Image credit, American Anthropological Association Project Race: Are We So Different, examining Evolution and Race.
Evolution and Race
Introduction to Anthropology 2016 tackled the issue of Evolution and Race with these materials:
- The chapter on “What Can Evolutionary Theory Tell Us about Human Variation?” in Anthropology: What Does it Mean to be Human? by Lavenda & Schultz.
- A September 2005 article by Alan Goodman, Three Questions about Race, Human Biological Variation and Racism.
- Also recommended: a lecture by Ibram Kendi, acclaimed author of Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America
Evolution and Race
Anthropology was born during European colonialism. At the time, Europeans were asking some fundamental questions like: How do we explain difference? Are other people equally human? (For more on this history, see section on Human Nature and Anthropology.)
Ideas of racial determinism were used to justify conquest and subordination. The racial classification schemes, mostly developed in the 1500s-1800s, continue with us today.
From the 1860s, ideas of evolution were harnessed to justify existing inequalities. These incorrect ideas about evolution and race are what we call scientific racism.
Anthropology on evolution and race
Academic anthropology was part of the nineteenth century, and many anthropologists endorsed these views. However, anthropology began to argue that race does not determine behavior. Race is not determining of language or culture. Race simply does not work to describe cultural difference.
For the most part, the separation of race and culture has become accepted. What many people still cannot understand is how racial classifications are also inadequate to describe biological difference. (I’ve posted about early anthropology and skull shape measurements as Human Skulls: Boas Head Shape Studies Revalidated.)
Evolution and human variation
The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or “neo-Darwinism” combined Darwinian mechanisms with Mendelian heredity.
In anthropology, perhaps the most significant contribution of neo-Darwinism was the way it undermined the nineteenth-century anthropological concept of “biological race,” refocusing attention on a new understanding of biological species. (Lavenda & Schultz 2015:60)
The crucial question then became of whether traditional race categories were a useful way to biologically describe human difference.
Species and Subspecies
Species fact: humans can all interbreed, and produce viable interbreeding offspring. We do it whenever we come in contact. Race would be a designation at the subspecies level.
Is there enough biological difference within the human species to classify human beings into groups?
YES, Human variation is real and important.
Do these classifications represent consistencies, patterns and concordances equivalent to traditional race ideas?
NO, biological variation much more complex than traditional race categories.
Skin color Distribution ~1500AD (see also Lavenda & Schultz:62,75)
Concordance or co-variation VERSUS Clinal or independent variation
Clinal: most features, like skin color change gradually (Lavenda & Schultz:62)
Other features vary independently of each other
Classifications by different criteria produce different groupings
How can we explain biological difference?
Explains sickle cell patterns (Lavenda & Schultz:63)
Sickle-cell is example of adaptive and maladaptive nondirectionality (Lavenda & Schultz:69-70)
Might help to explain certain traits considered “beautiful”
Random: Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift (Lavenda & Schultz:66)
What about skin color?
Demonstrates clinal variation
Natural selection & Vitamin D (Lavenda & Schultz:74-75)
Although sexual selection is an important evolutionary mechanism–and surely implicated in skin color–recent research confirms natural selection:
Chaplin, G., and N. G. Jablonski, 2009. Vitamin D and the evolution of human depigmentation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139(4):451-61.
Modern concept of race originates in colonial encounter
Race & Biology
Humans do vary biologically
with potential health effects, and even for abilities like “intelligence”
Race = “culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation” (John Relethford, “Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation” [2009:20] and see also additional resources at Teaching Race Anthropologically)
But crude labels are socially and historically real, influencing access, opportunities, and outcomes: with even greater health effects than ancestry
and with even greater effects for abilities like “intelligence”
The earth goes around the sun
[This phrasing refers to a time when the science seemed completely locked down on race, prompting Jared Diamond to write Race Without Color.]
