Scientists agree that race is purely a human invention
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
In the recent flurry of executive orders from President Donald Trump, one warned of "a distorted narrative" about race "driven by ideology rather than truth." It singled out a current exhibition at the Smithsonian American Art Museum titled "The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture" as an example. The exhibit displays over two centuries of sculptures that show how art has produced and reproduced racial attitudes and ideologies.
The executive order condemns the exhibition because it "promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct, stating 'Race is a human invention.'"
The executive order apparently objects to sentiments such as this: "Although a person's genetics influences their phenotypic characteristics, and self-identified race might be influenced by physical appearance, race itself is a social construct." But those words are not from the Smithsonian; they are from the American Society of Human Genetics.
Scientists reject the idea that race is biologically real. The claim that race is a "biological reality" cuts against modern scientific knowledge.
I'm a historian who specializes in the scientific study of race. The executive order places "social construct" in opposition to "biological reality." The history of both concepts reveals how modern science landed at the idea that race was invented by people, not nature.
Related: What's the difference between race and ethnicity?
At the turn of the 20th century, scientists believed humans could be divided into distinct races based on physical features. According to this idea, a scientist could identify physical differences in groups of people, and if those differences were passed on to succeeding generations, the scientist had correctly identified a racial "type."
The results of this "typological" method were chaotic. A frustrated Charles Darwin in 1871 listed 13 scientists who identified anywhere between two and 63 races, a confusion that persisted for the next six decades. There were almost as many racial classifications as racial classifiers because no two scientists could seem to agree on what physical characteristics were best to measure, or how to measure them.
One intractable problem with racial classifications was that the differences in human physical traits were tiny, so scientists struggled to use them to differentiate between groups. The pioneering African American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois noted in 1906, "It is impossible to draw a color line between black and other races … in all physical characteristics the Negro race cannot be set off by itself."
But scientists tried. In an 1899 anthropological study, William Ripley classified people using head shape, hair type, pigmentation and stature. In 1926, Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton, the leading racial typologist in the world, listed 24 anatomical traits, such as "the presence or absence of a postglenoid tubercle and a pharyngeal fossa or tubercle" and "the degree of bowing of the radius and ulna" while admitting "this list is not, of course, exhaustive."
All this confusion was the opposite of how science should operate: As the tools improved and as measurements became more precise, the object of study − race − became more and more muddled.
When sculptor Malvina Hoffman's "Races of Mankind" exhibit opened at Chicago's Field Museum in 1933, it characterized race as a biological reality, despite its elusive definition. World-renowned anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith wrote the introduction to the exhibition's catalog.
Keith dismissed science as the surest method to distinguish race; one knows a person's race because "a single glance, picks out the racial features more certainly than could a band of trained anthropologists." Keith's view perfectly captured the view that race must be real, for he saw it all around him, even though science could never establish that reality.
In the scientific study of race, however, things were about to change.
By 1933, the rise of Nazism had added urgency to the scientific study of race. As anthropologist Sherwood Washburn wrote in 1944, "If we are to discuss racial matters with the Nazis, we had better be right."
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, two new scientific ideas came to fruition. First, scientists began looking to culture rather than biology as the driver of differences among groups of people. Second, the rise of population genetics challenged the biological reality of race.
In 1943, anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish wrote a short work also titled The Races of Mankind. Writing for a popular audience, they argued that people are far more alike than different, and our differences owe to culture and learning, not biology. An animated cartoon short later gave these ideas wider circulation.
Benedict and Weltfish argued that while people did, indeed, differ physically, those differences were meaningless in that all races could learn and all were capable. "Progress in civilization is not the monopoly of one race or subrace," they wrote. "Negroes made iron tools and wove fine cloth for their clothing when fair-skinned Europeans wore skins and knew nothing of iron." The cultural explanation for different human lifestyles was more robust than confused appeals to an elusive biological race.
The turn to culture was consistent with a deep change in biological knowledge.
Theodosius Dobzhansky was a preeminent biologist of the 20th century. He and other biologists were interested in evolutionary changes. Races, which supposedly didn't change over time, were therefore useless for understanding how organisms evolved.
