0
$\begingroup$

I apologize if this is not the right forum to ask this question, but I don't know of any better forum to ask it. It is certainly possible for someone to have no religion, but is it possible to be of no race? That is, do "a-racial" people exist?

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

9
$\begingroup$

Race as we think about it today is entirely a social construct, developed to support and validate European colonialists' ideas and actions, and which has supported the very real experiences of race and racism to this day. The American Association of Physical Anthropologists' statement on Race and Racism, specifically the executive summary, puts it very well:

Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters. Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination. It thus does not have its roots in biological reality, but in policies of discrimination. Because of that, over the last five centuries, race has become a social reality that structures societies and how we experience the world. In this regard, race is real, as is racism, and both have real biological consequences.

Humans share the vast majority (99.9%) of our DNA in common. Individuals nevertheless exhibit substantial genetic and phenotypic variability. Genome/environment interactions, local and regional biological changes through time, and genetic exchange among populations have produced the biological diversity we see in humans today. Notably, variants are not distributed across our species in a manner that maps clearly onto socially-recognized racial groups. This is true even for aspects of human variation that we frequently emphasize in discussions of race, such as facial features, skin color and hair type. No group of people is, or ever has been, biologically homogeneous or “pure.” Furthermore, human populations are not — and never have been — biologically discrete, truly isolated, or fixed.

While race does not accurately represent the patterns of human biological diversity, an abundance of scientific research demonstrates that racism, prejudice against someone because of their race and a belief in the inherent superiority and inferiority of different racial groups, affects our biology, health, and well-being. This means that race, while not a scientifically accurate biological concept, can have important biological consequences because of the effects of racism. The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies.

Race, as a social construct and means for prejudice and oppression, is very real. However, biologically speaking, there is no such thing as race.

$\endgroup$
-4
$\begingroup$

Race is partially a man made concept. The only scientific base for this term is genetic similarities among people of some race but they are just a result of very remote family relations. So the "a-racial" person and all his remote family members will be considered as part of one race until you reach other remote family members who are considered as part of another race.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is a reasonable answer, but it is encouraged to provide sources or illustrative evidence. $\endgroup$ Jun 5, 2021 at 22:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would instead write that race is a wholly man-made concept, given the lack of any scientific definition for a given race. $\endgroup$
    – Armand
    Jun 5, 2021 at 22:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We can scientifically determine if someone is of African(sub-saharan African) origin or European(white) so we can't say it is wholly man-made. Saying that the idea of race was made up by European colonialists to validate their actions is just wrong and actually sound overly politically correct. The man-made part is how many people tend to define race by physical appearance alone, especially when it comes to skin color. $\endgroup$
    – Eleanor
    Jun 6, 2021 at 2:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Eleanor the problem is, we can't "scientifically determine" if someone is sub-Saharan African, for example. There is no one gene variant that is shared among all Africans. From my answer: "variants are not distributed across our species in a manner that maps clearly onto socially-recognized racial groups." "Dark skin" is not a clear phenotype, because not all sub-Saharan Africans have dark skin, and you can find quite dark skin in many other places on Earth. And where do you draw the line between light and dark? Race as a biological concept just doesn't make sense. $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Jun 6, 2021 at 18:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MattDMo you say that there are no detectable genetic similarities among sub-saharan africans and other races?. There are many studies that tested the dna of old human remains and managed to find their origins/race. I don't think anyone consider all people with dark skin as one race and there are obvious differences in appearance between black Africans and non-African people with black skin. $\endgroup$
    – Eleanor
    Jun 6, 2021 at 21:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.