Reaction to Diamond's "Race Without Color"

Race without color? Is that possible?

Summary:
In his 1994 article in Discover Magazine, Jared Diamond argues that the traditional notion of "human races" (subspecies) based on visual features of skin, hair, eyes is not scientific. Furthermore, it is unnecessary and harmful to human society.

Race by Blood Type A?

Race by Fingerprint Type

 



























It may be true that different regions of the world have some notable characteristics such as dark skin in Africa, or narrower eyes in Asia. However, Diamond argues this does not mean that humans can be categorized into clear biological groups. Depending on what biological characteristic is used (skin, blood type, fingerprints, lactase digestion etc.) the groups come out differently. Based on sickle cell malaria gene catorizations, Swedish whites will be grouped with Xhosas in Africa. That is the problem of concordance. If the groupings vary according to the trait used, there is no concordance of variable traits, and therefore defining a subspecies of humans is not valid.

Today, DNA analysis is possible, and that will clarify how various populations migrated from Africa to other parts of the world. Obviously some groups are closer cousins, like Japanese are closer to Koreans and Tibetans. However, even within Japan, similar splitting is possible. Some people in Japan have more Mongolian genes, some have more Oceania genes. It is mixed and complex. That is the problem of hierarchy. Depending on how much difference in DNA you define as "different" (0.1%? 0.2%), the number of categories will change. The criteria is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. Clear categories of human physical characteristics based on multiple traits cannot be defined. Categories with one or two traits are easy, of course, but which traits are used is arbitrary.

In race, traditionally, beauty traits were used because that is how humans like to subjectively and culturally separate themselves. As Diamond concludes, in primitive times, such 'us and them' distinctions may have been useful for protection. In the age of global interaction, such distinctions are unneeded and harmful.

Critical Reaction:
Does this argument make sense? It seems to. However, one thing that bothers me is that the definition of "concordance" (or any definition of subspecies) is hard to find on the Internet. Do other taxonomists agree with Diamond's view? I'm curious how solid the consensus of "no human races" is.

Also, assuming his argument is reasonable, what's the application? For one, scientists in any field should not use the word "races" in a biological sense. That seems clear. However, in society, people live from day to day based on their subjective, traditional notions. Whites think they are white, and Asians think they are Asian. The concept of race is subjective and cultural, but it IS something that people feel as a social category. Therefore, ignoring it or abandoning it is not a solution.

A proper understanding of both 1) the biological fallacy of race, and 2) the social reality of race is necessary.

My Reaction to Shreeve's "Terms of Estrangement"

James Shreeve, author of Terms of Estrangement, Discover magazine 1994 

Main Points:

Shreeve's main issue is whether the term "race" should be used in science and other professions such as police work or medical research. He interviews many experts to see what their opinions on it are. Most of his experts are anthropologists, and most of them (especially Armelagos, Marks, Smouse, Sauer, Lewontin and Brace) feel that the word "race" is NOT a scientific category that can be defined for humans. This follows the 1996 declaration by the American Association of Physical Anthropology (see via Moodle link). In other words, the categories are impossible to make because various geographical populations such as African, Asian, or European have not been isolated; they are all connected to each other and there are innumerable mixes. 

Thus, Shreeve's interview data seems to point to a consensus that race is a traditional socio-cultural perception of human categories based on sets of visual characteristics such as skin color, eyes, and shape of facial features. It is connected to geography and migration and genetic change, but there are no clear "bushel basket" categories. It is not scientifically definable. However, at the same time, it is undeniable that police find the word useful for finding identities of suspect with quick visual sets of traits, and medical researchers find that medicines can be developed for certain types of people within a country such as American Blacks, who have different genetic tendencies than American Whites. Those are just genetic tendencies or "sub-populations" or "sub-cultures", not "races". 

My Reactions:

My main question is "So what? What should we do with Shreeve's information?" Most of us are not anthropologists, so how is this connected to us? I understand that the term "race" comes from a European tradition from Linnaeus and Blumenbach and is not based on real science. People are different, but there are no clear categories that can be made. The genetic differences are mixed and complex based on human migration from Africa to other parts of the world. 

