Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Several scholars at the time protested the conclusions in the 1950 statement, especially the
assertion that intelligence did not differentially characterize some races over others and that
the term “ethnic group” would work as a substitute for the term “race” (
Shipman, 1994
). This
led to a revision of the 1950 statement, which was released in 1952, this time under
a committee of mostly physical anthropologists and geneticists (although Montagu was still
involved). This revised statement backtracked somewhat on the earlier one, implying science
had not yet agreed on the invalidity of the use of “race” to describe human differences
(
Graves, 2001
). Based on a review of popular introductory textbooks at the time, physical
anthropologists still disagreed whether or not race was a legitimate way to characterize
human differences even given these statements (
Littlefield et al., 1982
). However, after
1970, more textbooks than not began including arguments for the rejection of the race concept
(
Littlefield et al., 1982
), probably as a reaction to the sociopolitical climate and the subsequent
UNESCO statements, outlined below.
The Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s contributed further
pressure on physical anthropology to take a public stance against the race concept, illus-
trating how contemporary sociocultural and political views can influence science and its
practitioners. In addition, the publication of the topic The Origin of Races (
Coon, 1962
) promp-
ted intense dialogue within anthropology about the race concept (
Jackson, 2001; Caspari,
2003
). The main thesis by Carleton Coon (a Hooton student) was that five major races of
H. sapiens evolved separately fromHomo erectus, with Caucasoids (the term he used) evolving
first, and this antiquity of Caucasoids compared to other races was therefore correlated with
their cultural achievement (
Coon, 1962; Jackson, 2001; Caspari, 2003
). Debate was thus
sparked about Coon's conclusions, their social implications, and the need to reevaluate the
race concept in anthropology (
Shipman, 1994; Jackson, 2001; Caspari, 2003
).
Soon thereafter, UNESCO released two new statements in 1964 and 1967, which rejected
typology, races, and biological determinism, while emphasizing the importance of cultural
relativism for understanding the differences between cultures and stating that racist
doctrines have no basis in science. The 1967 statement further maintained that scientists
have a responsibility to ensure that their research is not misused towards racist ends, perhaps
a particularly important point for biological anthropology given that we are fundamentally
interested in human variation as it informs us about human populations and the human
experience.
Several decades later, the AAPA and American Anthropological Association (AAA) passed
resolutions rejecting the race concept in 1996 and 1999, respectively. The AAA statement
focuses on the social meaning of race and its socioeconomic consequences, while the
AAPA statement maintains that (1) it is time to discard antiquated nineteenth century ideas,
(2) that biological differences between groups are due to the interaction of heredity and envi-
ronment, (3) that humans cannot be neatly classified into distinct bounded geographic
groups, and (4) that one group is not superior to another (
AAPA, 1996; AAA, 1999
). It is clear
that as our understanding of human variation and its causes continues to be enhanced, so
will our thinking on how to best communicate this with the public and with our colleagues.
However, typology, biological determinism, and the biological concept of race have defini-
tively been rejected as viable explanations for human differences. Current and future
research in this area will focus on the patterns behind human variation, with the goal of
answering anthropology's central question: “What makes us human?”
