly the most widely misunderstood spect of humanbiology in spite of nearly a century of tidy. IFT study 1,00 thos from Nigeria and 1000 ‘Danes from Denmath, Jean abserve any numberof d= ferences between the to groups. One group, for © ample, is darkly couplected; the other is lightiy r= pletted, This dilerence would probably be thes ‘whether I selected my sample inthe year 190, 2000, 2100, and itis presumably genetic in etiology. On the other hand, one group speaks Tho and the other speaks Danist. Tht difference would also be ‘there if selected my sample in 1900, 2000, 210, but itis presumably nat get. Atleast, generations ofime migrants attest othe unlikelihood ofa genetic compo nent toi How, then, can we know from the observation of Aiference whether the difference is biologically based European explorers were well aware that the people wha locked the most eifferent from them also Acted. the most diferen‘ly. Linnaeus had invoked broad suites of personality (“impassive,1ozy") and cate tue tits (wveasloase-fitting clothes") in his diagno sis of four geographic subspecies of humans in 1758. ‘The next generation of researchers recognized that ‘hese traits were bot avergencralized (if not outright slanderous) and exceedingly malleable, and they sought fo establish thi formal divisions ofthe human Species solely on bilogieal criteria, (One can also ob> Serve thet cultural boundaries [political linguistic ete] fre generally discee, in contrast to clinl biological ‘variation, which mukes it unlikely that the two ‘ausilly connected) twas widely assumed by the mile of the 19th ‘century that regardless of the degree of malleabilty of ‘mental or behavioral zits of human groups, the fea- tres ofthe dy were fundamentally immutable. Trus tras like the shape ofthe head cou be taken asanin- Gieator of transcendent biological affinity —groups ‘with similarly shaped heads were closely related, and those with differently shaped heads were more dis- tantly related (Gould, 198). ‘The fist to challenge this sssumption empirically was Boas (1912), who measured skulls of immigrants {Elis Iland and compared them to those of relatives already living inthe United States. He found tat the suman body is indeed very sensitive tothe conditians ‘of growth and that there was a decided tendency of di- ‘verse immigrant groups to become more physically convergent in America—in spite of marzying within ‘hele own groups-—than they Were when they azrived, Tnparticulay, the shape ofthe head turned out tobe very malleable, and nota al arliable indicator of ge- patie or race Subsequent stdies of other immigrant {groupe, notably Japanese immigrants 40 Hawai by Shapiro and Hulse (in Shapiro 1999), supported this discovery. Thus the observation of consistent differ- fence between groupe of people —even of the body —is ‘not necessarily ncictive ofa genetic bass for that di ference (Kaplan, 1954; Lasker, 1969). This work ee tively shifted the buedes of proof from those who quss- ton a genetic asi forthe abservation of difference to ‘hose who assert it "To establish a genetic basis for an observed difer fence between two populations, therefore, requires ‘more than just observing the difference to be consis- tent, tzequires presumably genetic data. Te inference fof a genetic diflerence in the absence of genetic data {hus represents nota slentific theory of heredity but a folk theory of heredity. To the extent that behavioral tnd mental taits—such test scores and athletic per- formances—are even more developmentally plastic than are sticly physical traits, the same injunction ‘must hold even more strongly for them. Genetic infer- fences require genetic data Do Different Groups Have Different Potential? (One of the cateh-prases of 1965% best-selling The Rell Curve (Hermstein & Murray, 1984) was “cognitive abil- iy” Eluding a scientifically rigorous definition, the Phrases lel tobe explained by a commonsense or flk ‘definition cognitive abllty presumably means the ‘mental development possible fora person under opt- tal circumstances Butt would take an extraordinar- ay naive o evil cients © suggest seriously that such SCIENCEANDRACE 161

    You might also like