Between interbreeding groups physical differences

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 9 pages.

between interbreeding groups. Physical differences between the groups became blurred as aresult of mixing.On the other hand, sometimes a population may have split into two or more groups,each of which went its own way. This led togenetic drift. Especially when populations aresmall, chances are that the frequencies of particular genes in populations that split will be quitedifferent. For example, it is not likely that the (many) genes that control height will be equallydistributed when a relatively small population splits into two groups. One group may retainmore of the genes that contribute to a taller stature, and after several generations, the averageheight of one group will tend to be greater than that of another (Feder & Park, 1993).In conclusion, nearly 100,000 years of migrations have shaped from an originalpopulation of Africans an assortment of regional groups differing phenotypically from eachother in ways shaped by geography, climate, and chance. At the same time, Africansthemselves have also continued to evolve. Today Africa remains the continent with the greatestamount of genetic (and linguistic) diversity anywhere on the earth, further lending support tothe idea that it all started in Africa.Part 2. On the question of human racesThe topic of race is a sensitive one because race is historically tied to issues of inequality andoppression that still trouble us today. But what is race? Simply stated, race involves the ideathat humans can be classified into a few basic groups based on genetic and physical traits,ancestry, or social relations. Today scholars think of race as afolk concept, not a scientificconcept although once upon a time, the concept was treated with great scientific authority.It is true that most groups tend to classify other groups in relationship to themselves. Agroup with limited knowledge and experience of another group living nearby may merelycreate a simple category that distinguishes the in-group from the out-group. For instance, theAbenaki who inhabited the northern regions of North America, and referred to themselves as
Cross-Cultural ExplorationsAlnôbak,“real people,” referred to their neighbors in the arctic as Eskimo, “eaters of raw flesh,”or so it is widely believed. Meanwhile, the ‘Eskimo’ called themselves Inuit, or … you guessed it,“real people.” Each group thought of itself as “real people,” while they thought of the othergroup as, well, perhaps not real people.On the other hand, complex societies with considerable knowledge of other people mayproduce elaborate systems of classification. It is often said that Europeans had no particularawareness of race until the 1700s; however, a variety of cultural documents from the EuropeanMiddle Ages show that during the 13th, 14th, and 15thcenturies, Europeans were alreadycreating a discourse of race even before the development of an explicit vocabulary of race(Heng, 2011).

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 9 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
AdaSin
Tags

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture