I'm a cultural/social anthropologist ( among other things ;) and I can say with full confidence that no other discipline gives you a better set of tools to explain and understand the complexities of the human world. Totally recommend getting a degree in anthropology. Good luck finding a job though ;)
I totally agree! Years ago I was studying to become an anthropologist at University and it was a mind changing experience! Although I never finished, I feel I am more mature in my thinking on humanity and find more interest in the diversity and the investigation of how what when and where of humans.
I've wanted to be an anthropologist since I was a kid. Unfortunately finances have gotten in the way of actually getting a degree. However I do my best to learn from free/cheap online courses.
Thank you. The presenter keeps the subject interesting and explains clearly so that I can understand this subject...1st time taking Socioloy...as an "older" student, very 1st semester.
I am also a “mature” student working through my first year of undergrad studies and am really wanting to study sociology and social work. I am just about done my first year credits and these TH-cam videos really help. I also like the series called Crash Course. They cover all kinds of great subjects and we watched many of their videos in my intro sociology class. Lots of luck to you
A small tip for anyone: Speed the video up to 1.25x and we will talk at a much more consistent pace. Don't mean to be rude in any way, but I felt the regular speed was too slow and I was getting a little bored. (You can click the cogwheel/gear icon in the bottom right corner of the vid to find the speed setting.) Thank you for this video. I love world-building, exploring human history, culture, philosophy and all other kinds of things.
I love Anthropology because it is a science of sciences. It's multidisciplinary approach draws on a lot of empirical science to explain perceived phenomena.
Basically, those that live in hots are comfortable with their way of life that's why they don't see the need to make a change. Most often you will see how peaceful and happy they are. Being simple does not make you less than.
My anthropology class sent me here and of all of the 240p videos I have watched its nice to see one that is quite a bit more current in terms of quality, and information as well! Great video and good information!
I was completely trying to argue this guy because he felt really bias until his new Yorker vs intuit analogy that really hit different and opened my eyes to what he was telling me!!
He never backs up his assertions. Just claiming there are no races doesn’t make them go away. Are the differences between a parakeet and a bald eagles social constructs? We don’t have to deny reality to recognize the fundamental value and equal worth of all human beings. It’s amazing that he can say with a straight face that What other people think of a black person affects them more than their own biology.
Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context. Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. Different cultures define different racial groups, often focused on the largest groups of social relevance, and these definitions can change over time. The establishment of racial boundaries often involves the subjugation of groups defined as racially inferior, as in the one-drop rule used in the 19th-century United States to exclude those with any amount of African ancestry from the dominant racial grouping, defined as "white".[1] Such racial identities reflect the cultural attitudes of imperial powers dominant during the age of European colonial expansion.[2] This view rejects the notion that race is biologically defined. Although commonalities in physical traits such as facial features, skin color, and hair texture comprise part of the race concept, this linkage is a social distinction rather than an inherently biological one. Bald eagles and parakeets are different breeds of the same species (or race, put into human terms). The human “race” is more properly called “Homo sapiens sapiens”, our scientific name for the species. You can find all citations in the course guidebook (link above).
