In the American Anthropological Association’s statement on race, I was surprised to learn that “there is greater variation within ‘racial’ groups than between them.” I resonate with the concept of interbreeding and the mixing of genetic material across time as even now we can see that occur. Part of that idea that resonates most with me is similar to my last blog post for the past week’s content, where I spoke of a unifying theme of humanity. This statement on race goes so far to say that this mixing of genetic materials has been a key maintenance of humanity.

The biggest thing that resonated with me was the mention of race as a social construct in both of the statements on race from the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. This is a concept that I feel many people do not understand because they blame race on the physical variations these two statements mention are associated with one another, yet do not predict each other. I feel proud, in a sense, that the field of anthropology acknowledges this concept and that, over time, it has become institutionalized to be about traits and differences rather than similarities. I have experience with the idea of using race as a power play, as the American Anthropological Association states it is used “for dividing, ranking, and controlling,” through my coursework here at Michigan State University. Prior to taking several courses on African studies, race, and recognizing racial disparities and disproportionate minority contact as a professional/career goal of mine, I had little exposure to the controversy over race as I came from a small, predominantly white township. For me, people were just people, even if I noticed that my friend Mary was the only one of African descent in not only just my grade, but my school as a whole. Even then, Mary was biracial, so it never occurred to me the true experiences in the daily lives of those who are black and thus, the institutionalization and “purpose” of race in society and beyond.

Explaining the non-existence of biological race to someone like my younger self would be confusing, but it would be beneficial to someone like that. I think where most people fall short is in their close-mindedness and unwillingness to learn. I think one of the most direct and succinct statements from the American Anthropological Association is the concluding remark that I would use to describe the non-existence of biological race: “present-day inequalities between so-called ‘racial’ groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, education, and political circumstances.” I think that this summary does a great job in showing how race is not a thing that is, but a thing that does. What I mean by this is that race is not biological and is not based on genes or skin color, but that race is a means by which the government, companies, and individuals gain something over someone else and use those things mentioned prior, like skin color, as an excuse/reason. This follows the logic of history, but the statement also does a great job showing how this is not a historical problem solved by any amendment or law, but that it is an on-going and current issue in our society. This relates to the AAPA’s statements where they discuss how biological differences are a result of the interaction of natural and social environments as well as genetic inheritance. All in all, I think that both associations do an excellent job proving their points using what they know about their field, their audience, and the history of mankind to hopefully change the future of it. An important thing to note is that neither association denies the existence of any kind of differences, yet they use those differences to explain how biological race as used by people to explain differences is non-existent.