Biology and Identity in America: Present and Future Theory

Zachary Ende

KEYWORDS: identity, culture, variability, heritage, geographic, population

How we perceive human biological variability strongly influences our identity. If we believe that our biological identity supports certain behaviors, we may rely on those behaviors for social acceptance (e.g., males fight wars). In that way, our cultural understanding of human biological variability dictates many aspects of life. This is the precise reason why biological anthropology has helped define how we think of ourselves in the new millennium.

In America, modern technology has pushed geographic borders to the brink of irrelevance. Population swelling, travel and even ideas of the biological and social equality of all peoples have contributed to the breaking down of cultural borders. Human biological variability used to be considered as a manifestation of hierarchy. Now that the perception of hierarchical human biological variability has begun to change, identity will be heavily influenced as well. A multifaceted conception of human biology for individuals and groups, will yield a multifaceted and complex identity for individuals and groups. The playing out of the events of the paradigm shift will take many years to develop fully. Population growth and mixing accelerates identity change.

First, what were the factors that have attracted more people from more places to America than ever before? Modern medicine is one reason for rapid population growth that has been so consistent over the past 100 years. It has lengthened life spans and reduced infant mortality rates across the board. A cogent example of this occurred in Japan where infant mortality went from 172 per 1,000 live births in 1918-1922, to as low as 3.5 per 1,000 by the new millennium (Molnar 319). Many countries have dramatically changed infant mortality rates. One effect of this is altered population growth. This, coupled with an expanded energy source (food and water) for many around the world has contributed to the boom in population worldwide to approximately 6.6 billion people. No other known environment of the past could support these numbers.

Other factors play key roles in population growth. Airplanes, boats and cars have allowed for leaps in speed and distance traveling for humans, medicine and other important freight. Even advancements in buildings and the transfer of information (public health knowledge, news of disaster etc. through television, phones, internet etc.) have helped to combat disease, famine and other natural disasters that would seem to slow population growth. Such growth allows for population mixing among the whole of humanity as never before.

The environment Americans live in is drastically different from that just 80 years before us and supports not only population growth, but intermixing as well. Prior to the WWII and the Civil Rights movement, intermixing occurred mainly between people of like skin-color of different ethnic origins. After these two momentous struggles, coupled with the growing scientific verification that no skin-color signifies biological benefits in brain capacity or behavior, intermixing of all colors has been given strong encouragement. America is unique in that its culture and land mass has allowed it to take on a large number of peoples from the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America (willingly and unwillingly). These people also now share a language which is a paramount factor in breaking down a very important cultural wall. Even without WWII and the Civil Rights movement, many would argue that geographical proximity alone would allow for some of these populations to strongly mix. If a genetic bottleneck occurred at any time, than many of these populations will be losing their genetic uniqueness gained over from those years.

The increase in genetic parallelism in American populations is certain. The question is the gradation. How much will intermixing effect identity in a population like that of America?

As stated above, the linguistic, cultural and physical environment has laid the groundwork for huge numbers of intermixing. Some factors however work against possible intermixing between populations. As cited, culture has shifted to support intermixing, but history has not been completely rewritten. Many still hold racist ideology about superiority and inferiority. More hold historical American stereotypes and images which grew in a time of inequality. Self and group identity is largely based on a combination of "where I'm from" and "where I'm at" which is another way that history holds intermixing back. Socio-economic status has stratified American culture as a type of cultural language, so that even within geographic localities, intermixing is rare among any type of human category. This does not work necessarily as a genetic category, however it is the strongest example of how some cultural significant identification, works to divide people. In some cases, gene frequencies are related to social categories as in the case of Ashkenazic Jews who have a high prevalence of tay-sachs disease and leukemia and African black who have a high prevalence of cervical cancer and sarcoidosis (Molnar 345).

Those who admit that their genetic heritage is irrelevant tend to focus on identity through political alliance. Just as the Ottoman Empire brought together the Arab world, and the Roman Empire much of the Mediterranean, America brings together a number of peoples encouraging them to work as one unit. This is the level of political organization that over time will support the mixing of the peoples inside the U.S., and will grant all of them with an identity of country over genetics. In this way, human biological variability will be lost to language, cultural beliefs, and common cooperative goals in America.

Identity by country, ideas of equality of man, common language and geography are the basis for which a mass scale hybridization will take place over time. This time scale for changes to occur is slow. The actual manifestations of these events will go through many generations and changes we cannot foresee. The result of the hybridization will certainly not be a final equilibrium of gene flow and expression for humans, simply because of the numbers of expressed genes in the world population today. The result of hybridization will also not bring about a final "race war" or Armageddon. Our multifaceted human biology will certainly be met by a multifaceted identity. Hopefully, identity will include a sense of responsibility and likeness for all human kind.

The Future of Race: Erased or Replaced?

Erin Kolski

KEYWORDS: religion, racial division, genetic variability, poverty, diversity

Throughout history, humans have been divided and classified into different categories based on different factors: religion, skin color, and country of origin, among others. These divisions, which have been generally accepted and unquestioned until recent history, have been both beneficial and harmful. On the one hand, they have strengthened ties between people who belong to the same group and gives people a sense of belonging and acceptance. On the other hand, they have led to deep divisions between members of different groups, leading to wars, genocide and prejudice. Recently, however, these barriers are beginning to break down as attitudes change, previously exclusive groups begin mixing with others, and modern scientific technology enables scientists to examine the genetic bases of these differences, which are often irrelevant or nonexistent. As ethnic mixing and scientific progress continues, it is likely that while some current divisions, both social and biological, will break down and become obsolete, other divisions will almost certainly form.

The most noticeable social division in North America in recent history was the racial divisions that perpetuated slavery in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, and later were used to justify unequal treatment and racism, some of which persists today. The idea that races were inherently distinct categories was even confirmed by biologists at the time. When Carolus Linnaeus created his taxonomic system, he further divided Homo sapiens into four subspecies: Native Americans, Asians, Africans, and white Europeans. He further described each subspecies' temperament, with white Europeans, such as Linnaeus, of course having the most favorable qualities, while the other races were described as "slow", "stubborn", or "severe." (Olson, 2002) Today, most people would consider the idea of human subspecies ridiculous, but at the time it was accepted in order to justify the poor treatment of anyone who didn't have light skin. Although the idea of human subspecies is no longer held, many people still defined individuals by categories that have little or no biological basis: black, European-American, Jewish, and others. These socially constructed distinctions have been used to justify horrendous genocide in Germany, Africa, and the Middle East, even to this day. But as science progresses and genetic testing becomes more reliable and commonplace, the idea that these groups are biologically distinct becomes more widely discredited. Geneticists compare DNA sequences of people all over the world, and have reached some conclusions that go directly against the idea of biologically distinct groups: while 15% of the total human genetic variability occurs between groups, the vast majority of variability - 85% - occurs within groups. (Olson, 2002)

The signs that certain socially constructed groups are being dissolved are evident in many areas. Most religious divisions are almost completely disregarded, or are at least less apparent due to the lack of defining physical characteristics. Most anthropologists reject the term race altogether, due to its increasing obsoleteness in biology. Although many surveys and standardized tests still include a race section, many are now including "other" or allowing more than one selection to account for the increasing intermixing of ethnic groups. Even within "races," there are usually vast mixtures of other ethnic groups. Although all African-Americans tend to be lumped together in contemporary racial classifications, they come from a wide range of countries and regions across the continent, and a substantial portion have ancestors from other racial groups. (Motherland, 2003) European-Americans can be of English, German, Italian, or many other origins, and many are a mixture. In light of the increasing evidence of lack of genetic uniqueness between groups, proponents of racial divisions are forced to find other proof of biological separation to back up their claim. They often point out IQ tests, which African-Americans tend to score more poorly on than whites or Asian-Americans. However, this claim falls through when environmental factors are taken into consideration. More African-Americans than whites live in poverty, and it the lack of resources and access to good education that hinders their IQ scores rather than genetics. Studies of children born to German mothers whose fathers were U.S. soldiers during World War II show that there was no difference in IQ scores between children with white fathers and those with black fathers. (Olson, 2002) If intelligence were genetic, then the children with black fathers would be expected to score lower on IQ tests, regardless of economic background. Since this was not the case, the argument for a biologically less intelligent race does not stand up.

Today, groups in North America tend to be less rigidly defined than they were in the past. People tend to socialize with people of similar ethnic or religious background, but it is more out of their own choosing than due to a rigid social status quo. For example, a large number of immigrants from South and Central America have been flooding into the United States in search of jobs, and they tend to congregate together based on a shared language and customs. However, this is due more to the language barrier than a society that prohibits mixing of ethnic groups. People with shared religious backgrounds still tend to come together and intermarry, but most are tolerant of other religions, and mixing between religions is far from uncommon. Variability between groups, which may exist primarily because of socially enforced reproductive isolation, is likely to decrease as people marry outside of their traditional groups and the distinctions between groups blur. The increased opportunities for travel that are now available allow gene flow between groups that, not so long ago, were geographically isolated from one another. Also, as Americans become more chronologically removed from their Old World ancestors, the distinctions of African-American, Asian American and European-American become less distinct and more antiquated. Even today, most Americans, unless they have recently immigrated, are actually a mix of several ethnicities. Already, the once widely held notion of distinct ethnic groups is beginning to break down.

