The Option of Race Creation by Realizing the Role of Sexual Selection - Research Paper Example

 Abstract Race is the belief that has divided humans in categories on the basis of their physical, social, cultural and intellectual characteristics. Throughout history, changing meaning and perceptions about the concept of ‘race’ influenced civilizations and individuals. The concept of race developed gradually by intermingling of different societies. Particular inherent attributes of individuals distinguished them from others, the vary idea accelerated the conception of ‘race’ as the basis of human classification. Scientific measures initially promoted it while ended up in defining race as social construct devoid of any scientific or biological justification. The paper studies the journey of this concept from inception. In what ways has the meaning of 'race' changed throughout history? Race is a controversial term as its meaning has always been subjected to social and historical change. In the beginning of 21st century, the ideology of race that divided the humans into biologically distinctive groups based on their social, physical and mental attributes proved to be ramshackle. This concept has never been same throughout its existence; therefore, it is crucial to consider it in a wider perspective. The way ‘race’ is perceived today is certainly different from what it was during Civil Rights Movement and entirely different than what it was a few centuries ago. Scientific investigation played a crucial role in determining the role of different factors that influenced human diversity and racial basis of differentiation. Overall change in meaning of race is influenced by religious, social, cultural, economic and scientific factors. This paper explores and analyses the changing meaning of ‘race’ throughout history of mankind and factors contributing to the changing meaning. Contemporary scholars believe that race is comparatively a modern phenomenon in Europe. Race related subjugation and conflict undoubtedly predate the biological outset of race (Zack 2002, 7).According to Blum (2002) there had never been any clue that ancient Greeks, Romans or even the medieval Jews, Muslims and Christian classified humans into distinct racial groups or communities. In the ancient Greco-Roman times, phonotypical variations such as skin colour and hair texture were considered to be differentiating but this idea never led to specific classification of biological difference. Physical differences that are associated with race in present times never denoted differences in character or culture. For Greeks and Romans the political affiliations of citizenship were the primary foundations of human organization into groups (110 as cited in James, 2008). Aristotle’s renowned distinction between Greek and Barbarian was not made on racial grounds but on practical ones that distinguished people who organized themselves into political communities (Greeks) and those who didn’t (Barbarians) (Hannaford 1996, 43-57; Simposon 1998, 19).Romans distinguished themselves with differing legal framework that organized their societies (Hannaford 1996, 85). Hannaford (1996, 88) further argues as cited in James (2008) when it comes to medieval believers of occidental, monotheistic religions, their primary foundation for human divisions was based on believers and non-believers. In addition to that there was an unspoken theory of Christians and Muslims that any human being was competent enough to be a part of them after being converted into believers. Similarly, Jews distinction between goyim and Jew was based on difference in faith rather than blood. It is considerable that contrary to orthodox Christian thinkers, one Biblical story later used to rationalize racial distinctions. That is the story of Ham that narrates that son of Noah saw his father asleep, naked and drunk. He tried to reveal and ridicule his father’s body in front of Noah’s other sons Shem and Japheth and annoyed Noah cursed Ham’s progeny. Thinkers in later times considered that African people are Ham’s cursed descendants. St. Augustine’s allegorical interpretation of this incident presented Ham’s progeny as heretics (Hannaford 1996, 95). Perhaps the concept of race initially stirred in an unconscious way within the Iberian Peninsula. In eighth century A.D. after Moorish invasion of Andalusia, Iberian Peninsula became the hub of confrontation between Jews, Christians and Muslims. During and after their re-conquest of Muslim dynasty in Peninsula, Catholic Monarchs expelled Jews and Muslims in order to establish a uniform Christian state. People from both religions converted to Christianity in order to avoid eviction and persecution but grand inquisitor expanded the inquiry to beyond religious faith and practice. Defendants were asked to demonstrate their lineage and there originated the idea of pure blood (limpieza de sangre).It proved to be the first occidental use of blood relation as a measure to ensure religious and socio-political membership (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, vii; Hannaford 1996, 122-126; Frederickson 2002, 31-35). Anti-black and anti-Native-American racism may also have originated from the Iberian Peninsula, people there first exploited African slaves and considered them suitable for slavery rather than fellow Europeans. They may have been influenced by Arab slave merchants who preferred dark skinned over light skinned slaves for laborious tasks (Frederickson 2002, 29). Iberian explorations also brought European and indigenous American in contact. Spanish empire didn’t impose any kind of discrimination over conquered people and African slaves. Controversially, the conflict between the ideology of enlightenment, equality and universal freedom as opposed to European enslavement of indigenous Americans and Africans promoted and further