So, What Are We?

Cynthia Ortega

 Throughout history, people have justified racism through religion and morals. Starting the 18th century, science was used to categorize humans into several different races through the use of taxonomy. One of the most influential divisions was made by botanist Carolus Linnaeus whose divisions are still used today to classify people. However, Linnaeus’ classifications were greatly based on observations and opinions. These kind of classifications were greatly biased and had no substantial evidence. The idea of “survival of the fittest,” craniometry, and intelligence testing were also attempted to justify race superiority but were unsubstantial. Entering the genomics era, there was an incentive to classify people into race through the use of DNA.

In the film, “Race: The Power of an Illusion, Episode 1,” it is explained how genetic sequences are used to compare people’s genetic make up. The idea that genes vary depending on race is a concept that was disproven. Pilar Ossorio, commentor in the film, explains that, “There’s as much or more diversity and genetic difference within any racial group as there is between people of different racial groups.” Therefore, race can not be defined through the use of genetics. Genetic information has also been used to correlate diseases with specific populations. The relationship between races, diseases, and genetics can only be described as a correlation. Populations do not have certain genetic markers that cause diseases or diseases that cause genetic markers, but rather there can be a correlation between diseases and genetic markers. As explained in the article in The Atlantic, “Genes Don't Cause Racial-Health Disparities, Society Does,” genetics link diseases to the idea of race but it does not take into consideration other factors that  make cause the correlation.

It is clear that race can not be determined solely on DNA. In order to determine race, one must observe a person’s phenotype and culture as well. An article in Harvard Magazine, “Race in a Genetic World,” explains that race is not purely a natural science but also varies depending on location and phenotype. According to Ann Morning, “Constructionism takes into account and explains the empirical observation that ideas about race vary from place to place and across time periods” (446).  Also, Robert Carter states, “[…] it has become evident, as a direct result of the growth in genomic knowledge, that existing models of ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ categorizations cannot accommodate either the complexity of human genetic variation or the universality of humankind” (548). The figure below demonstrates why there is genetic difference among the same population of people as well as between two different populations.

 The essentialist and population concepts of race contrasted with the actual patterns of genetic variation.
"Race-Are We So Different?" A Project of the American Anthropological Association

Not only is the concept of race unclear in both social science and natural science, but also for individuals. In my experience, when asked about my race, I had no idea where I belonged. I am Mexican and light-skinned, however my race was never clear to me. I never thought I was white or black. I found myself stuck in the middle of both and therefore, I was an “other.” Race is used as a tool of power but it is not successful in classifying the differing cultures, beliefs, and experiences of populations.

Works Cited

Carter, R. (2007). Genes, genomes and genealogies: the return of scientific racism?. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 30(4), 546-556. doi:10.1080/01419870701355983

Morning, A. (2007). "Everyone Knows It's a Social Construct": Contemporary Science and the Nature of Race. Sociological Focus, 40(4), 436-454.