Let me offer this. Race, as a concept, has little meaning within the realm of biology when referring to humans. This is because, as Spookz, WellCookedFetus, paulsamuel and others have pointed out, there are no traits that are exclusive to any of the so-called races.
In fact, there is much disagreement over what constitutes a "race" within other circles, such as governments, cultures, social groups, etc.
The problem, I think, is that Ghassan Kanafani can see that there are obvious differences between major groups of people, but cannot understand why science refuses to acknowledge the idea of race. Part of the issue is certainly a reluctance to continue using an arbitrary means of classification that perpetuates hostility, hatred, violence, exclusion, etc. A common sense motive.
The other part is finding clear boundaries between the so-called races. Scientists don't like things to be too vague when making definitions. If they're vague as a system of classification, throw that system out and use another.
There's no disputing that there are physical traits that exist among groups of people in the world that are predominant within one group and rare in another. Extremely curly and dark black hair isn't as common among Scots as it is among Nigerians. Having said that, there are problems with making these exclusive traits. Take Navajo and Japanese people for instance. I've met people in each of these nationalities that could have been indistinguishable from each other (while in the US Army stationed at FT Hood... both were in my unit).
Anthropologically, there is merit only in what people consider their race to be, not in what an ethnographer considers to be the race of a people. The American Anthropological Association's position on race is here: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm. Contrary to what C. Sodomy stated, it was not a "study," but rather a position. He obviously didn't read it, but undboubtedly will claim he did.
I would also suggest reading this article, which I have in a text book, Applying Anthropology: An introductory Reader, 6th edition, Podolefsky & Brown, Mayfield Publishing: http://www.greeninformation.com/Race Without Color.htm
This is one of the closing passages from the article
Another interesting source of information is this article, http://www.nature.com/nsu/nsu_pf/001207/001207-8.html, which describes how man is decended from a single ancestoral group in Africa that existed about 170,000 years ago. This was done through Mitochondrial DNA analysis and clearly indicates that C. Sodomy's comment in the first page or two about the AAA's position on race was pointless.
In fact, there is much disagreement over what constitutes a "race" within other circles, such as governments, cultures, social groups, etc.
The problem, I think, is that Ghassan Kanafani can see that there are obvious differences between major groups of people, but cannot understand why science refuses to acknowledge the idea of race. Part of the issue is certainly a reluctance to continue using an arbitrary means of classification that perpetuates hostility, hatred, violence, exclusion, etc. A common sense motive.
The other part is finding clear boundaries between the so-called races. Scientists don't like things to be too vague when making definitions. If they're vague as a system of classification, throw that system out and use another.
There's no disputing that there are physical traits that exist among groups of people in the world that are predominant within one group and rare in another. Extremely curly and dark black hair isn't as common among Scots as it is among Nigerians. Having said that, there are problems with making these exclusive traits. Take Navajo and Japanese people for instance. I've met people in each of these nationalities that could have been indistinguishable from each other (while in the US Army stationed at FT Hood... both were in my unit).
Anthropologically, there is merit only in what people consider their race to be, not in what an ethnographer considers to be the race of a people. The American Anthropological Association's position on race is here: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm. Contrary to what C. Sodomy stated, it was not a "study," but rather a position. He obviously didn't read it, but undboubtedly will claim he did.
I would also suggest reading this article, which I have in a text book, Applying Anthropology: An introductory Reader, 6th edition, Podolefsky & Brown, Mayfield Publishing: http://www.greeninformation.com/Race Without Color.htm
This is one of the closing passages from the article
Racial classification didn't come from science but from the body's signals for differentiating attractive from unattractive sex partners, and for differentiating friend from foe.
Another interesting source of information is this article, http://www.nature.com/nsu/nsu_pf/001207/001207-8.html, which describes how man is decended from a single ancestoral group in Africa that existed about 170,000 years ago. This was done through Mitochondrial DNA analysis and clearly indicates that C. Sodomy's comment in the first page or two about the AAA's position on race was pointless.
We are all of mixed race. Over and over. The physical traits that you see are the result of many, many generations of inter- and intra-breeding and environmental influances.This study is conducted on MIXED-RACE populations. Thus it does not qualify.