Mixed Race Studies

The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium

Rutgers University Press
2003-01-23
272 pages
14 figures, 24 tables
Cloth ISBN: 978-0-8135-2847-2
Paper ISBN: 978-0-8135-3302-5

Joseph L. Graves, Jr., Professor & Associate Dean for Research
Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering
North Carolina A&T State University & University of North Carolina, Greensboro

In this groundbreaking book, Joseph Graves traces the development of thought about human genetic diversity. He argues that racism has persisted in our society because adequate scientific reasoning has not entered into the equation. Graves champions the scientific method, and explains how we may properly ask questions about the nature of population differentiation and how (if at all) we may correlate that diversity to differences in human capacity and behavior. He also cautions us to think critically about scientific findings that have historically been misused in controversies over racial differences in intelligence heritability, criminal behavior, disease predisposition, and other traits. Greek philosophy, social Darwinism, New World colonialism, the eugenics movement, intelligence testing biases, and racial health fallacies are just a few of the topics he addresses.

According to Graves, this country cannot truly address its racial problems until people understand that separate human races do not exist empirically. With the biological basis for race removed, racism becomes an ideology, one that can and must be expunged.

The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America

Plume an imprint of Penguin
June 2005
320 pages
5.35 x 7.99in
Paperback ISBN: 9780452286580

Joseph L. Graves, Professor & Associate Dean for Research
Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering
North Carolina A&T State University & University of North Carolina, Greensboro

Preeminent evolutionary biologist Joseph Graves proves once and for all that it doesn’t. Through accessible and compelling language, he makes the provocative argument that science cannot account for the radical categories used to classify people, and debunks ancient race-related fallacies that are still held as fact, from damaging medical profiles to misconceptions about sports. He explains why defining race according to skin tone or eye shape is woefully inaccurate, and how making assumptions based on these false categories regarding IQ, behavior, or predisposition to disease has devastating effects.

Demonstrating that racial distinctions are in fact social inventions, not biological truths, The Race Myth brings much-needed, sound science to one of America’s most emotionally charged debates.

Biological v. Social Definitions of Race: Implications for Modern Biomedical Research

The Review of Black Political Economy
Volume 37, Number 1 (2010)
pages 43-60
DOI: 10.1007/s12114-009-9053-3

Joseph L. Graves, Professor & Associate Dean for Research
Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering
North Carolina A&T State University & University of North Carolina, Greensboro

Misconceptions concerning the concordance of biological and social definitions of race are ongoing in American society. This problem extends beyond that of the lay public into the professional arena, especially that of biomedical research. This continues, in part, because of the lack of training of many biomedical practitioners in evolutionary thinking. This essay reviews the biological and social definitions of race, examining how understanding the evolutionary mechanisms of disease is crucial to addressing ongoing health disparities. Finally it concludes by laying bear the fallacies of “race-specific” medicine.

Read or purchase the article here.

Marriages between African and Native Americans produced many children

Louisiana Weekly
2012-01-02

(Healthy Living News) —Native Americans with African ancestry produced more children than ‘full bloods’ in the early 1900s, despite the odds being against them, a new study demonstrates. Research by Michael Logan, Ph.D., of the University of Tennessee shows that increased fertility occurred at a time when things were not going particularly well for both African and Native Americans either — in social, economic and health terms. The work is published in Human Ecology…

…Dr. Logan examined the reproductive histories of 295 women of mixed Indian-Black and Indian-Black-white heritage. He found that Indian-Black marriages proved to be advantageous in terms of fertility, the average number of births, and offspring survival…

Read the entire article here.

American Indians with African Ancestry: Differential Fertility and the Complexities of Social Identity

Human Ecology
Volume 39, Number 6 (December 2011)
page 727-742
DOI: 10.1007/s10745-011-9439-2

Michael H. Logan, Professor of Anthropology
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Interethnic marriage represents a major trend in the demographic history of American Indians. While the majority of these unions involved Indian women and Caucasian men, a sizeable number occurred between Indians and African Americans. The children of these bicultural marriages were “mixed bloods” who in turn typically married non-Indians or other mixed bloods. Using data from the 1910 Census on American Indians in the United States and Alaska, this article explores why American Indians with African ancestry enjoyed high fertility. Differential rates of fertility among American Indians in the past were due to a number of underlying genetic, cultural, and environmental factors. By identifying these factors, the paradox of why Indian women with African heritage did so well in terms of fertility largely disappears. African admixture, however, greatly complicates Indian social identity.

Introduction

The demographic history of American Indians is characterized by a number of major trends, the most dramatic being the immense loss of life resulting from the introduction of several Old World diseases, including smallpox, measles, influenza, cholera, and malaria. While the exact size of indigenous populations in the Americas on the eve of European contact will never be known with certainty, scholars agree that up to 90% of the aboriginal population perished as a direct result of these introduced diseases (Thornton 1987, 1997; Ubelaker 1988; Ramenofsky 1987; Dobyns 1983). By 1900, the population of American Indians in the United States reached its nadir of 237,196 individuals (Thornton 1987:160). Although Ubelaker’s estimate (1988:291) for 1900 is more than twice as high (536,562). it does not alter the fact that millions of Indians died from these and other infectious disorders, as well as from other causes including famine, exposure, alcohol-related trauma, and armed combat with whites and other Indians (sec also Larsen and Milncr 1994; Bianchinc and Russo 1992).

Another highly significant demographic trend explored in this article is an increasing number of intercthnic marriages between American Indian women and non-Indian men. Although a limited number of white women married Indian men, this practice was certainly not common nor widely approved (Fllinghaus 2006; Jacobs 2002). The children of such marital unions were “mixed bloods,” who in turn typically married non-Indians or other mixed bloods (e.g.. Perdue 1998. 2003). Such “assortative” mating leads to an expansion of the gene pool, which, according to Quiggins (1990), may explain why highly admixed Cherokee are at lower risk of developing type-2 diabetes than full blood individuals. A similar finding has also been reported tor the Pima of Arizona (Williams et al. 2000). Using data from the 1980 U.S. census, Sanderur and McKinnell observe “intermarriage of Indians and whites is much more prevalent than that of blacks and whites, and … the extent of Indian white intermarriage has increased dramatically in recent decades” (1986:348). The scholarly literature on Indian-white marriages for the nineteenth and early twentieth century is quite extensive (Logan and Ousley 2001; Sturm 1998; Moore…

Read or purchase the article here.

Conference Keynote: White Privilege and the Biopolitics of Race

Understanding and Dismantling Privilege
Volume 1, Number 1 (2010)
16 pages
Online ISSN: 2152-1875

10th Annual White Privilege Conference Keynote Address
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Memphis, Tennessee

Dorothy Roberts, George A. Weiss University Professor of Law and Sociology; Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Professor of Civil Rights
University of Pennsylvania

Genomics has resurrected scientific interest in biological concepts of race by attempting to identify race at the molecular level. In that last decade, there has been an explosion of biotechnologies that use race as a biological category, such as race-specific pharmaceuticals, commercial genetic testing for determining racial identity and genealogy, egg donation and embryo selection involving race, and racial profiling with DNA forensics. These technological innovations are part of a new biopolitics of race that helps to maintain white privilege in the 21st century, post-civil rights era. We must contest both the persistent myth that race is natural and persistent injustices based on race.

…My question is: How is white privilege preserved yet made invisible in the twenty-first century? That’s the tricky thing about white privilege, right? It’s been imbedded in U.S. institutions for centuries and yet many people don’t see it. I think we always have to ask, how is it that white privilege persists today? What is the mechanism that obscures white privilege in our current day and age? What are the forces, the institutions, the ways of thinking that we have to contest? The White Privilege Conference quotes on its flier a brilliant observation by Martin Luther King Jr.: “The best way to solve any problem is to remove its cause.” But, of course, we can’t remove the cause of the problem if we misdiagnose it. One of the ways that white privilege is perpetuated in this country is by convincing people that it’s natural for white people to have a privileged position in society. That’s just the way it’s supposed to be.

Why do many people still believe that white privilege is natural? Why do they think it’s natural that our prisons are filled with black and brown people, that most of the children in foster care are black and brown, and that black and brown people die early deaths? How can all this inequality be natural? One way people are persuaded that inequality is natural is through a misunderstanding of genetics. On June 26, 2000, President Bill Clinton unveiled a working draft of the map of the human genome and famously announced, “I believe one of the great truths to emerge from this triumphant expedition inside the human genome is that, in genetic terms, all human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9 percent the same.” We differ only in a very tiny percentage of our genes. This confirmed the American Anthropological Association statement that race is a social and cultural construction. I would say, race is a political construction. The human species cannot be divided into genetically distinct races. So many scientists and scholars believed that the misunderstanding of race as a biological category had ended. Everyone would realize that all human beings are fundamentally the same. White privilege would disappear because scientists had discovered that these divisions don’t exist at the genetic level. Well, what happened?…

…So what is the origin of race? Is it genetics or is it power? One way to think about it is to ask, is there a genetic test for whiteness? Many genetic researchers focus on people of color and what’s wrong with them. Why do they die at faster rates from so many diseases? Millions of dollars goes into this kind of research seeking the genetic cause for why different groups of people of color are so diseased. But there is not very much attention to this question: What’s the genetic test for white people? If the origin of race is in genetics, we should be able to tell this racial category by the genes.

Well, if there’s a genetic test for whiteness, then tell me who in Barack Obama’s family is white. A family photo from his childhood shows his mother, who is of Irish decent; the Indonesian man she married after she separated from Barack Obama’s father, who’s Kenyan; Barack Obama’s sister, whose parents are Barack Obama’s mother and his stepfather. Who in this picture is definitely white? Apparently, just his mother. But could you tell that from a genetic test? If you test them, Barack Obama and his little sister are the genetic children of a white mother. The only way you can determine that he is black or that she is Asian and not white is to use a political test; there is no genetic test that can decide it. More generally, the only way you can tell who is white is a political test because it is a political category: White means people who are entitled to white privilege. This is a contest that’s gone on in the United States for centuries—who will be included in this category? The answer has nothing to do with genetics. At one point Jewish people were not included in this category. Irish people were not included in this category (Painter, 2010)…

Read the entire keynote here.

The Realities of Races

Is Race “Real”?
A web forum organized by the Social Science Research Council
2006-06-07

Jonathan Marks, Professor of Anthropology
University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Introduction

Anthropologists have been studying race for over 200 years now, and contrary to what seems to be conventional wisdom (at least as articulated in Leroi’s New York Times essay), they have learned quite a bit about it.

Perhaps the most significant discovery is that human groups, however constituted, are fluid, bio-cultural units. They run a broad gamut from more-or-less biological to more-or-less cultural, both in the criteria used to define the groups and in the context or circumstances that make such groups interesting or relevant to define. Thus, a category such as “achondroplastic dwarves” or “albinos” is unified by the possession of a few key phenotypes and genetic features in spite of the overall biological and cultural heterogeneity of its members. A category such as “blondes” or “Italians” is likewise constructed around some aspects of phenotype, genes, geography, or nationality. However, one can become a blonde or an Italian, while one cannot become an achondroplast or an albino.

The Nature of Race

Race was a category devised by scholars of the 18th century to summarize an ostensibly natural set of divisions within the human species. We know when, we know by whom, and we know in what forums. Prior to that time, and even into the 19th century, human variation was always interpreted as varying in local terms, not in para-continental terms. Why did race catch on then? Who knows? It is most likely related to the political economics of the age, involving sea voyage and exploitative relations with people who had more chimeric and fluid political systems than the recognizable, centralized, precisely bordered nation-states with which the Europeans were familiar. It was, in a phrase, a concept that was good to think with.

As long as you did not think too hard…

Racialized Medicine

To understand the possibilities and problems posed by “racialized medicine” we need to distinguish crucially between risk assessment and intervention.

