Why don't anthropologists use the concept of race?

Question

to describe human variation

Answer 1

"Race" is used only in a loose context in anthropological study because it is a scientifically muddy area.  There are traits there have more tendency to exhibit themselves in certain populations, but they can and often are present in people not of that population.  In forensic anthropology, (for example) race can be used to potentially help identify an individual, but it's never used as a sole contributer to identifying bones.  Race in the terms that most people use it tends to be more of a social construct than a scientific one, so it often isn't terribly useful in anthropological study.

Answer 2

To an anthropologists there is only 1 race "HUMAN"

Answer 3

"Race" is not a distinction between human beings.  There are no physical attributes which "race" can distinguish.  There is only one race:  the HUMAN race.  Nationalities, languages and cultures is all that separates the human animal.

Answer 4

Race cannot be used in the plural. If the word was used in it's proper context, (why don't they teach this in schools) there would be no discrimination between people who look different from each other as we would know that there is only one human race.

Answer 5

As mentioned earlier, there is only one race(5 subclassifications-black, brown, red, yellow, and white, and any number of admixtures), the human race. Human gentic material varies by only .1-.3%, so all humans are very closely related genetically.Anthropologists use race in this context.Race to decribe variation as you described, is a layperson misconception. The variations you refer to, have been determined by progressive matings to best suite the environments in which these subclassifications were exposed to. As an example, the Mellville Islanders, considered the darkest people on earth, are classified as Caucasian-they have blue-black skins, red, kinky hair, blue eyes, and Caucasian features. One of my friends 's father is Irish and his mother is Black. He has pale blue eyes, light, kinky red hair, and his skin coloring is as close to being an Albino as you can come, without being one-much lighter than most Caucasians.Rednecks are often at a loss in how to respond to him because he is much lighter than they are.His bone structure is of his Black heritage. If he had dark eyes, hair, and skin, he would look Black. I am of Mediterranean(Lebanese) descent. Anthropologists have classified Mediterraneans (Arabs, Jews, Italians,Greeks, Turks, and so on) as Caucasians. Because generally, we are a swarthy, olive colored group, many people, even many government forms list us as other than Caucasians.A point to mention, is that racial subclassifications are based on more than skin color, usually bone structure measurements and points, but even here, there is much overlapping. DNA  tests are more reliable, but not 100%. .In 2,000-4,000 years, there will be such admixture, even racial subclassifications will be meaningless. Many people often say that President Thomas Jefferson sired at least 7 children through  Sally Hemings, his Black slave/mistress. What is not often mentioned, was that  Sally Hemings was a Mulatto, three quarters white, and one quarter Black.In the Old South and even in the North(fought the South with a Segregated Army-the Buffalo Soldiers-Blacks as decribed by the Indians because of their dark,thick ,curly hair resembling a buffalo's mane), no matter how small the amount of blood ancestry was, if you had Black blood in your genes, you were Black. Many of the descendants of this union, for all intents and purposes, look Caucasian.The late actress, Dina Shore and her ex-husband produced an offspring demonstrating black features(unbeknownst to her from her Black heritage). Her marriage broke up over this and she sued her parents for hiding this knowledge from her. The notorious O.J. Simpson has some white ancestry in him.  I pride my self on having friends from all ethnic backgrounds, having learned many of their words, customs, foods, dress, and anything else of their cultures I can experience. People often act surprised when I demonstrate this knowledge or speak a few limited words/greetings in their language.Visit naturescorner.com,my website.

Answer 6

So you're saying that Africans, Hispanics, Caucasians are all distinct species??

Thats why anthropologists don't use the concept of race, because there isn't one.

Answer 7

Sometimes they use the concept of race to differentiate the physical appearance of certain groups of communities

Answer 8

in regards to Forensic Anthro, here is a concise answer.........

                                     "Race"

The concept of race in forensic anthropology is nonsense all together. Race is not derived biologically, but rather race is an artificially created construct from the basis of social ideologies (Brace 1995). Therefore, analysis of skeletal elements provides no direct evidence for a skin color or a type of race. Though highly accurate, it becomes a difficult task when an officer or judge comes to forensic anthropologists and asks them to determine a race from the bones presented. The high accuracy that forensic anthropologists do have is really an estimation of the original geographic origins, rather than a skin color or race.  Brace (1995) states that the reason forensic anthropologist are so accurate at identifying these “races” is because “[forensic anthropologist are] members of a society that provides the framework within which that question is posed, they are fully aware of the social conventions that determine the expected answer.” Brace (1995) also states that almost everywhere skin color is synonymous with race and its distribution varies with latitude. Differences in longitude, however, affect skin color barely. Therefore, pigment variation of skin is of little use in specifying regional identity (Brace 1995). Brace (1995) also describes race in this manner: “The “race” that is at the heart of forensic assessment is a politically correct manifestation of the circumstances that governed the peopling of the western hemisphere. That it is regarded as an “important” forensic finding is simply a product of what is politically correct in contemporary North America.” Brace (1995) says that race was socially constructed in the peopling of the North America. Before the Renaissance era and trans-oceanic voyage there was no concept of “race”. This changed after the discovery of the western hemisphere. Humans became categorical from this point on (Brace 1995).

Kenneth (1995) agrees with Brace (1995). Kenneth (1995) states, it puts a forensic anthropologist on the defense when law enforcement asks them to determine race from bones. Race is still around because early classifications of species were selected on phenotypic characteristics. These characteristic however, do not reveal natural biotic entities (Kenneth 1995). In teaching forensic anthropology it is good to study a variety of osteological collections in order for a range of phenotypic variations to be observed. Kenneth (1995) calls “race” a myth because people accept the fact of phenotypic diversity in our species and attribute these criteria such as skin color, body build, and hair form to mark natural divisions. The natural divisions are labeled “races.” Kenneth (1995) thinks that forensic anthropologists should pay more attention to partes molles (soft tissue) anatomy. This is becoming an area of lost knowledge among forensic anthropologist because the early studiers of this issue were believers of human races (Kenneth 1995).

The main point of both these articles is that race is not biological. Race is a social construct used by government censuses, media, and other sorts of that type. Races were made up during the expansion of the old world to the western hemisphere. As the Europeans encountered new peoples they came up with different categories for them because they believed that they themselves were better than these newly encountered people. Once again, analysis of skeletal components provides no direct evidence for skin color or race.

Literature Cited

Brace C. L. (1995) Region does not mean “Race” – Reality versus convention in forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:29-33.

Kennedy K. A .R. (1995) But Professor, why teach race if races don’t exist? Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:797-800

Answer 9

Because race is a cultural construct not a biological reality :)

Answer 10

anthropology has abandoned the common sense concept of race because any attempt to quantify the term by scientific methods and come to a generally agreed upon definition broke down under the efforts. everytime a defining quality was established, such as skin color, it would break down under the weight of exceptions to the rule. the same thing happened with attempts to scientifically establish "national character." one of the problems with that issue was, the basic personality type that found wide acceptance among people as defining their national character was found to be a rare bird indeed in the general population. think of john wayne. he's as american as apple pie, right? there's only one john wayne, so how can he typify scientifically national character for americans?

http://www.odysseusepicmythhero.com