The tendency of humans to find a group to belong to persists, and people still tend to form groups. Even apart from obvious categories like race, gender or religion, people are always identifying themselves as part of a group; for example, "I'm a Gemini," or "I'm a college student." Humans seem to have an innate desire to feel included, and usually socialize with those they have something in common with. As a result, there will probably never be completely random breeding, and there will always be variation between groups, though it may decrease as groups become less defined. Also, while much more common than they were in the past, interracial marriages are still the minority, and racial terms are still practical when describing a missing person or suspect. While describing the person as having "brown eyes and black hair" may be more politically correct than identifying them by race, it is also much more imprecise than describing them as black or Asian. Another possibility is that while historical divisions such as race may weaken, new groups may form based on other attributes. Evidence of this trend is the tendency for Spanish speakers in the U.S. to come together. These people have immigrated from a variety of countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala, but their shared language motivates them to gather in certain communities. Another socially constructed distinction that tends to divide people into groups is income. Celebrities and other extremely wealthy people in the U.S. tend to marry other upper-income people, while the poor tend to marry each other. Although there is the occasional story of a famous person marrying a lower-income "unknown", these are much less frequent than marriages within income brackets. If the income barriers remain predominantly impenetrable, the lack of gene flow may lead to a gradual change in gene frequencies between the upper and lower classes. Any number of characteristics could be selected as the distinguishing traits of a new socially constructed group: height, fingernail shape, favorite color or allergies. As long as people continue to have the desire to identify with others who are similar to themselves, they will always form groups.

Perhaps one reason race has persisted for so long as a distinguishing attribute is the fact that it easy to physically identify. Skin color is naturally more obvious than income or religion, and therefore is easier to classify people into. However, with advanced scientific techniques that allow scientists to discover previously unknown features in people, new classifications may arise that we wouldn't even think of today. Perhaps biologists will identify a gene that codes something that we currently think of as arbitrary, like rate of hair growth. If the technology to identify an individual's hair growth gene becomes widespread enough, people may start choosing partners based on their hair growth gene and excluding those whose gene does not match their own. Gradually, people will begin to form groups with others who have the same hair growth gene. Although the idea of people forming reproductively exclusive groups based on a hair growth gene sounds ridiculous now, it is no more unreasonable than forming groups based on skin color. If anything, groups based on a particular gene are more logical than racial groups, since they have a genetic basis. By the end of the 21^st century, perhaps the idea of classifying people of a purely superficial basis like skin color will seem absurd and outmoded.

The ideas of human biological variability in North American are already starting to shift. Both politically and biologically, people are tending to shy away from rigid racial categories in favor of equality between all people. Diversity is now coveted and embraced by most organizations, while racially homogeneous groups are criticized for their lack of variability. However, race is still far from obsolete, and many people tend to prefer the company of those with whom they have something in common, such as ethnicity or language. Increasingly though, superficial categories like race are giving way to more personally selected categories, like religion, interests, or income. If ethnic mixing continues to increase throughout the 21^st century, people may reject the ideas of race altogether in favor of a more different classification such as culture. Rather than identifying themselves as African-America, Asian-American or European American, people may simple refer to themselves as American, based upon their shared language and culture. New categories may form that take the place of racial divisions, or completely new classifications based on genetic factors may arise. Whatever happens, people will probably always form groups, and variability will persist.

Race and Identity from the Political and Socio-economic Perspective of a Black African

Emma Jeffrey

KEYWORDS: race, ethnicity, classification, government,

Difficult as categorization of people into rigid and specific groups (races) is, this grouping is necessary, even imperative, if people will acquire the very things essential for their survival. This paper examines the importance of racial classification or categorization as far as politics and health are concerned, to the well-being of every individual. By and large, all successful historical undertakings, as far as groups are concerned, first begin with the first person who identifies himself as belonging to one group and who proceeds to mobilize other [willing] "in-group" individuals to combine their energies for reaching specific goals. Although not explicitly stated, race and identity fueled the Civil Rights era in America and similarly but markedly opposite in effect, propelled the Aryans to subdue and exploit the Africans. In an age where significant numbers and proportions of individuals cannot be placed in specific groups, the subject of identity and race has become even more critical when socio-economic and political matters are put under the microscope.

With reference to the theory of maximal own-gene propagation in future generations, people group and struggle for rights in order to obtain a secure future for themselves and their offspring so that over time, their DNA is kept in the gene pool. To effectively and maximally confront problems, a person must define his/herself from the larger to the smaller sphere or vice-versa. Either way, the larger sphere or group to which we now commonly refer words such as "race", "ethnicity", "citizenship" and "nationality", seem to be the biggest and most influential determinant on how we and others around us identify and define us. In reference to the importance of self-identification, Hale points out in his article, that "Yidentity is a self-locating device in an uncertain world" (Explaining Ethnicity 9). When it comes to government policies, even normal tasks like running a job-search and attending and receiving adequate health care, this "main group" to which we belong become compelling factors that cannot be ignored. If our identities are so important in this regard to the extent that it determines the quality of life an individual might have, then there is no telling that it is a critical question that must be answered and answered right.

Needless to say, forming an image and an identity "construct" of one's self then becomes about the most important thing an individual could do, because his/her whole fate will seem to rest on it. So, given that this is what I must do as a human being, I identify myself as a black, African female. Surprisingly, I am confronted with questions about my own definition of myself. I call myself "black", not because I see jet black skin, but because it is the name society gives me. A persons definition of his/herself then becomes subordinated to the identity ascribed to him/her by society and politically speaking, the government of the geographic location in which they reside.**In Brazil, South America, there are more than twenty different descriptions for people with various percentages of African and European ancestries (and Native American) as suggested by their phenotypes. Individuals belonging to these singular groups, who may have unique experiences of their own, discover, most to their dismay, upon entry into the United States, their new identity as "black" people. Therefore there is an undermining of important differences between people when skin color is used primarily as the basis of racial categorization. Race is defined differently in every new social setting an individual finds his/herself in. Identity may be based on language, food, costumes and a system of beliefs as opposed to mere outward characteristics, so that a black African who meets a black Jamaican discovers that apart from skin color, they have very little in common. Even though they have a common ancestral heritage, it is so far-removed from individual lives, it cannot produce an automatic bond between them. When the State places these two individuals in the same racial group, it overlooks the fact that the two are conspicuously different in terms of ethnicity and therefore issues unique to their respective ethnic groups will not be addressed effectively.

Having determined that race is defined by society and even more specifically lawmakers, and not by the individual is what makes the difference in a person's life, it is clear that people must try to impact the way politicians place people into different racial groups, if they are to maintain some control over their lives. The mere placement of people into different racial groups based on phenotypic or biological differences does not alter our lives in any way. Rather, it is the second step of a covet hierarchy that is apparent from the kind of policies that government makes to address issues faced by each racial group. Assuming that this hierarchical racial system in politics was well-established to the extent that we all agreed that it was the best way to address problems unique to different racial groups, then people might want to ensure that they are placed in the correct racial group, in order to obtain the maximum benefits due them. For instance, if a person had both European and African ancestry, and assuming either >macro-ethnicity' corresponded to the best quality of healthcare and the other to the worst, he/she would expect to receive treatment intermediate between the two. As is often the case, phenotypic characteristics alone may not be enough to make this person's race or ethnicity clear. This calls for a more reliable and factual approach to definitions of the different >races' and the resultant assignment of people into these groups. With the advent of DNA technology which provides more definite answers about biological ancestry, we at last seem to have found the answer to the problem of wrongly labeling people.

This is when genealogy makes way for geneticsCthe individual's biological identity is no longer determined by how the individuals looks, or what physical features they possess which society currently links to specific racial groups, but by the actual composite of their genome. The DNA of an individual with partly unknown mixed ancestry may be analyzed and compare with previously collected DNA in a databank. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed on exclusively by females to their offspring, a person's entire collection of mitochondrial DNA was acquired from his/her mother, who acquired hers from her mother (the maternal grandmother of this individual) and so on. With males, since they do not pass on any mitochondrial DNA, the alternative is to use their Y-chromosome since it is their fraction of DNA that is passed on from fathers to sons. This obviously provides a far more accurate way of determining a person's ancestry. At a point where we can scientifically "prove" ancestry to virtual perfection, racial categorization of people is expected to be approached with less bias, but coming back to the level of the individual's own identity construct, what does he or she intend to do with any new links to specific races to which they might be connected to genetically?