A new tool, what scientists called a "genetic population," was much more valuable. The geneticist, Dobzhansky held, identified a population based on the genes it shared in order to study change in organisms. Over time natural selection would shape how the population evolved. But if that population didn't shed light on natural selection, the geneticist must abandon it and work with a new population based on a different set of shared genes. The important point is that, whatever population the geneticist chose, it was changing over time. No population was a fixed and stable entity, as human races were supposed to be.
Sherwood Washburn, who happened to be Dobzhansky's close friend, brought those ideas into anthropology. He recognized that the point of genetics was not classifying people into fixed groups. The point was to understand the process of human evolution. This change reversed everything taught by Hooton, his old teacher.
Writing in 1951, Washburn argued, "There is no way to justify the division of a … population into a series of racial types" because doing so would be pointless. Presuming any group to be unchanging stood in the way of understanding evolutionary changes. A genetic population was not "real"; it was an invention of the scientist using it as a lens to understand organic change.
A good way to understand this profound difference relates to roller coasters.
Anyone who's been to an amusement park has seen signs that precisely define who is tall enough to ride a given roller coaster. But no one would say they define a "real" category of "tall" or "short" people, as another roller coaster might have a different height requirement. The signs define who is tall enough only for riding this particular roller coaster, and that's all. It's a tool for keeping people safe, not a category defining who is "really" tall.
Similarly, geneticists use genetic populations as "an important tool for inferring the evolutionary history of modern humans" or because they have "fundamental implications for understanding the genetic basis of diseases."
RELATED STORIES
—Scientific research is the lifeblood of our economy. Now, a wrecking ball has come.
—'It is a dangerous strategy, and one for which we all may pay dearly': Dismantling USAID leaves the US more exposed to pandemics than ever
—Trump executive order calls mental health prescriptions a 'threat' — why?
Anyone trying to pound a nail with a screwdriver soon realizes that tools are good for tasks they were designed for and useless for anything else. Genetic populations are tools for specific biological uses, not for classifying people into "real" groups by race.
Whoever wanted to classify people, Washburn argued, must give the "important reasons for subdividing our whole species."
The Smithsonian's exhibit shows how racialized sculpture was "both a tool of oppression and domination and one of liberation and empowerment." Science agrees with its claim that race is a human invention and not a biological reality.
The Conversation U.S. receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.
This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati


Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump-backed Jack Ciattarelli captures GOP nomination for New Jersey governor
HOLMDEL, N.J. - The candidate President Donald Trump recently endorsed in New Jersey has won the state's Republican gubernatorial primary, in the 2025 race to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. The Associated Press projects that Jack Ciattarelli, a former GOP state lawmaker who is making his third bid for New Jersey governor, will capture the Republican nomination, topping four rivals in Tuesday's primary in a race that for months had been a battle for Trump's support. Among those Cittarelli defeated were former businessman and popular conservative talk radio host Bill Spadea and state Sen. Jon Bramnick, a lawyer who served for a decade as state Assembly GOP leader. Ciattarelli and Spadea spent months trading fire over which of them was a bigger Trump supporter. But last month the president endorsed Cittarelli, who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination in 2017, but four years later he captured the nomination and overperformed in the general election, coming close to ousting Murphy. "I'm asking you to get out and vote for a true champion for the people of your state – Jack Ciattarelli. He's been a friend of mine, and he's been a real success story," Trump told supporters a week ago, as he dialed into a tele-rally on the eve of the kick-off of early voting in New Jersey. Trump's grip over the GOP is stronger than ever following his convincing White House re-election victory last November, and Cittarrelli, in a Fox News Digtal interview last week, said the president's endorsement was "a really big deal" and added "the president's doing very, very well in New Jersey." Spadea said that not landing Trump's endorsement "was certainly disappointing." "I