OK, if somebody asks me, "What is your race?", what will I say? Will I say "There are no races of humans, but my ancestors are mostly from Europe." 

Next, what will my children Michael and Mei say? The question "What is your race?" does not make sense to them at all. I guess they could say "We are biracial, with genes from a European father and Japanese/Asian mother, but that muddles the issue. Their best answer is probably "The word race should not be used, but our father's ancestors come from Europe and our mother's come from Japan."

Something like that? In any case, I think it is very valuable for us to EXAMINE where "terms of estrangement" come from. The word race is responsible for a LOT of suffering around the world. If it has no scientific basis, we should abandon it, and look for other words that more accurately describe our differences. Perhaps ethnicity is a better word?

My Reaction to Gould's "The Geometer of Race"

Main Ideas:
In his 1994 article in Discover magazine "The Geometer of Race" (link to article), Stephen Jay Gould (link to profile) mainly seems to argue three main points using the historical example of Blumenbach's (link to Wikipedia) theory of human racial classification published in 1795.

 
 

1. Main Idea 1: Gould writes that scientists' theories can never be completely objective, and that it is important for scientists to realize that their personal and cultural biases are imposed to some extent on their theories. Blumenbach's hierarchical theory of race based on perceived beauty of physical characteristics of white Europeans (especially Georgians) shows how subjective ideas can influence theories.
2. Main Idea 2: Secondly, scientists must also realize that their scientific theories can have a powerful ideological impact on society. Gould believes that Blumenbach's theory of racial classification had a "practical impact...almost entirely negative, upon our collective lives" similar to the level of the impact of nuclear bombs (p.4 in our Reader).
   
   Gould believes this negative impact in terms of supporting racism, slavery etc. in the 18th to 20th centuries was due to Blumenbach's theory. He writes "Where would Hiter have been without without racism, Jefferson without liberty. Blumenbach lived as a cloistered professor all his life, but his ideas have reverberated in ways that he never could have anticipated, through our wars, our social upheavals, our sufferings...." (p.9). This is highly ironic, according to Gould, because Blumenbach was a promoter of equality among races, and was NOT a racist compared to other people of his time.
3. Main Idea 3: Relating to the key word Geometer in the title, Gould seems to want to argue that scientific theories form a "mental geometry" that remains in people's minds. Blumenbach's theory is an example of "redrawing the mental diagram of human groups" and the impact of the theoretical shift was "broad and portentous in scope" because people now had a visual representation of the hierarchy of race in definable geometric terms. I think he means a sort of triangle, with Causasians at the top, and Africans and Asians at the bottom, which is one way to interpret the theory.

My Critique
----------------
So, are those three points reasonable and persuasive?

I feel that the first point is strongly supported by the Blumenbach example. It is clear that Blumenbach, in spite of his best efforts to be scientific and to support the moral and mental equality of all humans, was influenced by a bias toward superiority of Europeans.

The second and third points, however, are not fully persuasive. Gould fails to show what kind of effect Blumenbach's theory had on European society. He suggests that Hitler was influenced, but no connection between Blumenbach and Hitler is explained. It is left to our imagination, and I am skeptical out this. He also fails to show that people really interpreted Blumenbach's theory in a geometric way. Many questions remain. Who read Blumenbach's theory, and what kind of ideas did they get from them? How widespread was this knowledge of the theory? Also, didn't racism already exist anyway, even without his book saying that Caucasians came first? What effect did he exactly have outside of the ivory tower? Gould needs to explain these points further if he wants to convince a critical reader.

Extra:
Here's a PDF of an exchange between a critic and Gould regarding this article. In this exchange, I think Gould is persuasive, although he apologizes for the alteration of Blumenbach's original illustrations from flat to a triangle, which was done by the publishing company to show what Gould was trying to say. Gould didn't do it, but he takes responsibility for the visual representation done by the book editor. Blumenbach never made a clear image of a hierarchy in his treatise, which was almost all text in Latin, but I agree with Gould (I think, assuming that his translations of the Latin are accurate), that a hierarchy of beauty is being argued in the treatise.