For some people who might refer to themselves as belonging to a larger group whose direct ancestry has been lost, this new genetic identity is very welcoming as it apparently gives the relief of finding their way back home after a long wandering in a strange land where they are largely considered and treated like outsiders. In the case of some African Americans, people who acknowledge and redefine their identity based on the new genetic information might want to visit their ancestral "homeland". Ghana, West Africa, is a frequent and historic site of such "homecomings". Presently, an estimated one-thousand African-Americans live in Ghana and about ten-thousand visit every year. Those who will emigrate to or visit places where their ancestors may have lived will find themselves grappling with economic and new social issues. They will realize that making a living is just as important as, or maybe even more important than settling in their new-found home. For this reason, the idea of formalizing their new identities by way of applying for citizenship in another country may not come with such great appeal. At this point, a second identity is imposed, not by society or the state, but by economic lines. The richer African American stock as result might be able to >purchase' their identities as first generation "African African-Americans". Those who settle down in an African country with the hope of eventually living in a place where they will be a part of the majority and welcomed as next-of-kin will encounter a Ghanaian population that only perceives them as being members of an >economic racial group' (America) whose culture differs entirely from theirs. In Ghana, they will find laws that have not been updated to welcome dual citizenship and which will therefore exclude African African-Americans from taking positions in government. Here, they encounter a new form of discrimination based on their political origin. With a history of foreigners who seem friendly at first but who exploit natives in the end, it will take a long period of time to fully accept their new citizens. This is to say that although phenotypically similar, Ghanaians still see them as being foreigners and even more so, defined by the United States of America. The idea of the homogeneity of all blacks is a virtual myth. In the article, Racial Politics and Cultural Identity in Trinidad's Carnival, Allahar and Zavitz state, "These divisions are real, but are generally masked by sentimental and ideological appeals to a diasporic unity and identity in which co-ethnic brothers and sisters are easily accepting of one another." This is also evidence that since race or identity are often imposed by society, definitions and ideas of race (including the prioritization of the different aspects of the identity of an individual) differ from culture to culture.

The decision to consider particular aspects of a person's identity (for example, >American-ness' over >black-ness') is circumstantial and most often driven by several socioeconomic factors. Politics also determines to a large extent, what our views of race/identity.

The Future of Genetic Backgrounds

Joshua Frisch

KEYWORDS: phenotype, microethnic, macroethnic, United States, ethnicity, biodiversity, gene pool, race

What does it mean to be American? I am not talking about whether you are an actual citizen of the United States or not. I am talking about, however, ancestry. How can someone decipher their ancestral background and say, "I am 100% full-blown American"? This task is almost impossible since the gene pool of this country is so large and vastly diverse that gene flow is expanding almost exponentially. With "interracial" mating on an upswing, it is becoming increasingly harder to say that someone is "white" or "black", because more people are being born that have parents of clearly different ethnic backgrounds. The United States is usually referred to as a "melting pot" of cultures, and this is truer today than ever before.

Gene flow has always occurred in the United States, even in colonial times. It was not uncommon for land owners to have sex with their slaves, and then for slaves to bear a child from the relationship. This trend only increased as increasingly different ethnic groups came to the United States searching for prosperity and freedom B though most ethnic groups stayed in certain areas of big cities and would try to socialize with their own kind. Yet as the people of the cities moved to the suburbs, it became increasingly difficult for ethnic groups to stay together and soon people of different backgrounds were living next to each other and going to school with one another. The gene pool became more diverse than ever as these ethnically different people started to produce offspring together.

Even with the closer living proximity, people were still trying to find mates with a bias towards phenotypic similarity, allowing people to still socially divide themselves into macroethnic groups. This trend still occurs today, with the best example being the "Latinos". Most "Latinos" speak Spanish, and have some sort of cultural background based in Central or South America. Sure, Puerto Rican "Latinos" may look totally different than Peruvian "Latinos", but it doesn't matter, because they have many of the same cultural items including language, religion, and some festivals. This allows for two things to happen: 1) the gene pool becomes more diverse since people from different geographical locations have offspring and 2) it shows that people are starting to look more at phenotypic similarities than genetic or ethnic similarities. What this means in laymen's terms is that as people start to look the same, their genetic makeup is becoming more diverse.

Now you might be thinking, "How is this possible? Shouldn't people look more different if their genetic makeup is different?" Not really. If you think about it in ethnic terms, certain ethnic groups have distinct physical features, i.e. many people from Scandinavia have blond hair, and along with the phenotype, their genetic makeup is fairly similar. Now if you cross breed different ethnic groups over several generations, the distinct groups are now no longer distinct phenotypically, because they may have certain traits that are inherent in other ethnic groups. Sure, people will still look different, but the fact is that people can't be separated into distinct ethnic groups based on their physical appearance. This is the stage that we are presently at in the United States and Canada. Ethnicity is no longer a major proponent in the mating process; culture has become a strong influence on how people should choose their mate.

Most people look at two things when trying to find their ultimate mate: 1. are they physically attracted to that person? and 2. what are their cultural beliefs? Both questions are influenced by American culture. People are now no longer worried about whether the person they are dating is Italian or Pakistani, however, they are more interested in whether the person believes in the same ideological ideas as they do. Now you may be wondering how this affects the diversification of the gene pool. Since religion and other ideological views are no longer specific to certain geographic locations (with the exception of a few) people of different ethnic backgrounds can find compatibility with each other based on their religious views, and in affect have offspring. Let me give an example. I am a Jew with an ethnicity based in Germany. I meet a nice Jewish girl whose ethnic background is Israeli. Who we look like we are from different locations, but our cultural upbringing makes us want to date each other. Our offspring will have traits from both ethnicities, diversifying the gene pool. Along with this, people are inclined to choose their mate based on whether they are attracted to the person based on physical appearance and personality, helping break down the ethnic walls even more.

So now that we have an understanding of what is occurring in the United States, we can look towards the future and try to hypothesize about what the effects of all this gene flow will be. Let's first look at what will happen to ancestry. Now that people are starting to ignore ancestry and are becoming more liberal in whom they choose as their mate, they are also becoming more and more liberal on what they believe their ancestry is. For instance if, a half Italian, half Portuguese man mates with an Ethiopian woman, their offspring has 3 different ancestries. Which will they pick? Will they pick one at all? I believe that the offspring will choose based on physical appearance first and social surroundings second. If the offspring looks more like the Ethiopian mother, than they will more than likely claim their mother's ancestry because they will feel connected to her. If someone else says that the offspring looks like more like them (such as of Kenyan ancestry), then they will also feel connected to them. Now if the offspring is brought up in a surrounding where most people look like and have ancestry more similar to the father, than the offspring will claim their father's ancestry so they can better identify with their surroundings. As time progresses and people with multiple ancestries mate with each other, the offspring may look like they are European, but claim Kenyan ancestry, making the whole idea of grouping people by ancestry moot.

Physical appearance, I also believe, is headed towards a less important role when dealing with mating. As people continue to have "interracial" offspring the physical appearance of people will eventually become more similar as time progresses. I'm not saying that within 100 years everyone will look the same, but I do believe that people will start to ignore physical appearance based on generalizations of phenotypes. This is tied directly into the notion that ethnic ancestry is becoming less and less clear. If people care less about where they come from, or where they think they come from, they will care less about what their mate should look like, and just find the one (or ones) that they feel is compatible with them. I believe that people will base their choice of mate on how comfortable they feel, rather than look at ethnicity first. And what makes someone feel comfortable with another person? I believe that it is based on cultural ideals and other ideologies.

If people will no longer associate with each other in terms of ethnicity or physical appearance, what will bring them together? I think that what people believe in is what will bring them together. More and more one is seeing groups of ancestrally and physically different people associate with each other, based solely on the fact that they like the same things, or they believe in the same thing. This is the trend I believe Americans, and humans in general, are heading. Our brains are what catapulted our prehistoric ancestors to new heights, so why shouldn't it do the same to us? The trend in society today seems to be that people who have similar beliefs are more inclined to be around each other. Just look at our government, Democrats and Republicans are almost always divided on every issue brought up in the government. Is it because they are from different ethnic backgrounds? No, it's because they don't believe in the same things. If people believe in the same things or think the same way, they will more than likely feel comfortable with each other, and hence associate with one another or a group that thinks the same way.

So what does this mean for individuality? In the future, people will probably see themselves as more of an individual than people today do because with less ethnic constraints people will have the freedom to believe what they want and thus find who they really are. They will still associate with certain groups of people, but I believe that they will have more opportunity to go from one group to another, and their offspring can go to a totally separate group if they wish. And if people do decide to take their ethnicity into account, they can see that they may not be the stereotypical person that their ethnicity is associated with, making them more of an individual.

So let's go back to what this means for the gene pool and biodiversity as a whole. With more individuality and lack of ethnic constraints, people will start to find mates in people that people today never thought would be possible, which means that the gene pool will eventually be global. Sure there will still be pockets of people with a constrained gene pool, but if people start to find others that are like them from different parts of the world, the gene pool will eventually could become completely global. I am not sure what the effects on the species will be when and if this occurs, but one hypothesis that I have is that people will eventually start to live in cultural groups, eventually restarting an ethnic ancestry based on the geographic locations of the cultural groups.

