Race as a Social Concept

One might wonder what could be social about race.  After all, there are obvious physical differences between people with different geographical origins (or whose ancestors had different origins) and anthropologists and forensic scientists tell us those origins can be determined by examination of bone structures.  Even DNA analysis can show some markers present in some human populations but not others.  We can all agree that humans have different groups.  Still, the question remains: what does it mean to say a person belongs to a specific "race"?  Some would tell us the physical differences are evolutionary adaptations to different climate features, which in some cases seems to be perfectly justified.  People who have lived in areas of high altitude over many generations can be found to have larger hearts than normal, which we assume is to pump blood more efficiently with less oxygen in the air, for example.  But these things are not immediately obvious at first glance, and we do divide people into groups as soon as we see them.  How do we identify each race, how many are there, and why is it even necessary?  Some people insist that there are physical characteristics that can be easily seen or measured which put each person in his or her proper catagory.  While a popular idea in the past, it has become somewhat less acceptable these days.  We rely mostly on skin tone, eye shape, and to some extent self-identification to apply racial labels at present.  The difficulty is that people have moved around all over the world.  Very few populations have not had contact with others, over centuries and millenia, and this contact has naturally lead to a certain amount of mixing, one way or another.  The common wisdom of the day is that all humans have ancestors in Africa, and all humans out of Africa have ancestors that were hominids besides homo sapiens.  Although travel and communications seem to make it more likely that we would have interracial or intercultural relationships today than in the past, it is really a old tradition.  Some modern societies, not to mention some ancient ones, have gathered people from many areas of the world, creating what we like to call today "melting pots".  It is, of course, not really true, but it is a nice idea.  Segregationists like to shout that everyone, including the "lesser" races, likes to be among similar people, and it is observably true.  Is this the main reason for our interest in identifying race in others?  Do we have some deep-seated need to keep ourselves away from people with some fundamental difference from ourselves? If we live in the same society, we should have the same culture: the same values; the same manners; the same basic presonal goals.  What are the differences if not visual and superficial?  Should they be given such importance?

As I stated previously, the melting pot does not exist in the way we like to imagine it, especially in countries like the USA.  People from different cultures do try to maintain at least some aspects of their original societies while they adapt to the new one, and pass these traditions to their children who are otherwise full members of the new society.  It becomes a matter of pride to celebrate one's history, shared with others, that makes your group stand out from the crowd.  In the USA they are "hyphenated Americans", a term which has seen its share of both proud acceptance and disdainful ridicule, depending on what comes before the hyphen.  Now we come to social attitudes toward race.  The idea has changed over time, becoming much more inclusive in the present than in the past, when many more groups were discriminated against by a smaller group of "better" people.  Even some people with white skin, generally considered the best you can have in modern times in the West, were not considered really white.  Just ask the Irish.  Ashkenazim can also attest to their skin color not helping them particularly.  Part of this discrimination can be attached to religion, as Catholics and Jews have some customs not enjoyed by the dominant Protestant culture of North and West Europe and the corresponding colonies.  It is true that some societies have promoted and even insisted on particular religions, but can religion truly be a part of race?  If one converts, does one also change race?  Are Yusuf Islam and Everlast Middle Eastern now that they are Muslims?  Those who pay close attention to history may observe that Christianity is also fundamentally a Middle Eastern religion, having been evangelized throughout Europe to the detriment of the previous faiths.  Now, all kidding aside, there are recognized sub-cultures that are often divided along racial lines, partially because of ancestral cultures, and partially because of culture developed in response to discrimination.  The question remains, though, is racial difference a fundamental biological truth, or is it based mostly on social attitudes?

Most people identify themselves with a particular racial group.  This is based on what their parents considered themselves to be, sometimes with a little input from outsiders.  Non-whites in the past could "pass" as the respectable race if there had been a fortuitous construction of features, due to mixing.  Now, there is more pressure to be proud of whatever race one identifies with, and celebrate the achievements of all members of society, with special focus on minorities.  Some say that this only encourages racial separatism, rather than social unity.  Others argue that it is justice for past wrongs.  We have had a history of cultural appropriation without due recognition, which is probably why the response to people like Rachel Dolezal
is so often negative.  We can understand people from the lower rungs reaching for something good from above, but a member of the privileged class stooping to identify herself with the lowly seems more like patronization than genuine respect and identification.  The general consensus is that there must be some genetic connection to culture for a race to be claimed by and individual.  Yet, there are examples of culture being the overriding requirement and "race" being less important for acceptance.  The Wampanoag have been described as accepting any individual who agreed to live as one of them and follow their customs, regardless of racial or ethnic origin.  More than one religion has tried to take on this role of cultural leveller as well.

