Race as a Social Construct
Racial Classifications Have Been Invented by Societies Participants
Jul 21, 2009
Although the outward appearance and pigmentation of individual human beings can vary, the actual genetic difference between people of distinct races is quite small. In fact, according to research provided by the first scientists to decode the human genome, there was an astounding 99 percent similarity in human beings.
This landmark systematic inquiry completed in the year 2000, also found that no more than one percent accounted for differences in things like skin color, sweat glands, and resistance to disease. The National Human Genome Center of Howard University concurs with these findings and has made the following recommendations regarding race:
- When the human species is viewed as a whole, underlying genetic variation and expressed physical traits exhibit gradients of differentiation, not discrete units. Therefore, modern extant humans do not fracture into races (subspecies) based on the modern phylogenetic criteria of molecular systems.
- The biological "boundaries" between any human divisions (groups, populations, nationalities) are circumstantial and largely dependent on what traits are chosen for emphasis.
- The demographic units of human societies (and the U.S. census) are the products of social or political rules, not the forces of biological evolution. The names and characteristics of demographic groups can change and have changed over time.
- The non-existence of human races (subspecies) does not mean the non-existence of racism. racism is the structured oppression against individuals and groups defined based on physical traits that reflect an extremely limited fraction of the human genome. Racism must be addressed.
- Individuals cannot be treated as representative for all those who physically resemble them, or have some of the same ethno-historical ancestry. Ancestries of individuals and groups should be ascertained in order to evaluate differential expression of genetic effects.
The One-Drop Rule
As an example of a social construct that has had a strong influence in regards to race in the U.S., the notion of the one-drop rule has had lasting effects on the American psyche. Having roots to the antebellum period through the culture that was institutionalized slavery, the one-drop rule held that a person with any trace of African ancestry was considered black.
This was somewhat problematic especially for people of mixed race who might have been African and some other race. Or for people who looked predominantly Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic or Native American. Primarily because instead of recognizing dual heritage, American society decided to lump everyone in the same category.
This also meant that anyone who was found to be bound by the one drop rule was also automatically subject to the laws of the particular U.S. state or territory they found themselves. And this could prove problematic for people of mixed race with regard to slavery or later Jim Crow laws. Lasting well into the late 1960's the one-drop rule was upheld and applied by The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, but mostly done away with nationwide by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia 388, U.S. 1 (1967).
 |
 |
 |
 |
