I have always maintained the opinion that races are socially constructed and not based at all in fact, as races are not clearly definable. The statements backed up this feeling. It was interesting to think about what this means in reference to anthropology. I had never considered that we use race when identifying remains and what that may suggest about the definition or existence of race. The statement by AAA acknowledges that the concept of race was used to “rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples”. So essentially, Europeans were looking to create the label of “other” so that they could feel superior. AAA says that they “conclude that present-day inequalities. . .[are] products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances”. I agree with this statement though I think it is hard to stand behind it when the concept of race is still used to identify individuals based on physical characteristics. Isn’t that saying that there are things that make “races” that go beyond a social construction? The AAPA statement says that “pure races” do not exist but that physical traits can be different depending on geographical locations. These traits are affected by the environment and the tendency to breed with those that are physically close to each other. Both statements also explain that although originally it was thought that physical or biological traits defined behavior, it is much more clear now that our environments have the largest impact.
It is interesting to me how both of these statements point out in very plain language that the idea of race is for giving groups powers of each other and supports racist beliefs. This seems so obvious to me and it makes me question why we still put so much meaning behind these categories of race. Races are used to oppress, so why are they still so prevalent? I appreciated that both the AAA and the AAPA said that humans are of one single species and should not be categorized as if “races” suggest otherwise.
If I were to explain to someone the nonexistence of biological race of someone who was unfamiliar with it I would start by explaining that the variety within the human race is a spectrum. You cannot clearly draw a line anywhere that would separate people definitively into “races”. The lecture discusses this when the idea of tall and short are brought up. The lecture shows the spectrum of height. The AAA statement describes the purpose race serves socially and politically succinctly and I would use this to explain it as well. It really shows how arbitrary the whole thing is. An example I’ve always used when discussing race with others is how the definition of “white” has changed throughout history. The Irish immigrants that came to America originally were not accepted by those that were already here. At this point, they were not considered white. At another point in history, fairly recently actually, Hispanics were included in the category of white as well. It was only when it became politically advantageous that their own race was created. This wasn’t created by looking at biological traits, it was created with an agenda.