At this point, it looks like race is just a convenient divider of members of society into castes, each with its own financial, educational, and personal opportunities.  If we want our societies to be unified and strong, to support our nation-states, or the world as a whole, we should look at other people as people before we attach labels that we consider appropriate because of non-elective aspects of physical appearance.  We want to be with people who are like us - who share our culture - but if the only thing we have in common, or the only characteristic we take into account, is a similar skin hue or eye color, it seems as if we have no culture.  Differences between individuals and populations exist, but is the label race useful anymore?  Was it ever?

Our Doctor made the sage observation that it is good to discover our own silliness.  This time, the silly thing is not knowing what race is, although we act as if we do.  In fact, the term might not be as fitting as "ethnicity" for what we mean to discuss, as we are not limited to mere biological markers, but also must keep cultural attitudes in mind.  As a medical professional, he was naturally aware of the tendencies that appear in the health and health problems of different groups, and also brought religion into the discussion using the Jewish people as an example: they in fact are composed of many "races", but hold the same attitudes as a people.  As for the question of racial conflict, he felt big powers were at work in the background.  He also noted the gypsy culture of Europe and the difficulties there have been on all sides to eliminate discrimination and mutual disdain and suspicion.  Every location, he said in closing, has its own culture and we have to know who our friends are, but by who they are, not what they look like.

The True Philosopher wrote of the use of race as a tool for social division and stratification, continuing this line of thought in the meeting.  The terms used for different races have changed with time in many countries, and in his opinion, this is mainly driven by colonization and imperialism, which introduce more "successful" and more powerful people to a society.  These new leaders take on a role of "best people" which others try to follow, or openly reject in an attempt to solidify their own identity.

The Leader scoffed at the notion of racial distinctions in his article, reiterating in the meeting that the standard considerations - physical appearance and some suppositions of mental capacity - are simply ridiculous.  Superficial differences can never be important enough to be allowed to determine these categories of humanity.  Focusing on one difference leads us to look for more, and to seek out ways to make ourselves superior in our differences to others.  Even pointing out race as a way of making a point is just an excuse to cause trouble.  He insisted that people are too different between each other as individuals to make satisfactory groups in a scientific manner, and again, those differences that can be shown to occur in a grouping fashion are, so to speak, only skin deep.  The real problem with paying attention to race and racial characteristics is the stratification of society it leads to, with the corresponding denial of opportunity to some and abundance of it to others for no reason other than a passing glance and a stereotype based on our ancestors' imaginations or manipulation.

The Seeker of Happiness remarked on the division represented by different racism as the typical "us vs. them" attitude found in people.  We always divide ourselves into groups, begging for admission to one and rejecting others from our own, but problems arise when the criteria for division are not fair.  Once we have organized ourselves into categories of people, we then allow competition between the groups, which can lead to attempts to make our group look better than others, even the dehumanizing of members of other groups.  Furthermore, we claim kinship with famous or respected people of the past, insisting that their characteristics, which are similar to ours, are marks of greatness.  If we share those characteristics, we must have the possibility of greatness.  Some take it even further, believing that they are inherently great because of those arbitrary characteristics, not because of any achievements they have.

In general, we seemed to want to reject any necessary unfairness in racial identification, perhaps because of the pushes for multiculturalism and tolerance in recent decades.  In spite of our social advances, however, we may err on the side of superficiality and ignorance if we ignore the fact that discrimination was encouraged in the past.  The world does not start from zero every morning, not for anyone.  No decisions made yesterday, or 100 years ago, cease to have an effect just because the Earth has turned completely on its axis.  As has been examined in other meetings, the past can be thought of as eternally present in us.