For this reason there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation. The statement that races are social constructs , which is widely accepted by scholars unnecessary and argumentative , describes the fact argumentative editorializing that race membership is primarily a social rather than biological fact argumentative editorializing. People may be classified differently depending on social and cultural conventions, and depending on which social and or biological markers are considered to be most important in a specific social and historical context.
A person who could be classified as "black" under the American one-drop rule, might be classified as "colored" in Apartheid South Africa, or as branco white in Brazil, or as White in Uganda or the contemporary United States. Are they necessary? Being a social construct does not mean that race isn't real, nor that racial categorization does not affect the lives of people - and it also does not exclude the possibility that the social construction reflect some underlying biological reality whole sentence seems like defensive editorializing.
But it does mean editorializing that biological criteria are not in themselves sufficient to establish racial categories, but that social evaluations always underlie schemes of racial categorization. A minority of scholars reject the notion that race is primarily a social construction entirely, and argue that human biological variation is structured into well defined racial groupings.
A more common view is that socially constructed racial groupings are also biologically meaningful because they correlate meaningfully with genetic variation, even though no racial grouping can be biologically incomplete? My issue is with how this is worded more than any question of accuracy. Current wiki says that race has no biological or genetic basis - which is nonsense when we can see features differentiated as Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Dravidians and Sinhalese among others.
I lack the background to correct this but someone should. There is no consensus among scientists on whether race has biological significance or if race is a purely social construct. He acknowledged that morphological variation varied widely within each race and often overlapped with variation observed in other races, that boundaries between races were not discrete and that races could not be defined solely by geographical boundaries between continents or otherwise.
But scientists have continued to often treat groups identified by commonly used racial and ethnic labels as biological categories. Specifically, they contend that individuals who are assigned to the same racial category share more of their recent ancestry and therefore are more similar genetically to each other than individuals from different racial categories, and that the accuracy of race as a proxy for ancestry is good enough to be useful as a research variable. But others argue that race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device, and even that genetic differences between groups are biologically meaningless or that genetic differences among human populations do not exist.
Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5 8 , Some observers believe that scientists have overwhelmingly rejected a biological concept of race, while others are persuaded that scientists have largely retained such essentialist views.
SOLVED. Race Debunking A Scientific Myth Texas Aandm University Anthropology Series
The empirical data that have been gathered on the topic, however, do seem to largely rule out one scenario: that scientists across the spectrum have reached a consensus that race is a purely social construct without biological underpinning. Surveys, interviews, content analyses, and ethnographies have not pointed to cross- disciplinary rejection of the biological vision of race.
Instead, the empirical question outstanding seems to be whether the academy is divided when it comes to thinking about the nature of race, or whether scientists are fairly unified in their essentialist, biological conceptualization of race. Morning, Ann. Surveys, interviews, content analyses, and ethnographies have not pointed to cross-disciplinary rejection of the biological vision of race. Genetic variation, classification and 'race'.
Nature genetics, 36, SS Others, however, have made the opposite argument, namely that recent studies show that genetic clusters correspond closely with groups defined by self-identified race or ethnicity or by continental ancestry. Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups. Nature Genetics, 36, SS They argue that the continental clusterings correspond roughly with the division of human beings into sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans, western Asians, and northern Africans; eastern Asians; Polynesians and other inhabitants of Oceania; and Native Americans.
Other observers disagree, saying that the same data undercut traditional notions of racial groups. They point out, for example, that major populations considered races or subgroups within races do not necessarily form their own clusters. The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 77 4 , But others argue that race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device and even that genetic differences between groups are biologically meaningless or that genetic differences among human populations do not exist.
I responded to a comment of yours that presented seven sources, not two. You are likewise source dumping below as well. If the two sources you suggest are the sort of high quality reliable sources that can serve as a basis for the article, please collapse all the other source dumps, and focus on those two sources. A response to the first of these points depends on the definition of 'biological'.
If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races.
In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of 'biological' that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease. Genome Biol, 3 7 , Such claims can be seen as failing in two key regards. Is race still socially constructed?
The recent controversy over race and medical genetics. Science as Culture, 17 2 , Edwards, A. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy. BioEssays,25 8 , The ancestor's tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Jorde, L. What we do and don't know about 'race', 'ethnicity', genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era. However, as we saw in Chapter 3, a Lewontin's genetic estimate is not only compatible with the existence of high ethnic kinship, it is a rough measure of it. On genetic interests.
Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main ua. It was hoped by some that the sequencing of the human genome would undermine the view that racial and ethnic classifications have biological significance.. Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility Collins and McKusick , environmental response Olden and Guthrie , and drug metabolism Nebert and Menon are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported.
This renewed interest in the biology of race is surprising given that representatives of an array of natural and social sciences, including leading geneticists, once whole-heartedly denounced prior racial biomedicine. The completion of the Human Genome Project has facilitated large-scale genomic analysis of human populations, much of which uses "ancestry" to map genetics onto traditional racial categories see Bolnick et al.
This all contributes to what Troy Duster has identified as the molecular reinscription of race. What's the Use of Race? MIT press. A rise in the use of race in genetic studies has left many researchers who are committed to a social conceptualization of race at a loss regarding how to evaluate these developments. What to make of it? The Re emergence of a biological conceptualization of race in health disparities research.
The last two sentences of the "Complications and various definitions of the concept" section permalink do not seem to be supported by the source provided:.
Nonetheless, it is clear that racial categories correlate with biological traits e. Where does Bamshad makes the claim that " racial categories correlate with biological traits " or that there is " no consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance? Also this edit here  appears to be editor synthesis. There is not a single citation for the entire paragraph.
Visit the A&M Press Website
Maunus, I hope you don't take this the wrong way because I do think there are several good points in your paragraph that should be mentioned in the article in some form, but it should be in a way consistent with wikipedia policy. Its interesting experiment to replace all the occurrences of "race" word with "melanilistic colour variant" or "breed" What the article could look like then? Do people have melanilistic color variants like wolves black wolf or big cats black panther?
Could we distinguish groups of people based on that trait like we do with other species? Or maybe our species has breeds like dogs horses etc?
Race Debunking A Scientific Myth Texas A M University Anthropology Series
And final question what really should be a definition of race? That is a phenotypical or genetical concept. There could be population very diverse genetically, even to the point of different species Animals That Seem Identical May Be Completely Different Species or there could be a very distinctive groups within one species that have only a few difference in genes , but all those different alleles are producing different characteristics like color or adult animal size and also maybe to the point that two of these populations do not mix.
Next, I know historically the race concept has been drifting with meaning and with time encompassing bigger and bigger cohorts of people. But I think this is the effects of how people knew with time what is the extent of human variation. If in our times there would be other sub-species of humans living in Africa or Indonesia like Homo erectus etc. Or if there would be in the past a successful experiment or accident at the very distant past like 6 thousand years ago to kill all black or non-European descent people Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Then the variation would diminish and people especially if that would be a long time in the past would coin a new 'race' boundaries that would be similar to the original concept.
Likewise in maybe some isolated island on pacific there would be concept of race before white people came in distinguishing phenotypes that for someone who didn't grow up with the people would be identical and not "worth" of categorizing. So in my opinion race is not a social construct in its all entirety - it is just measure of known human variation. It is the same like let's say in other species. And no one sees anything wrong with that. And there is also in-group variability.
So in case of humans there were situations all over the world where one tribe or nation consider people living on the other side of river or forest or mountain to be not "like them" a different kind of people or even not people at all.
- Debutantes (Cecile & Julie pt. 2) (Cecile in Europe).
- I Love My Baby (My Baby Loves Me)!
But these people living amongst themselves cannot have knowledge that there are vastly different populations on earth and in comparison to them their distinction does not hold up. But now we do know the whole earth, we do now what human variability is in terms of genotype and phenotype. So now coined distinctions are not prone to the same mistakes as those in the past.
But if we want an answer to question are there human races or not we must first determine to what definition of race we are answering. Are we considering phenotypes as these are now, or are we considering the human migration process, genetics, etc This are a very distinct concepts that are to itself like concept of fruit based on biological features and concept of fruit that is in EU law where carrot is considered a fruit.
When I read such articles of discussions about race I feel like I'm reading quarrels where there are distinct categories fruits and vegetables or all things we eat are equal and everyone who thinks different is an ignorant foodist. So people in their heads are holding very different conceptions of race and what it shouldn't be.