People always want to associate themselves with others like them. It used to be solely based on "race" but as people continue to have "interracial" offspring, ethnicity starts to become transparent, so people must look elsewhere. In the 21^st century people will begin to stop classifying others by their phenotypic makeup, but will rather look at their cultural background, more so than we do today. The gene pool is growing and who knows what will happen to us genetically, but we humans will be more the same than ever before.

In Search of African Identity

Abdullah Pope

KEYWORDS: Africa, motherland, African-American, identity, racism

Since I was a child, I have been obsessed with Ethiopia and its people. Even as I write this, I recoil at the word obsession, but truly that is the only word that I believe will encompass the curiosity that is the engine for my intrigue. I have dreamed of its landscape. I have been there in my mind so many times that I have memorized every rift in every valley, the slope of every hill, and the sweetest smells that blow in the breeze of my imagined nation. The land of thirteen months of sunshine calls me. It beckons me home to stand at the headwaters of the Nile, the throbbing heart of east Africa. It calls me to partake of its injera and strengthen myself in an attempt to heal the time that I have been away. The throaty sound of Amharic, Tigrinya, and Guaragigna sound like milk and honey to my ears. The cadence lulls me to sleep at night as I drift wondering if they are preparing for my arrival. I can already hear the whisperings of peace and feel the trinity of kisses of Wollo women as their gabis drift in the sullen breeze of the approaching rains. The smell of coffee perfumes their breath as they tell of news of the centuries which have passed in my absence.

Time alleviates itself as an obstacle, for I will be in the arms of a mother who has heard the cries of a child who looks identical to the ones who perished in years past. I share their brown eyes that speak of hardship and rejoice in the coming of a new tomorrow. Even when my tongue speaks a bastard language, Ethiopia understands me, for my tanned skin is my identity and a national flag that I parade with pride. I obey the command of the Honorable Marcus Garvey and stretch forth my hands toward Ethiopia, but my alarm clock shatters the peaceful dream and I awake clutching the cold morning air of an American morning. I am only left with the elusive images of a dream that plays like a bad rerun on an old television that receives transmission via aluminum foil. This has not stopped the pondering of my heart in asking if the people of old Africa will accept a new son born in that broken dream that I call America.

Malcolm X once said "simply because a cat has kittens in the oven, it does make them biscuits." I am the kitten in the oven. With centuries past since Africans were taken and sold in the new world, do we as African-Americans or even debatably, Americans, have any social ties to Africa itself. It is my belief that although many people of African descent in the Diaspora share uncompromised genetic links with Africa and wear the phenotypic normalities of the African continent, many have no tolerance for Africa or Africans themselves. The measure of "civilization" which has unfortunately become synonymous with forward thinking and moral goodness has been historically evaluated in the west in terms of technology and economic might. This translates into an ever widening gap in terms of social identity and acceptance for Africans and African-Americans alike. The "gift of colonial independence" has left the African economy crippled. With nearly half of the African population living below two dollars a day, it ranks highest among the poorest populations of the world. It is forced to sell its produce and natural resources at negotiable prices, with the buyer often being the one who determines the price, while it purchases at or above market price simply to subsist. With the new pandemic of HIV/AIDS and visiting famines, Africa has become a source of social disgust and offending identity for many of its kin. Many African-Americans shy away from being referred to as Africans because of the social and economic hardships that are associated with the continent. This is evident across the Americas and can be witnessed even in the terminology and self Blabeling used throughout places like Brazil where there are more than 300 terms used to designate skin color C from the dark-skinned crioulo to the light-skinned brancarao. We can also witness the effects of this alienation from an African identity in the ever changing labels of Afro-American, Black and African-American. There exist further questions about who has the right to call themselves African-American. Is it recent immigrants from Africa, who are African-Americans? Or is it the people of the Diaspora, many of which who came here during the slave trade that qualify? I believe that it is one's own personal issue as to what they choose to label themselves, if anything at all, but as it stands, it is an issue that contributes to the lack of accord within our communities.

The rift in social identity, however, is not the exclusive fault of African-Americans. I was once told a story by a friend of mine about how her mothers face became scarred. The woman, who is Ethiopian, recently emigrated from Canada and was told upon her arrival to be wary of young black people because of their supposed propensity to rob and use violence against others. One afternoon, the woman was walking to the market when she assumed that she was being followed by a young black man who trailed behind her. Even though she, at the time, she did not take into account that the young man may have had lived in Washington D.C., a city with a large African American population just been using the same pathway to get to his destination that she was using to get to the store. The woman subsequently increased her pace and began to run. While she was running from her imaginary attacker, she tripped and fell on the concrete scraping her face in the process. The young black man who was behind her witnessed this, and came to assist the woman by helping her to her feet. Although this is the story of someone that I know personally, the parable is not unique in terms of the [identity] perceptions of Africans towards African-Americans. I have been told by West Africans, that African-Americans are lazy and make excuses about their lack of social progress in this country, using the same language that white conservatives often use when addressing the issue of black social progress.

I believe that we must begin to view intraracial racism as just as dangerous and destructive a force as any other forms of racism. As Africans or African-Americans, we share a common identity of colonialism and social oppression, even if the cultural similarities have become somewhat diluted. We have to begin to foster an understanding of each other in an attempt to attain solidarity and consequential economic and social progress. Just as the American Jews strive to promote Israel, no matter one's moral stance on the issue of Zionism, we Africans must also do the same for our continent, minus the violence. In order to further social progress and instill pride in our future generations, we must begin to see the similarities in ourselves. This will increase the economic might of Africa, even from afar, and help to ensure that its inhabitants, directly and indirectly, have a vote in their own future. Until we can shake off the yoke of mental colonialism and divisions amongst ourselves we will not begin to feel unified or witness the progress that will prove to be beneficial to us in securing our future. It remains my greatest hope that African-Americans will begin to invest economically and socially in Africa, on the basis of a shared identity, and in turn Africans will welcome home many of their forgotten kin. And in this dream, lie the roots of a meaningful African identity.

Do We Lack the Cognitive Machinery to be Non-Racist?

Joe Jakas

KEYWORDS: attributes, human variability, species, race, bias, survival

Modern culture's perception of human biodiversity would be accurately described as wholly superficial among adults. It appears that it is almost preprogrammed into the human "computational machinery" to identify an unfamiliar individual immediately by age, sex, and race. Using these three specific attributes is a very inaccurate method of recognizing and distinguishing the character of another human being. While this method of recognition may be inaccurate, it is the common process by which many cultures believe they assign human variability. The real variability comes with who we really know through our histories and our experiences.

What of these three particular attributes? Age and sex are most often a clearly obvious observation programmed into the human "computational machinery". These attributes do not directly correlate to the idea of human variability but rather of social relations and interaction. The third attribute of race is quite different from the other two predetermined characteristics of age and sex (which up until recent decades were unalterable and obvious to even the most oblivious observer) and is not nearly as clear cut as the other two.

To categorize a person by race is a simple task. By simply looking at another person, anyone can immediately place them into one race or another. The simplicity arises due to one of the applications of the term race. A race is any population of humans who share one or more particular characteristics. To understand how humans observe each other cross-culturally, it is important to understand what attributes are associated with race. By understanding these attributes, it will be easier to understand the marking of one's identity and the consequences of modern societies racial profiling and character assessment.

One of the easiest attributes race is tied to is skin color. Skin color is used commonly because it is obvious instantly. The color of ones skin is not hidden, commonly not alterable, and it has become a definition and identity of who you are. When observing and defining another culture, skin color is often the first definition one places on a person (i.e. this person is white, black, brown, yellow, red, etc.). To understand the inaccuracy of this categorization of races under skin color, it is necessary to look at other attributes which are associated with race. Before we do that, I feel it would be important to assume that skin color racial categorization is accurate. Therefore we would have to assume that all whites have something in common, culturally, as well as blacks, browns, etc.

If only it were as simple as categorizing and identifying someone by their skin color. The problem that arises is that there are an incredibly large number of other attributes which people associate with race. Another attribute to add is that of religion. Many religions are defined as being races including the Jews, the Muslims, the Christians, the Hindus, as well as countless others. It is common to be racially identified by a religion. For example, I am a Jew. Because of this, I can be categorized with about 13 million other people. For Christians and Muslims, the number is much greater. Is it now assumed that religion is an accurate representation of race? Again, to understand the inaccuracy of race, let us assume that religion is a perfectly accurate categorization of racial identities.

Now we have defined two large attributes associated with race: skin color and religion. We have assumed that both are accurate. It is obvious that each skin color can not be paired with a corresponding religion. In other words, all Christians are not White and all Jews are not Black; all Whites are not Christian and all Blacks are not Jews. Now, racial identities have to be a combination of attributes which our cultures have established. I will be using myself as an example for the essay to continuously add racial attributes. So as of this point, I am a "White Jew".