mean, we made no bones about this. We absolutely wanted the president's endorsement. Unfortunately, the president endorsed a poll and not a plan," Spadea told Fox News Digital last week. "I have been a supporter of President Trump since he came down the escalator," as he referenced Trump's announcement in 2015 of his first presidential campaign. "There is no question that I am the common-sense conservative. I am the actual Republican in this primary," Spadea claimed. And Spadea questioned Ciattarelli's support for Trump, arguing that his rival "has disrespected him [Trump] for the better part of the last eight years…We thought that that endorsement would have been better served with me." Four years ago, after he won the GOP gubernatorial nomination, Ciattarelli, when asked if he was seeking the then-former president's endorsement, told Fox News Digital "there's only one endorsement I seek, and that's the endorsement of the voters of New Jersey. That's the only one that matters." Fast-forward to 2025, and Ciattarelli emphasized that "people really appreciate what he [Trump] is doing for New Jerseyans. He's put a temporary hold on the wind farms off the Jersey Shore. He's beating up on the New York Democrats over congestion pricing. He supports a quadrupling of the SALT [state and local tax] deduction on our federal tax returns. Those are big deals to New Jersey, and that's why he's got so much great support here. And I'm honored to have his endorsement." Asked why Trump endorsed him rather than Spadea, Ciattarelli said that "the president wants to win. He knows that I provide the best opportunity to win in November." "He knows we're going to raise the necessary money. We've raised more money than the other five Republican gubernatorial candidates combined," added Ciattarelli, a certified public accountant who started a medical publishing company before getting into politics. Ciattarelli's fundraising allowed him to dominate the GOP primary ad wars. The Democratic Governors Association, pointing to the rush to embrace Trump by the top two candidates, long described the 2025 Republican showdown as a "MAGA battle" and argued that there's "extremism in the GOP primary." While New Jersey has long leaned toward the Democrats, Republicans have had success in gubernatorial elections. "It's not a blue state when it comes to governor races, Republicans have won six of the last 11. That's better than 50%," Ciattarelli said. Trump, who for years has spent summer weekends at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, held a very large campaign rally last year in Wildwood, N.J. And he improved from a 16-point loss in the state in the 2020 election to a 6-point deficit last November. Ciattarelli, looking ahead to the general election campaign, said he's "really looking forward" to Trump's "active participation…I think New Jerseyans are anxious to have him on the campaign trail with me and help deliver a win for us in November."

NBC Sports
32 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
Stephen A. Smith: Failure to buy Bills sparked Donald Trump's first presidential run
Nearly 10 years ago to the day, a certain someone took a certain ride down a certain golden escalator and most certainly upended American politics. As Stephen A. Smith told it on Monday night's edition of The Daily Show, the rise of Donald Trump the politician is tied directly to his inability to buy the Buffalo Bills a year before he threw his hat in the presidential ring. 'In 2014, he wanted to purchase the NFL's Buffalo Bills,' Smith told Jon Stewart. 'The price tag was $1.4 billion. . . . My sources tell me he had $1.1 [billion]. . . . He literally called me in 2014 and he said, 'Stephen, I'm going to tell you this right now' — and this is a quote — 'if them mutherfuckers get in my way, I'm gonna get them all back. I'm gonna run for president.' Those are his exact words. 'And so the NFL often jokes with me, 'So it's our fault' when I tell them that story. And I say, 'Yeah.'' This prompted Stewart to make a direct plea to the camera: 'People of Buffalo. Give him the fucking team. Save us.' Smith explained Trump's viewpoint on the matter. 'He was putting the word out that if this doesn't happen — he wanted to do it, and this should happen, I'm Donald Trump, I'm very popular and well known, I'm worth over a billion dollars, I should be able to purchase an NFL team if I want it,' Smith said. 'And if I can't get it, it's because they're getting in my way. That was his position. Their position was, 'You didn't have enough money.'' And he didn't. Because at the end of the day that's all it takes to buy an NFL team: Come up with the best offer. Terry and Kim Pegula came up with a better offer than the twice future president. But, yes, there's an alternate universe in which Trump owns the Bills and he isn't the president and he calls in to PFT Live on a regular basis to complain that the league office is being very unfair.