One often hears about Ashkenazi Jews in the context of the value of race for medicine, with elevated frequencies of real alleles for breast cancer, Tay-Sachs, familial dysautonomia, Gaucher’s, etc., not to mention imaginary alleles for intelligence. But what do Ashkenazi Jews have to do with race? If by race we mean a large natural division of people, they are neither particularly large nor particularly natural. And their genetic distinctiveness is the result of demographic processes and events on the scale of centuries, perhaps barely millennia.

All human groups, however constituted, have particular medical risks. African Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Afrikaners and Japanese, poor people, rich people, chimney sweeps, prostitutes, choreographers, and the Pima Indians all have their particular health risks. And race is not the cause of it, in fact, race will positively obscure it…

…Of what benefit would racialized medicine then possibly be? The therapeutic intervention would have to be based on the genotype, not on any racialized identity. Otherwise it would be far more likely to kill people than to cure them…

…To conclude, ultimately the issue in “racialized medicine” is about diminishing the quality of healthcare through the dissemination of incompetent biology…

Read the entire article here.

Genome Study Points to Adaptation in Early African-Americans

The New York Times
2012-01-02

Nicholas Wade, Science Reporter

Researchers scanning the genomes of African-Americans say they see evidence of natural selection as their ancestors adapted to the harsh conditions of their new environment in America.

The scientists, led by Li Jin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai, report in the journal Genome Research that certain disease-causing variant genes became more common in African-Americans after their ancestors reached American shores—perhaps because they conferred greater, offsetting benefits. Other gene variants have become less common, the researchers say, like the gene for sickle cell hemoglobin, which in its more common single-dose form protects against malaria. The Shanghai team suggests the gene has become less common in African-Americans because malaria is much less of a threat.

The purpose of studying African-American genomes is largely medical. Most searches for variant genes that cause disease take place in people of European ancestry, and physicians want to make sure they have not missed variants that may be more common in African-Americans and helpful for developing treatments or diagnosis.

Such searches often reveal events in a population’s history by pinpointing genes that have changed under the pressure of natural selection…

…The Shanghai researchers used a method for studying admixture, a geneticist’s term for when two populations or races intermarry; China has several such populations, perhaps accounting for the team’s interest. Using gene chips that analyze common variations in the human genome, researchers can deconstruct the chromosomes of an African-American, say, assigning each chunk of DNA to an African or European origin.

The scientists found that of the African-American genomes in their sample, 22 percent of the DNA came from Europeans, on average, and the rest from African ancestors, a figure in line with other estimates…

Read the entire article here.

Comparison between two race/skin color classifications in relation to health-related outcomes in Brazil

International Journal for Equity in Health
Volume 10, Number 1, (2011-08-25)
pages 35-42
DOI: 10.1186/1475-9276-10-35

Claudia Travassos
Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde (ICICT/FIOCRUZ), Avenida Brasil

Josué Laguardia
Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde (ICICT/FIOCRUZ), Avenida Brasil

Priscilla M. Marques
Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde (ICICT/FIOCRUZ), Avenida Brasil

Jurema C. Mota
Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca (ENSP/FIOCRUZ), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Celia L. Szwarcwald
Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde (ICICT/FIOCRUZ), Avenida Brasil

Background 

This paper aims to compare the classification of race/skin color based on the discrete categories used by the Demographic Census of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and a skin color scale with values ranging from 1 (lighter skin) to 10 (darker skin), examining whether choosing one alternative or the other can influence measures of self-evaluation of health status, health care service utilization and discrimination in the health services.

Methods 

This is a cross-sectional study based on data from the World Health Survey carried out in Brazil in 2003 with a sample of 5000 individuals older than 18 years. Similarities between the two classifications were evaluated by means of correspondence analysis. The effect of the two classifications on health outcomes was tested through logistic regression models for each sex, using age, educational level and ownership of consumer goods as covariables.