What other attributes do modern cultures assign to other humans? Another obvious attribute is that of nationality. For this example it can be assumed that nationality refers to country affiliation. Our world is made up of hundreds of countries, and therefore we now have hundreds of attributes which can be assigned to a person. One can be American, Japanese, Brazilian, Mexican, Lebanese, Nigerian, Bulgarian, Australian, etc. Again, the previous two attributes do not apply for most countries. All Americans are not Yellow and Christian; all Brazilians are not Black and Muslim; all Nigerians are not Red and Hindu. While the amount of people who fit the mentioned attribute descriptions may be very small or non-existent, the point of the matter is that one can not assume anything more from nationality than can be assumed from skin color and religion. So now there has to be another distinction of nationality. I am now a White Jewish American.

Nationality is also trickier than skin color or religion since it is an attribute that is commonly changed. For example, say I was born in Burma, and was moved at a young age to France. Am I Burmese or French? Am I both? Let's say I am French because I adapted to the culture of my particular area in France and all my peers are from France. Now say, for example, Burmese citizens are commonly Black, and French citizens are commonly White, but I am Brown. Say Brown people are most common in Canada. It would be inaccurate to assume that I was Canadian from my skin color, and inaccurate to assume I was Burmese because I was born there and moved at an early age. What accurate identification could be placed on me from my skin color and my nationality? Modern cultures could make many assumptions about a person by using the common acceptable attributes used in categorizing a person. By only observing three separate attributes, I feel it is apparent that these attributes are not an accurate description of who a person is biologically and personally.

The apparent "miscategorization" of people by racial attributes should now be obvious. The "miscategorization" becomes still more obvious when attributes such as language, ancestry, appearance (i.e. hair color, glasses, weight, etc.), personal interests (i.e. recreation, music, hobbies, etc.), and countless others. Defining a person by racial attributes is clearly inaccurate. It becomes extremely difficult to pin a person's biological variability from another by simply categorizing them into a race. Any two White people, or Muslim people, or Mexican people, or Chinese speaking people can be extremely different biologically and even culturally. Two important questions arise from the cross-cultural categorization of people. Why, after the apparent inaccuracy of racial categorization, do we identify ourselves with any number of particular races or groups? The answer is that it is that much easier to connect with a person when there is a racial tie between you. But why do we need to have connections between people? We need ties because hardly anyone enjoys being alone.

To explain the answer to my first question I will use a few examples from my own life. To use these examples I am going to use the race of locality. What I mean by locality is the grouping of people by their living location within a location within a location. Locality separates races (race now defined as any group of people as they define themselves) down to a single person. For example, I am proud to be going to the University of Maryland in the United States. A couple of years ago I lived on North Campus at the University of Maryland and I was proud of this as well. For a semester I lived in the Cambridge Community in Centreville hall. I was proud of both of these. In Centreville hall I lived on the Sixth Floor in the corner room by the Elevator in a triple. Within the triple I had the bottom bunk near the window. At each level I could easily separate myself into each one of these categories when necessary and fully be attached to one group one minute, but fully unattached to them the next.

For example, when I found out I was going to the University of Maryland, I held my head up high as a student of that particular University in front of my long time high school friends and was separated from them when convenient (it was mostly convenient during sporting events where Maryland would compete against one of their schools). When Centreville had competitions against Cumberland Hall across the quad, I whole heartedly abandoned my union with Cambridge Community and was solely a part of Centreville. When the North Side of Cambridge battled against South Side in a game of Capture the Flag, I disassociated myself with half of Centreville in support of my new group. When I played a game of cards against my roommate, I was all for myself and not my fellow man who was closer to me in location than anyone else on Earth.

Most of these examples of my separation focus around competition. When competition is involved, separation from certain groups is necessary, even from someone whom you may share a room with. Competition is a huge factor in the separation of people. When humans are living in an area where resources are scarce and only the strong will survive, they will unite with anyone they can in order to become the strongest. Why then unite in categories of race? It is clear, genetically, that all humans are extremely similar, but for thousands of years, how were we to understand this lack of biological variability. When a group of Homo sapiens left Africa and came back thousands of years later looking distinctly different physically, what else was a primitive group of humans supposed to assume except that these people were a different species? When Cortez landed in the Americas, the Aztecs thought he was a god. The ancient Greeks categorized everyone who was different from them (language, appearance, culture) as barbarians. The assumption that something which looks different is a different species is not unrealistic at all.

It is apparent that the ignorance of humans throughout history has created the modern racial definitions. Assuming that someone who is skinnier, darker, and can not understand your language is a different species would not be a difficult task at all for ancient humans or even not so ancient humans. It was only recently that modern evolutionary theory and genetic comprehension were established.

Competition among groups of similar species is a natural occurrence. Wolves and other pack animals have distinct competition with other sub-species as well as among their own species. Pack animals tend to separate themselves into smaller groups in order to survive and attain resources. Perhaps humans were only attempting to do the same. It is clear that humans separated into groups. As groups changed in appearance, it was only a natural instinct to associate with common human's appearance wise. It would also be common to associate with common humans locationally as well as culturally (e.g., language, religion).

Since humans are seemingly more intelligent than all other species, it was natural to extend the primal separation of groups to new attributes of culture as they were created (i.e. religion, language, history, etc.). As humans gained the ability to write down the history of their lives, they were able to create an identity which was as unique to them as any species may be from another. Since animals lack the advances in technology we have it is natural for animals to remain separated only by instinct and need to survive, and not by superficialities such as history, religion, or language. Human biodiversity today is no different than it was thousands of years ago. Our need to unite to survive seems to be our reasoning for placing superficial attributes to other humans we met over the course of human history.

If a hyena sees a lion, the hyena will likely run away. The hyena will go back to its fellow hyenas. Humans did the same and still do. Even though we are the same species, we instinctively believe we are not because of our differences. Even if every human were instantly blinded, we would still need to find a group to connect with. We would form groups by language or voice, or feel. Some new identity would arise because we need our identities to survive. What happens to the lone wolf if he is ostracized by his pack? He will die unless he finds a new group to attach to. But who will accept him? No one who fears him will accept him. With humans, our ignorance leads to our fears. We know what is similar because we know ourselves. Therefore we do not fear what is alike.

Our identity is created not only out of our need to survive the competition of life but for a sense of belonging. This belonging gives us knowledge that we will survive the competition and the dangers because we have others to cling to. We also look deeper into our relationships. We can connect with others through complex communication and experience. Another example from my life is my experience in a land far away from my home. I traveled to Israel from my suburban upstate New York location and found myself among total strangers. I formed an extremely strong bond with my particular group of travelers despite our many differences. My need to belong and be understood created an instant relationship with my fellow group-mates. While I was on the trip I ran into a close friend from my hometown back in America. As soon as I saw my friend I was excited to the point of madness and immediately departed from my group to talk to him. We conversed about our separate experiences in the land far away from home and although we were the closest of friends, there was not enough understanding between the two of us about our separate trips. I had a stronger connection with my group than my best friend for the time being. The lack of understanding came from the nature of experience and its ability to define a group.

Experience is as important an attribute any other racially defining characteristic. When humans experience things with each other, they connect as they never would separately. When people go through incredible experiences with others, they instantly know they and the other people involved have a significant understanding of what they have felt that no one else could ever possibly have. Experience has an amazing power to overrule all other attributes which we may assign to a different culture.

Humans define themselves through experience. A Jew may say his ancestors experienced hardships unique to Jews. This therefore unites him with all Jews through Jewish experiences. A Black person may say his ancestors experienced slavery and other hardships unique to the Blacks to whom he is now united to. An American may say that he escaped the confines of imperialism and colonization and therefore he is united to all Americans. Each experience we and our ancestors go through gives us what we define as our identity and what people define as our identity. Our variation stems from the realization that "we Jews survived attempts at our destruction" or "we Blacks survived slavery" or "we Americans survived an attempt to be ruled". When we emerge from these events which hurt us in our struggle for resources and the right to survive, we have unique experience in some way that no one else understands to the fullest degree.

On the simplest level, all cultures define their variability through one important aspect. We separate ourselves and others by our friends. To us, our friends are part of our personal group. To others, it is believed that anyone similar in some aspect can be a friend. Our ability as humans to form relationships with another eliminates our categorization of others. It is entirely possible to be a white person and have a black friend or a Christian friend or a gay friend or a fat friend or a really tall friend or be Hindu and have a Chinese friend or a Russian speaking friend or a friend who plays football. There are infinite attributes which we cross-culturally associate to each other and are often negative. The truth of the matter is that even though we may associate our friends with their attributes, they become insignificant once they are among our group of friends. The true attribute we associate to ourselves which separates us from each other is this: I will have my friends, and you will have your friends which we have accumulated through experience of our ancestor's lives, our phenotypic similarities, or our personal experiences. Our friends become our people, our own race. It all comes down to who is friends with whom as our true observed biological and cultural variation. The more friends we have and the larger our race of friends becomes, the easier it is to survive.