“There are no races, there are only clines”
Livingstone, 1964 in Lavenda & Schultz:62
As evolutionary synthesis demonstrates, individually-inherited traits could differently combine
Darwin, “no such thing as a fixed species” (Lavenda & Schultz:78)
Lewontin, “The apportionment of human diversity” (1972)
More diversity within so-called races than between them
From 2000-2016: “Is race still a social construction?”
[I’ve posted about this as a “race revival” that attacked the anthropological paradigm.]
Challenge to Lewontin
“A Family Tree in Every Gene” (Leroi 2005) = Despite within-group variation, clusters [for further consideration of Leroi, see Is Race “Real”?
Genetic testing for ancestry: see Lavenda & Schultz:67-69 on DNA tests and ancestry, “Branches but Few Roots”
“If races don’t exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?” (Sauer 1992)
This is where Goodman 2005 comes in: Remember what Goodman says about his opening quotes: “Leroi and Thomas are both wrong” (18)
[for a much more detailed argument, see “Race Reconciled Re-Debunks Race“]
Measurements give probable ancestry estimate
Depends on context of remains
Bones found in a creek in Iowa (Konigsberg et al. 2009)
- In world database, probably Easter Islander
- In context of Iowa, probably white
- If had been found in Gary, Indiana, probably black
- If found in Hawaii, probably Native Pacific Islander
Bones do not tell us skin color or typical ethnic or racial markers
How do we do race in the United States?
Hypodescent = child’s race “lowered”
White + Black = Black
In some states, laws by fraction
1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32
In extreme cases, the “one drop” rule
Some people can change race by getting on a plane
Latin American & Caribbean classifications can be different
May use hyperdescent or recognize mixtures as mestizo or mulatto
Or like Brazil, have many color categories
Some people have changed their race by crossing a state line
See this 2016 article 220 years of census data proves race is a social construct (with thanks to Anthro Everywhere! for the link)
HOWEVER, Race ≠ fiction
Cultural construction of race has real effects
Wealth in 2010, average white wealth at 22x average black wealth
For 2016, see On Views of Race and Inequality, Blacks and Whites Are Worlds Apart
Housing; Education; Healthcare; Marriage
Those effects are also biological
Infant mortality rates (2004, 2.4 times higher for black Americans)
Life expectancy (2004, death rate 30% higher for black Americans)
Nutrition & health
Put differently, how long will race “be a thing”?
[I’ve posted about some of these issues as “Social Construction of Race = Conservative Goldmine.” See also the 2016 Rethinking Pedagogy of Race in Anthropology, Part 1 and Part 2.]
Biocultural Approaches (Lavenda & Schultz:7)
Our social practices, ideas, and classifications have biological implications
Plasticity, poverty, and political marginalization–especially in early childhood
“Race becomes biology through the embodiment of social inequality” (Clarence Gravlee in Lavenda & Schultz:65)
Race–and racism as political-economy–becomes biological
(but not forever-fixed genetics)
[I’ve tried to provide a longer summary of this great Gravlee article as Race Becomes Biology, Inequality Embodied.]
Updates for Evolution and Race
Although Lavenda & Schultz argue that modern genetics and neo-Darwinian theories helped undermine traditional ideas of race, there is little doubt that early genetics also helped reinforce existing ideas. See the August 2017 Genetics, Race, and Class for an ongoing research project to examine these early days of genetics:
My new project will evaluate the early days of genetics and its contribution to legitimizing and maintaining American racial categories and the subsequent maintenance of race-divided-class. Today, scholars continue to argue for the naturalness of class and race and in order to understand contemporary beliefs of the relationship between race and class, it is necessary to explore the effect that the early years of genetics had on American thought, namely, how we engage with race and class in the 21st century.
To cite: Antrosio, Jason. 2016. “Evolution and Race: Anthropology on Race and Racism.” Living Anthropologically website, https://livinganthropologically.com/anthropology-2016/evolution-and-race/. First posted 6 September 2016. Revised 14 September 2017.