This is possibly trigger warning, but I mean these questions honestly and literally, without any sort of racist implication.
Why do we say that the differences among humankind (such as White, Black, Asian, Hispanic) are attributed to what we call ‘race’, and not, for instance, breed or subspecies? (Like it would be with animals.) We have different traits, such as skin color, build, and disposition to certain allergies and diseases. But yet we wouldn’t say we are a different species, we would say that we are a different race.
But why is the term race never used for anything else outside of humankind? There could be some differences among types of rams, for instance, but we would not say that the rams are of two different races. No, we would say that they are a different subspecies or something like that, even being sexually compatible just like us. And if that wasn’t the perfect example for you, then suppose that two different groups of animals are perfectly and analogously different to each other in the same way two groups of humans are different to each other racially. We would still say that the humans have a difference in race, but the animals have a difference by some other category. Why is that?
Thanks in advance, and again, I’m not saying different races are a different species, I really am just curious as to this whole naming convention. What makes differences among humans racial, but those same differences to other animals would not be racial?
In: Biology
It doesn’t. Taxonomicaly there is not much difference between “races, it only serves a utilitarian purpose.
Because it is a social thinking. No genetics or biology take part in the designation of race.
They aren’t the same thing. The term “race” is used to refer to a very vague concept, which is informed by genetics, but also by culture, geographic location, physical appearance, history and politics. “Breed” refers solely to genetics (and possibly to appearance as well).
Historically, the term “breed” *has* been applied to human races. Mostly by eugenicists looking for a pseudoscientific way to justify their racist beliefs, by claiming that all these things which make up a “race” can be derived from genetics (they obviously cannot).
Additionally, the term “breed” has connotations of livestock (because livestock are bred to produce desirable traits). This is another reason why “breed” has *historically* been used to apply to humans (to justify slavery and other racist policies), and why it typically is *not* used today.
People have been recognizing physical and cultural differences between human groups for pretty much ever. As far back as Ancient Greece, and farther, various surviving documents show that some people saw those differences as merely a reflection of the climate and environment where other people lived, and some were making assumptions about people’s character based on those differences. For example, [Hippocrates of Kos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates_of_Kos) believed that people from temperate climates were “sluggish” and uninterested in working, while people from extreme climates were “sharp”.
The actual word “Race” and its usage started sometime in the late 1500s, and people probably kept using that term, rather than a word like “breed”, because at this point a lot of cultures saw humans as completely different and separate from animals, and so didn’t want to use the same words to describe people and animals. Using the word Race was probably just another way to make it clear that humans are not animals.
Humans have traditionally set themselves apart from animals, terms used to describe animals are often offensive when applied to humans. “Breed” in particular is often used to denigrate someone’s ancestry (“half-breed”), so when talking about different genetic varieties of humans, different words, like race, are employed.
“Race” is a social construct with biological associations, exclusively applied to human beings. “Breed” would probably be an applicable term, but aside from some rather shameful exceptions in human history, we don’t breed (verb) humans in the same way we breed animals for specific traits. The differences in human races have been, except for the past few hundred years, based almost exclusively on geography and other social distinctions.
Humans are all in the same species, homo sapiens sapiens. The term “species” is a little problematic in terms of pure biology, but one species is generally agreed to be distinct from another if the two cannot produce viable offspring. Horses are one species, even though there are a lot of different breeds, and ditto for donkeys. They can’t be grouped in the same species, because even though they can produce offspring (mules and hinnies) those offspring are infertile. Subspecies don’t have this offspring problem.
The species distinction can get tricky, and species are often recategorized by biological taxonomists. So for example, all dogs are “canis familiaris,” because they can interbreed, even chihuahuas and great danes. But dogs can also reproduce with wolves, “canis lupus,” and their puppies can also breed with both dogs and wolves. At this point biologists believe that, according to our definition of species, all wolves and dogs are technically the same species. So dogs are sometimes categorized as “canis lupus familiaris.” But due to the striking difference in body structure and behavior, dogs and wolves are often categorized differently just for the sake of convenience.
Despite some interesting research and theory, there’s currently no evidence that any human can create offspring with our closest biological relatives, the great apes. We’re a distinct species, and all of us are the same species. We’re divided into races, more as a social, political, and geographical convenience than a biological distinction, though there are some medical applications for the term. You could call the different races “breeds,” but we don’t, and again that’s a social construct…if only because breeds and breeding is something we apply to animals and not ourselves.
“Race” does not apply to anything. It is biologically-meaningless. There are ethnicities, but no race.
Well it depends on country. Race is used toward dogs in Polish language, same as humankind.
The factors we use to define race are fairly arbitrary. Consider that Jews, Gypsies, & other minority groups used to be considered a separate “race”, but are now largely lumped together as “white”. It’s basically just cherry picking certain external traits. Consider the the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsi people, they have been defined as a separate race based on ” the physical feature of a longer nose, or longer neck, commonly associated with the Tutsi.” Yet, westerners would just call them black. Consider a redheaded Irish versus an olive-skinned southern Italian. There are the negrito people of Southeast Asia, and the people of South India, who are just as dark skinned as any African, but they’re Asian, not “black”. There are people in northern Japan who live at the same latitude as Romania and have a similar skin tone. So, we’re going by facial features. A large family all have common & distinct facial features, but we don’t consider them a separate race. Races are largely culturally defined.
That may also depend on your native language. In mine, “race” and “breed” are the same word and it’s used for both humans and animals, professionally and colloquially.
This is a good question, but definitely a wrong site to post it on, because everyone would gladly dissect your question rather than try and help you with your confusion.
Latest Answers