Past and Contemporary Studies of Race and Human Biodiversity

Almaz Wilson

KEYWORDS: society, race biological anthropology, species, classification, Darwin, human variation

Imagine sitting in a room full of a small group of diverse people when a person shouts the word, "race." Feelings of anger, pride, happiness or even sadness, just may be some of the emotions flying through the room. Race, only a word, has been the determining factor of the fate of some people's lives. The term race may not be the cause of such uneasy feelings of the group; "racism" is the culprit. Racism in the world has been the root of many wars and outrageous events such as slavery and the Holocaust. While the term race was new, scientists started to try and figure out the biological concepts of race. Biological anthropologists based their entire practices on theories of race, which was highly un-credible. The "fathers" of biological anthropology connected their knowledge with the scientists of that time. Scientists were clearly of one race and taught the world with very biased and prejudice opinion. While evolution is the backbone of biological anthropology in the present, the ideas used then were to focus solely on racial categorization.

Instead of being interested in understanding the biological concepts of humans, most focused on classifying by superior and inferior traits. Long before Buffon introduced the term "race," Carl Linnaeus invented a classification system to his own advantage. While traveling the world in hopes to classify every living species, Linnaeus devised a formal taxonomy of human varieties based upon physical appearance. H. afers, H. europeaus and H. asiaticus were the only three types of "species" that were distinguished. Of course the variations came with their own stereotypes, which still remain today. Europeans were classified by positive characteristics and negative stereotypes classified people of color. Scientists later realized that classifying these groups as different species was incorrect, and introduced race. From then on, racism began and the pursuit of "superior" races began their goal of "purification." Even evolutionary concepts presented by biological anthropology "father" Charles Darwin, pointed out the importance of selecting mates like one-self. Another early leader Adolph Hitler based his ideologies on the writings of German anthropologists D.H. Kerler and Nicholai Hartman (Krzensinski 1945: 36, Zoretic). Hitler persuaded virtually an entire nation to hate another group because of their race/ethnicity. Self-preservation and superiority have been major factors that accompany the race concept. Racism has been the root of some of the most evil monstrosities that we have inflicted upon one another.

Until recently, there wasn't a large significant interest in human variation, but instead on racial characteristics (Wienker). A big change in the field of biological anthropology occurred once society began accepting evolution as the backbone of the study. The race concept today cannot be easily disassembled. It is a biased, complex opinion. The race concept today cannot be easily disassembled and a concept that has become opinion based and complex. Most anthropologists today conclude little validity in the race concept, as we have known from the past. As well as progress of understanding human evolution, genetics have unlocked doors to biological concepts in understanding variation. Genetics has allowed for scientists to learn about migration patterns and population growth with out focusing on race. The genetic variability can tell us more a group of people than the color of skin. In fact, the color of one's skin does not tell their race or ethnicity, but the genetic code tells a deeper story. It has been proven that most genetic variation exists within populations, rather than between. Between the 1970's and 80's the methods used for teaching students about biological anthropology began to undergo a transformation. During the 1980's, most texts began incorporating facts that supported the ideas that human race are not a biological reality (Benfer). Even later in the 1990's, the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists adopted formal statements regarding human biological variation. The statements ensured the notion that human races were legitimate biological divisions of modern humanity (Wienker). Due to the technological advancement in science, we are now realizing that beneath the skin, there is very little distinguishable variation.

So why are races necessary in the world if biologically we are all very similar? First, race is used and created as a social construct. In the western world, race is used to classify and stereotype groups of people to fit into a cast system. As there are and always have been casts of rich and poor, there are racial categories. In the United States racial status is very limited to "black and white." Even though the U.S. obviously consists of a large group of diverse human beings, the government ignores the other races that make up the country. "Black vs. white" stereotypes are exploited by the media, government and the educational institution. While filling out a job application or a medical form, a person may be asked to choose their race. As a lot of people in the United States are of mixed origins, they must only choose one racial category. This unwillingly casts social and economic limitations amongst a group of people. On the United States census for example, the term "Hispanic" groups all Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans into one mass identity (Benfer). This type of grouping excludes other Latinos or "Hispanic" groups of people who may not identify as one of the three. The difficult concept to understand with race is the meaning of a race itself. There is a difference between race and ethnicity and also questions about culture relating to both of those factors. Human beings should not be limited to classifying themselves into one category. This would mean for most, denying part of who they are. With already so much confusion in the U.S especially regarding race, people tend to loose themselves when they are forced to choose. American does not pride their citizens in accepting their individual identities. Instead, America shuns those who do. There are perks for those who identify as one race and they are (supposedly) accepted into a group. This may be the way of the western world, but all over the globe, countries have their own concepts of race. In Brazil for instance, there were more than three-dozen terms of "racial" description noted in a small village, populated by less than a thousand people (Wienker). As well, there are not as many race related problems in Brazil as in the United States. It is evident western world functions is largely based on social class, which really translates into racial categories. Studies of race have been used to oppress and judge rather than enlighten.

Skin color definitely makes a difference in western society. In one-way or another, race may have an effect on economic or even health status. As far as economics are concerned, it isn't rare to see a racial group associated with a certain standpoint in the economy. In the United States, there is a higher incidence of poverty among African Americans than of whites in certain areas. Along with poverty, come the factors that influence physiological implications. Lower economic standings can influence things such as mood and emotional turmoil. Emotional turmoil can then affect blood pressure and eventually lead to heart disease (CHD). Therefore, CHD is seen in higher rates of African Americans than any other race in the United States. The social factor of race now becomes a health related issue. Scientists must then ask the question, do racial factors significantly affect our heath? There are arrays of reasons why race may affect health related ailments amongst Americans and are correlated through ones social classification. Not only does low economic status cause stress, but also dealing with discrimination on a daily basis harbors psychological ailments. This goes on to consider health and race in a holistic way. To encounter race in a holistic manor is difficult in itself because of the complexity if the subject. Is it even possible to think racially and holistically? The two in the same group seem contradictory. If one wants to view a subject in a holistic manor, they must look beyond race to see the entire unique picture. This means studying them with out the stereotypes that have been the groundwork for westernized thinking. Not only have scientists grouped racial groups economically, they have exploited race to group people by intelligence.

Since race is based solely on phenotypic variation, how can we categorize a group of people based on their race and intelligence? Past tests of intelligence, personality and social factors have been highly biased. The group with the most power is always going to be the group that is in control of the economic and intellectual factors. Environment and opportunities are going to be major factors in testing for intellectual standing. Also, what is view, as being "intellectual" will make a difference. The social restraints of everyday life keep one group from experiencing the same obstacles or opportunities as another. For example, the IQ test has been used for years to decide who is the smartest of the races. African Americans who took this test are known be poorer average performers than whites. This does not mean as a whole that African Americans are not as smart as whites. It does however convey that tests are biased based on lifestyle, environment and education. While tests were being created by white people, black people were not getting the same "quality" education as whites. From a biological perspective, there were no differences found in specific number of marker genes between whites and blacks that would support the test results. It is clear that there is no genetic evidence significant enough to conclude differences in the individual test takers. Even as these tests were analyzed using biological factors, the research of the race concept remains high.

As seen previously, the focus of human biodiversity has been cast on racial differences. There are other factors, which anthropologists could consider to gain knowledge about a culture such as age and gender. However, these studies are not as popular as the studies on race. Some limitations of studying gender and human biodiversity could be the societal differences. The way that one society or culture perceives sex (as in male or female) may differ from that of another society. Gender studies can also reveal information about gender specific diseases in populations. It is a possibility that there may be information to gain from gender studies than scientist focus on. If a hierarchy of prejudice was constructed, gender related problems would definitely fall under race related ones. Maybe because gender is more clear-cut then race, scientists are often fascinated by racial variation. It seems that there would be more racial variation than sexual variation and thus the focus is on the leading subject. The on-going racial problems that have plagued societies for centuries are also a reason for anthropologists to continue digging deeper into racial construction.

Social, racist, economic and psychological factors influence research priorities among biological anthropologists. Race in America is one of the most heated debates of all time. Contemporary anthropologists concentrate on understanding these accounts because so many humans have suffered on account of their skin color. Upon understand human biological diversity, anthropologists must discredit race as a means of information. Race alone cannot explain the biological changes within a population, the intellectual ability nor the susceptibility for disease. This is the main reason why race is known as a social construct. With out the societal values, what would race mean? In a world without status and other such social factors, why would race be of importance? Perhaps for health related reasons, which would then depend the work of geneticists to reveal the answers. Even though genetics has played a large part of contemporary biological anthropology, we are still looking for answers. The result of the human genome proved that there is variation amongst a large population. The focus on one's skin should be of little importance when there is little variation of the genetic code. It is unfortunate that the teaching of western societies is one that focuses strongly on racial differences. Instilled in our minds since childhood we understand that black is different from white. How a child perceives depends on the teachings and surroundings that they learn. Biological anthropologists provide a different way of teaching our youth. As children are also taught that it is what's inside that counts, does America really support this theory? This question must be answered by the continuous study of human biodiversity with exploration of factors other than race.