developed the notion of race (Blum 2002, 112; Hannaford 1996, 150). Events in the Iberian Peninsula have initiated the proto-racial sentiments but philosophical conception of the idea of ‘race’ emerged in its present form after year in 1684 when “A New Division of the Earth” by Francois Bernier published in (1625-1688) (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, vii; Hannaford 1996, 1991,203 as cited in James, 2008). Bernier used the term “race” in order to differentiate different human groups on the basis of their physical appearances. However, he failed to reflect that relationship of human race and its division supported the scientific rigor of his definition (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, vii).James (2008) states: Central to a scientific concept of race would be a resolution of the conflict between ideas of human monogenesis versus polygenesis. Monogenesis adhered to the Biblical creation story in asserting that all humans descended from a common ancestor, such as Adam of the Book of Genesis; polygenesis, on the other hand, asserted that different human races descended from different ancestral roots. Immanuel Kant strongly defended monogenesis in his essay “Of the Different Human Races,” and argued that all humans belong to common ancestors “lineal root genus” in Europe. It has the biological “disposition” that produced different physical traits triggered by diverse environmental conditions. These environmental factors vary from migration, in-breeding and geographic isolation to the defining combination of humidity and heat. Combined effect of these factors distinguished humans into four pure races and once created further environmental change will not transform racial phenotypes (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 8-22). The concept of race was further promoted by John Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) often considered to be the founder of modern anthropology. In his doctoral dissertation “On the Natural Variety of Mankind (1775),” Blumenbach identified four “varieties” of humans. In revised edition of his essays in 1781 he introduced fifth variety attributing to the inhabitants of South Pacific islands. In 1795 he attributed the inhabitants of Europe, West Asia and Northern India as “Caucasian”. He explained this variety to be originated in Caucuses Mountains of Georgia and justified this analysis with reference to beauty of Georgian people. This revised version also coined the terms of Mongolians for non-Caucasian people of Asia and Ethiopians for Blanks in addition to many others (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 27-33; Hannaford 1996, 207). Considering differences in skin tones, Blumenbach based his analysis of varieties on the structure of cranium that provided his classification a very strong base in contrast with just superficial skin colour differentiation (Hannaford 1996, 206).He strongly denied polygenetic perceptions of racial differences and attributed humans to be capable of breeding only with each other rather than other species. No doubt his contributions can not be denied when it comes to dismiss the spurious idea of Africans mating with apes or humans mating with other animals that created grotesque creatures. In order to support his monogenist ideology, Blumenbach identified some internally active biological factors that manifest themselves in the form of racial differences and called them “nisus formatives,” which get stimulated by environmental factors and appear in different varieties of humans (Hannaford 1996, 208-212).According to Brace (2005,93-103) as cited in (James,2008): Despite the strong monogenist arguments provide by Kant and Blumenbach, polygenesis remained a viable intellectual strain within race theory, particularly in the “American School of Anthropology,” embodied by Louis Agassiz, Robins Gliddon, and Josiah Clark Nott. Agassiz had monogenist commitment initially due to the influence of Romantic scientific theories and an orthodox Christian background but visiting American and having experience with African Americans compelled him to question that different people could possibly share the same blood as European. He officially announced his turn to polygenesis in a meeting of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in1850 where Nott and Gliddon joined Agassiz in promoting polygenesis. Nott had some influences from Gobineau and supported white racial supremacy justified by Gobineau (Brace 2005, 90-121). Gobineau initially believed in monogenesis than inclined towards monogenesis and ended up in uncertainty between both (Hannaford 1996, 268-9). Finally, according to Brace (2005) polygenesis declined with the theory of evolution presented by Charles Darwin (124).Darwin argued in his book, The Descent of Man (1871) that the conflict between the monogenesis and the polygenesis will be dead unnoticeably (as cited in Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 68). Darwin didn’t favour any side in the debate but little support can be identified for races being different species in his argument. His perception that mating of different races produce fertile progeny and different races sharing mental similarities may have evolved into destroy the idea of polygenesis and distinct species but the idea of race still stands there. Darwin never realized that natural selection would produce racial distinctions as physical attributes linked with race were never considered sufficient to ensure retention. However, Darwin left the option of race creation by realizing the role of sexual selection and repeated mating of humans with similar attributes (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 77-78). Consequently race is perceived differently in later times and the idea of natural and sexual selection replaced polygenesis due to their scientific