Results 

Both measures of race/skin color represent the same race/skin color construct. The results show a tendency among Brazilians to classify their skin color in shades closer to the center of the color gradient. Women tend to classify their race/skin color as a little lighter than men in the skin color scale, an effect not observed when IBGE categories are used. With regard to health and health care utilization, race/skin color was not relevant in explaining any of them, regardless of the race/skin color classification. Lack of money and social class were the most prevalent reasons for discrimination in healthcare reported in the survey, suggesting that in Brazil the discussion about discrimination in the health care must not be restricted to racial discrimination and should also consider class-based discrimination. The study shows that the differences of the two classifications of race/skin color are small. However, the interval scale measure appeared to increase the freedom of choice of the respondent.

Introduction

During the 20th century in Brazil, the discussion on race-related issues – either social, economic, educational and/or political ones – was restricted to certain fields of study, such as sociology and social anthropology. More recently, the debate has spread towards public health, and various studies in this area deal with race as a determining factor for health inequity. Such studies include race and/or skin color as one of their variables, but the complexity surrounding racial classification influences and, therefore, hampers the analysis of race as a variable, especially when it is considered as a social construct instead of a biogenetic entity.

The significance of phenotypic distinctions in racial classifications is related to the importance given to race as a basis for the social differentiation and stratification. Besides, in racialized social systems the placement of people in racial categories involves some form of hierarchy that produces definite social relations between races.

Opposed to the North-American bipolarity, Brazilians identify their skin color in a multiple mode, which is less categorical and more contextual. It is the product of a complex equation involving physical traits, socio-economic origin and region of residence that may result in a set of categories spread through a light-dark continuum. As shown by Sansone, Brazilian skin color terminology varies according to strategies individuals use to manage racial relations in several contexts (work, family, leisure, friendships) and also according to their age, education, and income.

The official classification of race/skin color in Brazil is composed by five categories—White [Branco], Brown [Pardo], Black [Preto], Yellow and Indigenous. Despite the controversies, some scholars have argued in favor of this classification: it refers to an objective, precise, “demographic” characteristic more suitable for census purposes than other measures that they consider more related to color identity. However, the way Brazilians identify their race/skin color may fit better in a classification spread through a light-dark continuum…

Read the entire article here.

The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars

Cambridge University Press
September 1993
396 pages
228 x 152 mm
ISBN: 9780521458757
DOI: 10.2277/0521458757

Elazar Barkan, Professor of International and Public Affairs
Columbia University

This fascinating study in the sociology of knowledge documents the refutation of scientific foundations for racism in Britain and the United States between the two world wars, when the definition of race as a biological concept was replaced by a cultural notion of race. Discussing the work of the leading biologists and anthropologists who wrote about race between the wars, Dr. Barkan argues that the impetus for the shift in ideologies of race came from the inclusion of outsiders—women, Jews, and leftists—into the mainstream of scientific discourse.

Table of Contents

• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• PART I: ANTHROPOLOGY
  • 1. Constructing a British identity
    • Colors into races. A transition to modern British anthropology. The founding fathers. Mummies, bones and stones. The shift in British archaeology. A British glimpse at race relations.
  • 2. American diversity
    • Haunted sentinels. European skulls and the primitive mind. The Boasians. American physical anthropology. The politics of coexistence. Dionysia in the Pacific.
• PART II: BIOLOGY
  • 3. In search of a biology of race
    • NewGenics. The statistician’s fable. Race crossing in Jamaica. A Canadian in London: rigid Reginald Ruggles Gates.
  • 4. The limit of traditional reform
    • A racist liberal: Julian Huxley’s early years. Herbert Spencer Jennings and progressive eugenics. A conservative critique: Raymond Pearl. Bridging race formalism and population genetics.
  • 5. Mitigating racial differences
    • Lancelot Hogben. “Africa view” – Huxley’s changing perspectives. J. B. S. Haldane: a defiant aristocrat. Medicine and eugenics: expanding the environment. Eugenics reformed.
• PART III: POLITICS
  • 6. Confronting racism: scientists as politicians
    • 1933 – Early hesitations. Britain – Race and Culture Committee. We Europeans. The American scene. An international interlude. The Paris Congress. The population committee. Out of the closet.
• EPILOGUE
• Bibliography
• Index