Genetic Uniqueness in the face of Historical Racism

Luis Aparicio

KEYWORDS: identity, history, family tree, Y-chromosome, mtDNA, genetics, lineage, Seminole Tribe, ancestry

There comes a point in our lives when we all question who we really are. Everybody comes to their own unique conclusion, and we all try to find our answers in different ways. Some look to religion, others to history, and some even turn to science to answer this question. Today, in a time when major genetic advancements seem to be occurring on a weekly basis, more and more people are turning to genetics to find out who their ancestors were in order to develop a better concept of their self -identity. Although DNA can tell us a great deal about our ancestry, we have to remember that our ancestry does not equal self-identity.

Our ancestry is very important to us, so we seek to find out who we are and where we came from. We all have different ways of finding out who we are. Some do it by taking on challenges, others by comparing their accomplishments to their peers, some do it through religion, and others do it by looking into their family history.

Self-identity can be greatly influenced by whom our ancestors were, so we have to be careful to understand the methods used to find our ancestors. There are various methods that we can use to find our ancestors. We can look at our family tree, trace back our surnames, or look at our DNA. Interestingly enough, we might find some ancestors with one process that do not appear in using the other two methods.

Using Family Trees and Surnames to Discover Self-Identity

Using a family tree to trace back ones ancestors can be effective, but this method is not without its complications. To begin with, family trees can be very complicated B especially in today's society where divorces are common, people marry others who have children from previous marriages, adoptions occur regularly, and brothers and sisters may have different fathers. These complex relationships can make family trees confusing. Family trees can also be problematic to one's ancestral search because our direct ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on) double each generation that we go back (Olson, 2002). Another problem with family trees is what geneticist call nonpaternity. This concept states that although we can be certain that the people in our maternal line are our ancestor, we do not always have this certainty that our fathers and grandfathers are truly our biological ancestors (unless a paternity test is done). Although the chances of two babies being switched at birth are rather low, medical students are told that around 5 to 10 percent of the fathers identified on their babies birth certificates are not the true biological fathers (Olson, 2002). In cases such as these, children may never know who their biological relatives and ancestors really are.

Using ones family tree or tracing back the individuals surname will likely get similar results, but there are some factors that can obscure who we consider to be our ancestors. Tracing one's surname is not the most accurate form of tracing ancestry because it only follows one or two of the branches of one's lineage and ignores relatives on both of one's grandmothers' side of the family. As mentioned before, ones direct ancestors double for every generation traced back. This means that ten generations ago, or 200 years ago (one generation equaling twenty years) in 1803, each one of us had 1,024 direct ancestors living, and some were possibly interacting with each other (Olson, 2002). Since we only receive our surname from one of these individuals, using one's surname to trace back ancestry can be rather misleading. Considering that one's ancestors probably did not live in the same part of the world or were members of the same religious group, then using this method give a misleading ancestral history. Furthermore, in cases of nonpaternity and adoptions, one's ancestral search would consist of people with a different family name than one's own. This presents a dilemma for these people because the culture and history that they associate with can be different from that of their biological ancestors.

Many in search of their self-identify feel that in order to gain an understanding of themselves they have to understand who their ancestors were and what their history and culture was. For ethnic groups such as African Americans, whose ancestors were taken as slaves from their families and native land, the ancestral information about their surnames and family trees are not accurate or do not exist before a certain point in history (Motherland). Since slave owners sold and renamed slaves, the family histories of African Americans can be impossible to trace back through methods that use family trees and surnames. With African slaves having been stripped of their heritage, many African Americans today look to Africa to find their cultural roots. For descendants of African slaves who live in countries were their ethnic group is the minority, they often do not associate themselves with the culture and history of that country, and feel that others of the majority group see them as foreigners (Motherland). Many feel that Africa holds the answers to their questions. Those whose family records are obscure or do not exist are turning to DNA to tell them who their ancestors were and where they came from. By gaining a comprehension of their ancestors, people believe that this information will give them an understanding of their identity.

Using DNA to Discover Self-Identity

Geneticists and several companies today claim that they can use a person's DNA to trace back their ancestral roots (Johnston, 2003). This is done by analyzing a person's DNA and comparing it to the DNA collected from various people around the world. Geneticist can estimate how closely related two ethnic groups are to each other by comparing the mutations in their DNA. They can also estimate how long ago two groups diverged from each other by calculating the rate at which mutations have occurred (Shute, 2001). Geneticists use mitochondria DNA to calculate the maternal line and the Y-chromosomes found only in men to trace back the paternal line. These genetic sources are used to trace back a person's ancestry because they are both passed down throughout generations with relatively few mutations (Johnston, 2003).

For those ethnic groups who cannot rely on traditional ways to trace back one's ancestry, genetics offers some insight into their ancestral history. However, the information revealed by geneticists using our DNA is not only incomplete but it can also be incorrect.

Currently there are several problems with tracing ancestry through the use of the Y-chromosome and mitochondria DNA. As mentioned before, geneticists determine an individuals ancestry by comparing their DNA to that of other people around the world. Although this is a good method, the problem lies in the fact that not enough humans have been sampled to make proper comparisons and accurate conclusion. Geneticists have also admitted that they need more accurate calculations (Shute, 2001).

By using one's Y-chromosome (if male) and mitochondrial DNA to trace our ancestry, we run into similar problems as if we had traced back our surnames. These forms of DNA only reveal information about a small portion of our ancestors. Just like with our surname, only one lineage is followed. Thus, the vast majority of our ancestors are not revealed through the use of our DNA. Since we only receive our Y-chromosome from one of our great-grandparents, and our mitochondrial DNA from one of our great-grandmothers, we are able to trace back our ancestry to only one of our four ancestors in our paternal and maternal lines. The percentage of our ancestors that we are able to trace back decreases for every generations that we trace back. Looking at just five generations ago, we are only able to trace back two of the thirty-two ancestors that we had. Any of those thirty ancestors that were not traceable with this method could be from different parts of the word, members of different ethnic groups with completely different cultures, histories and religions. The different migration patterns of males and females throughout our history also plays a factor in the amount of cultural diversity in our ancestors. An example of these different migration patterns can be seen in the genetic makeup of people living in Medellin, Colombia. People living near this city have Native American mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA from Europeans who were likely colonists who arrived from Spain (Shute, 2001). This presents a problem for people who are trying to develop self-identity by using their DNA to trace their ancestors.

Another problem with using our DNA to find our ancestors is that some of our ancestors' genetic contributions no longer exist in our DNA. This occurs because we do not carry our ancestors' entire DNA with us. Each of the 1,024 ancestors that we each had ten generations ago contributed only a small amount of their DNA to us. Some of their genetic contribution can be lost by the way that chromosomes rearrange themselves every generation. So although we are direct descendants of those individuals, our DNA might show the contrary (Olson, 2002).

The most important part about tracing back our ancestry is to find what they were like. Learning that one of our ancestors came from Northern Europe or Southern Asia does not tell us much about who we are today. Learning about our ancestors' culture is really what we are looking for. Although genetics tell us where our genes have been, they do not tell us important cultural information that we can use to develop our self-identity (James, 2001). Even if all of our ancestors were genetically similar, this does not mean that they share the same culture or history. Palestinians and Jews are political enemies, but if we were to look at their DNA we would find that these two groups are genetically indistinguishable (Shute, 2001).

Since genetics does not completely show who all of our ancestors were, it is important not to establish our entire identity based on what our DNA shows us. Those who are turning to DNA testing to better understand their ancestry should recognize that genetics has the power to disrupt their current identity. Currently, this is happening to Freedmen (descendents of former black slaves) of the Seminole tribe of Oklahoma. The membership criterion of this tribe is being debated and could possibly change to requiring members to contain Seminole Indian blood. Freemen have lived amongst the Seminoles since the seventeenth century and were officially recognized as being part of the tribe by the United States government in 1866. Freedmen were involved in Seminole politics and it is believed that a great deal of intermarriages occurred between the two groups. Descendents of these Seminoles are now being told that they will lose their tribal membership if they do not have one-eight Seminole Indian Blood. Unfortunately, some Freedmen cannot produce a genetic link to the tribe because they did not get their Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA from what is considered to be a Seminole Indian. These individuals could still have had Seminole great-grandparents, but this information does not show up on the genetic tests that we have at this time. Although they have always identified themselves as Seminoles and share the same history and culture as other Seminoles, if the membership criteria changes, many Freedmen will lose their membership and the tribal benefits that members have (Johnson, 2003). What is happening to Freedmen of the Seminole Tribe shows that our self-identity does not lie within our genes and that we have to be careful about how we interpret the results of DNA tests.

When using genetics to trace back one's ancestors, how does one decide at what generation to stop counting ancestors. Two hundred years is not that much time on an evolutionary or a historic time scale, but two-centuries ago we had over a thousand ancestors. If we keep tracing back our origins through the use of mitochondrial DNA to the point when the human population was rather small, we will find that we all have a common African Ancestor (Shute, 2001).