justification and concept of racial differentiation proceeded (Hannaford 1996, 273). “Sexual selection became a central focus for race-thinking with the introduction of the term “eugenics” in 1883 by Francis Galton (1822-1911) in his essay “Inquiries into Human Faculty and Development””(Hannaford 1996,290 as cited in James,2008) In his essay “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims”, Galton stressed physical rather than moral qualities and supported selective breeding in order to develop qualities like health, capabilities and courteous disposition in humans. Galton followed the evolutionary development advocated by “Social Darwinism” and not only suggested to make eugenics a new culture or religion (Bersasconi and Lott 2000, 80-82) but according to James (2008), a policy of American government that resulted in widespread acceptance of negative eugenics instead of positive ones. Stewart Chamberlin argues about the evolutionary conditions of sexual selection that different races originated as a result of mating among different individual with same characteristics in certain historical and geographical conditions (Hannaford 1996, 351). Chamberlain further argued that important threads of western civilization originated from Aryan race, for instance, Christianity and Greek philosophy and art. His writing are undoubtedly became one of they crucial foundation of twentieth century German anti-Semitism and Adolf Hitler proved to be its prominent manifestation (James, 2008). Hannanford (1996, 358) argues as cited in James (2008): If Chamberlain’s writings served as intellectual fodder for German racial prejudice, Madison Grant(1865-1937) provided similar foundations for American race prejudice against Blacks and Native Americans in his popular book The Passing of the Great Race (1916).Rejecting political or educational means of ameliorating the destitution for the subordinate racial groups in America, Grant instead advocated strict segregation and prohibition of miscegenation, or the interbreeding of members of different races. James (2008) further explains the influence on American public policy and states: Like Galton, Grant had similar success in influencing American public policy, both through the imposition of racist restrictions on immigration at the federal level and through the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws in thirty states, until such prohibitions were finally overturned by the United States Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S.1[1967]). The highest point of biological race came in twentieth century and at the same time its decline started in the same area of study that validated this notion scientifically, i.e. academia anthropology. Professor Franz Boas confronted Blumenbach’s foundation of racial typology, skull size. He argued that this attribute is predominantly affected by environmental stimuli and racial claims about distinguished mental capabilities are not different. Though he didn’t rejected the whole idea of biological race but shifted the focus of anthropology from presumably fixed biological attributes to cultural factors that explained human differences (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 84-88; Brace 2005, 167-9; Cornell and Hartmann 1998, 42-3 as cited in James, 2008). Rejection of the biological determination of race is strengthened by Ashley Montague. Considering modern genetics, Montagu explained that anthropological understanding of race is founded on grouping different physical attributes while real foundation of evolution is based on genes that manifest changes on a finer level (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 100-4). Bernasconi and Lott (2000100-4) further argue as stated in (James, 2008): The Morphological traits associated with race, thus, were gross aggregates of a variety of genetic changes, some of which resulted in physically perceptible characteristics, many other of which resulted in imperceptible changes...the dark skin and curly hair of one individual may result from genetic mixture, while the same traits in another individual may result from genetic mutation. Finally, in 1950 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published and announced the statement that denied biological foundations of race. However, American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) took 46 years to publish the similar denial statement (Brace 2005, 239). Throughout history, there had always been scholars and scientists who opposed one or the other element or stereotypes associated with the idea of ‘race’, particularly inequality and discrimination associated with classification on racial grounds. Frederick Douglass in nineteenth century, Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu in twentieth century confronted the popular beliefs regarding race. Zack (2002, 88) has aptly concluded that all the parameters, be it essences or geographic location for categorizing human into race, each of them failed. In today’s world, there is no scientific base for racial classification of human beings. Work cited Bernasconi, R. & Lott, T., (eds.).The Idea of Race. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Blum, L., (2002).I’m not a Racist, But...The Moral Quandary of Race, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Brace, C.L., (2005).Race is a Four-Letter Word. New York: Oxford University Press. Frederickson, G., (2002).Racism: Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hannanford, I., (1996).Race: The History of an Idea in the West. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. James, Michael. Race. (2008). In Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/#HisConRac Simpson, R. L.P., (1998).A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Zack, N., (2002).Philosophy of Science and Race. New York: Routledge. Read More