Developing a Positive Self-Concept

We all have different ways of developing our self-identities. There really is no right or wrong way of going about this, but the important thing is to have a positive concept of one's self. One's history and ancestry should play a role in one's identification process, but it is important that we do not make decisions about ourselves with inaccurate information. Since we cannot look to the future for information, and the past often brings up more questions than it answers, we should look at our present self to determine who we are. What are the things that we believe in, what have we accomplished, and what role do we want to play in our society, should be some of the questions that should be answered when developing one's self-identity. Our DNA contains a great deal of information, and it determines our biological makeup, but it does not determine our identity. The actual investigate of our past and the amount of time that is spent pondering our origins and who we are is likely what develops the researchers self identity and not the information that is found from the search.

What is Race? Is it A Socially Constructed or A Biologically Constructed Concept? or Both?

Eugenia Amponsah

KEYWORDS: race, culture

What is race? Who decides where a person fits in the racial, ethnic, or cultural landscape of America, and upon what criteria do they base their decision? Too often these fundamental questions about race and identity are left unaddressed by those attempting to speak about the relationships among cultural groups in modern America. While society commonly assumes that a consensus exists on the relationship of race to identity in the United States, there are competing views on this issue. Under the traditional view, race is a biological trait, susceptible to traditional classification into four general typesCCaucasoid, Monogoloid, Negroid and Australoid (that is Whites, Asians, Blacks, respectively and known to have no significant relation to culture. New and emerging views of "race," however, recognize the biological or anthropological definitions of the term, but also assert that race reflects a social construct that affects people's lives.

"Race" is a vast group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry. Race is a self‑reinforcing process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions. There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non‑ Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non‑Whites. One's race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Nor are races marked by important differences in gene frequencies (the rates of appearance of certain gene types). The data compiled by various scientists demonstrates, contrary to popular opinion, that intra‑group differences exceed inter‑group differences. That is, greater genetic variation exists within the populations typically labeled Black and White than between these populations. For instance, DNA analysis indicates that approximately 94% of physical variation lies within so-call social groups (King, 1995). Also variation in blood types within specific geographical groups is 85% but the total variation between such groups is only 15%. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another in only about 6% of their genes (Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994). This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. These findings refute the supposition that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences. This does not mean that individuals are genetically indistinguishable from each other, or even that small population groups cannot be genetically differentiated. Small populations, for example the Xhosa (South African origin)or the Basques (European Spanish origin), share more similar gene frequencies (Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994) within their group than between the two groups.

Contemporary scholars argue that "race" was a recent invention, not a product of scientific research and discovery (King, 1995). Some scientists have argued against the use of the term "race" in science. A large number of scholars in many disciplines have declared that the real meaning of race in American society has to do with social realities, quite distinct from physical variations in the human species. Some argue that race was institutionalized beginning in the 18th century as a worldview, a set of created attitudes and beliefs about human group differences.

Western notions about race and its ideology about human differences arose out of the context of African slavery (Jordan, 1974). But many peoples throughout history have been enslaved without the imposition of racial ideology. Slave traders rationalized their actions by arguing that the Africans were savages, and it was a Christian duty to save their souls. By the early part of the 18^th century, the institution of slavery was fully established for Africans and their descents. As the number of slaves grew larger and larger, and almost outnumbered the whites, the laws governing slavery became increasingly harsher. Slaveholders found it necessary to develop new arguments for defending the institution. They began to focus on physical differences, adapting the notion of the natural inferiority of African and their God-given suitability for slavery. Eventually the morphological and behavioral characterizations of Africans became more negative. This brought about the coinage of the word "race." The term "race" was used as a distinct reference for Africans, Indians and Europeans.

By focusing on the physical and status differences between the conquered and enslaved peoples, and Europeans, the emerging ideology linked the socio‑political status and physical traits together and created a new form of social identity. Proslavery leaders among the colonists formulated a new ideology that merged all Europeans together, rich and poor, and fashioned a social system of ranked physically distinct groups. The model for "race" and "races" was the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature (Scala Naturae), a semi‑scientific theory of a natural hierarchy of all living things, derived from classical Greek writings (Jordan, 1994). The physical features of different groups became markers or symbols of their status on this scale, and thus justified their positions within the social system. Race ideology proclaimed that the social, spiritual, moral, and intellectual inequality of different groups was, like their physical traits, natural, innate, inherited, and unalterable. Race ideology was a mechanism justifying what had already been established as unequal social groups; it was from its inception, and is today, about who should have access to privilege, power, status, and wealth, and who should not.

Eventually "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples (Jordan, 1974). During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of about 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust (Jordan, 1974). "Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior.

While gross physical similarities are used as shorthand for the differences among at least some of these groups, it is economic, political, and social forces, and not physical differences, that act to keep these groups internally similar and externally somewhat separate from the rest of society. "Race" is a common term to describe the difference between minority groups and the majority society, because racial difference has been the traditional justification for racial subordination. From time to time, cultural definitions of race have been invoked. For example, a line of cases excluded some persons of "Caucasian" origin or fair complexion from citizenship under an act limiting naturalization to white persons on the grounds that Hindus, Japanese, or persons of mixed European and indigenous ancestry were not commonly understood to be "white persons." While these results are rightly viewed as manifestations of white supremacy, as are the immigration laws these cases interpreted, these cases recognized that biology alone cannot define the contours of the white population. These cases also illustrate that a social definition of race is not necessarily one that operates to the benefit of members of racially subordinated groups.

Despite the apparent demise of scientific racial theory and official rejection of white supremacist ideology as the organizing principle for the United States, the idea that race is a fixed and inherited identity remains widely accepted and reflected in the law. Indeed, the rejection of supremacist and biological determinist theories of race have led many, including some members of the United States Supreme Court, to conclude that race is merely a matter of skin color with no connection to any other aspect of society; therefore, government should almost never take note of it (AJPA, 1996). For example, consider Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in a case involving race‑ conscious congressional redistricting. Importance lies in its illustration of the idea that race is fixed and inherited, simply a matter of skin color with no recognizable relation to cultural identity. According to O'Connor, racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin (AJPA, 1996).

Many researchers in biology and genetics, however, assert that in humans there is in fact insufficient categorical variation to justify the classification of humans into multiple races in a strictly biological sense. Many social scientists therefore view race as a social construct, and have sought to understand it as such, as explained later in this article. Thus, race is increasingly regarded as a non‑biological term that often could be exchanged by population.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. What about people born interracial background, who have different shades of skin color? Can they be categorized into any of these races?

In general, people tend to rely on popular perceptions of raceB race is whatever people think they are or whatever they think others are. For example, the difference between white and blacks rests on the assumption of the one-drop rule that all persons of mixed white and black ancestry are considered and treated as solely black (Harris, 2002). Most other societies with white-black population such as Latin America or South Africa, do not have one-drop rule, but rather consider color to be a continuum or have other groupings (Harris 2002). Thus there is no correct way to classify people of mixed ancestry into the American race categories-popular perceptions vary across societies and over time, reflecting historical experiences of official racism and state sanctioned discrimination.

In my opinion, there is no conceptual basis for race except racism. Racism assumes that aspects of physical appearanceBphenotype are outward manifestations of heritable traits such as abilities, properties for certain behaviors and socio-cultural characteristics. The term race, is now viewed as a social, not a biological, category to describe a population who share common features (for instance, skin color), and whose ancestors share a common geographical origin. Thus, race can be defined as a group of people loosely bound by historically contingent. How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, it can be concluded that present‑day inequalities between so‑called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

Works Cited

AJPA.

1996 "Statement of Race" American Society of Physical Anthropologist. 101:569- 57

Benfer, Robert A. Ph.D.

2002"Ethics of Race, Ethincity, and other Phenotypic Classifications in Biomedical Research" Maryland Essay's In Human Biodiversity 1 (2) Dec.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. Lula, Paol Menozzi, and Alberto Pizza.

1994 The History of Geography and Human Genes. Abridged paperback edition. Princeton; Princeton University Press.

Graves, Joseph L. Ph.D.

"The Emperor's New Clothes: Biomedical research and the Social Construction of Race"

www.aacr.ogr/3068.asp

Harris, David.

2002 "Who is Multiracial? Assessing the complexity of lived Race." American Sociology Review. 67: 614-627.

James, G.

2001 "Living in the Past". Time Europe, 157 (17), 52-54.

Johnston, J.

2003 "Resisting a Genetic Identity: The Black Seminoles and Genetic Tests

Of Ancestry." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31, 267-271.

Jordan, Winthrop.

1974 The White Man's Burden: Historical Origins of Racism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

King, James

1995 The Biology of Race. Los Angeles. University of California Press.

"Motherland: A Genetic Journey".

2003 Dir. Archie Baron. BBC.

Molnar, Steven.

2002 Human Variation 5fth edition. Prentice Hall. New Jersey.

Olson, Steve.

2002 Mapping Human History. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Shute, N.

2001 "Where We Come From." U.S. News & World Report, 13(4), 34-38.

Wienker, Curtis W.

2001 . "The Anthropological Perspective On Race: An Historical Overview" University of South Florida www.aabss.org/journal/wienker2001.jmm.html

Zoretic, Jaime.

2002 "Race and Hate" Maryland Essays In Human Biodiversity