@@ferdomrkvicka1247 The difference being whenever somebody says they're "proud of the accomplishments of the white race" they are usually a white supremacist I have never met somebody who holds that opinion that was not a white supremacist or "race realist"
Race is real, it has always been real. When "scientists" say there is no scientific basis for race what they're referring to is that there is no definitive line where you go from one race to another. Genetically there is a basis for race, but there are ethnic groups that sit between the different races. Race is 100% real though and that's just a scientific fact. The cause of the different races is because of interbreeding between different hominids. We all have a common ancestor that forms the basis of what we consider modern humans, but we also have ancestors that we don't all share. Europeans have between 1% and 5% neanderthal dna. Asians have neanderthal dna and denisovan dna. Sub Saharan Africans have 0% to 0.3% neanderthal dna. Sub Saharan Africans can also attribute as much as 19% of their dna to a "ghost species" hominid that's yet to have been discovered. This admixture from other hominid species is the reason we're all so significantly different and also why we're all so we'll adapted to our local environment. Red hair and pale skin are believed to be from neanderthal for example. Had we not had this archaic admixture survival in our various regions would have been significantly more difficult. So in conclusion race is real, it can be proven, and it's not debatable. The fight against the existence of race is driven entirely by egalitarianism instead of actual science. The fact that there are mixed people in between the races changes nothing ESPECIALLY considering the clustering at the extremities. Genetically there are 3 distinct races, caucasoids, mongoloids, and negroids though not all ethnic groups clearly fall into one of these groups. I'm not really a fan of these labels though since they're not very accurate. Mongoloid is probably the least accurate, but I won't get into it. Races are an overview of clusters of ethnic groups. Genetically we've already proven ethnicity, That's the whole basis of dna ancestry like 23andme. So you can think of it like this as a comparison only: if your ethnicity is like your immediate family, then your race is like your extended family where some are closer than others, and all of humanity would be like the town you live in. Something you might be wondering is race only about appearance? Nope not even close. Races or ethnic clusters also affect things like risk of heart disease and ability to process lactose or alcohol. A more controversial subject is behavioral differences. It's pretty much proven there are differences in behavior the only question is the extent. The biggest behavioral difference is social behavior particularly on a large scale. Studying this gets complicated and into stimuli outside of race for example the length of winter in a region. It appears that on average that ethnicities that exist in colder regions with longer winter's tend to have higher trust societies, meaning people trust eachother more and there are lower rates of antisocial behavior. An interesting exception to this rule is Islanders, specifically pacific islanders, which also exhibit high trust societies and lower rates of antisocial behavior. I won't get into it all though since nobody has made it this far into the comment.
16:31 "equally modern" isn't that questionable? Doesn't the word "modern" entail progression from from one state to another? For example, if an amazon tribe have used the same technology for generations without any progression, can we say that their society is equally modern to e.g. England, that have seen much change to their society? The amazon tribe might be perfectly adapted to their environment and I don't want to put any value judgement on one society being better than the other, but doesn't the word "modern" loose it's original meaning when saying that all societies are "equally modern"?
Well it is often forced. An example there was a documentary where a man living 'traditionally' in the arctic circle used a small gun to hunt but the person making the documentary make him use spears and the like that hadn't been used in the area for centuries.
Well this whole video is actually wrong. Race does exist. The reason so many people say there's no genetic basis for race is because there isn't a definite line where one race ends and another begins. They kind of bleed into eachother. There are genetic clusterings of ethnic groups in the 3 main races of people though which is made up by east Asians (which includes native Americans), Caucasians/Europeans, and Africans. The cause of races is archaic admixture from other hominids with the modern human ancestor we all have in common. You may have heard that Europeans have 1%-5% neanderthal dna or that Asians have neanderthal and denisovan dna. You probably haven't been told that Africans have between 0% and .3% neanderthal dna but can have as much as 19% of there dna from an archaic species yet to be identified. So there absolutely is a basis for race, only the implications are debatable. Is it the cause of some people being more "modern" than others? Possibly. Things we know for a fact are attributed to race are the ability to metabolize lactose and alcohol.
@@alexhurt7919 If humans are of different races they would not be able to reproduce with each other or the offspring would be sterile at the very least.
@@moxide incorrect it is a misconception that the definition of a different species lacks the ability to reproduce, many animals who are clearly different species can reproduce with each other and their offering are fertile aswell the different racial groups would correctly be classified as different subspecies, tigers and lions are different species they can re produce and there offspring is not sterile, goats and sheep are different species and can cross, lamas and camels can cross, even one mule out of 250,000 is fertile different species cross all the time creating new species
Thank you a clear explanation of how destructive racism is. The better we understand how this comes about the more likely we are to be able to change it.
Thank you for the video! 2 questions: 1) You use the phrase "we are one race- Homo Sapiens" In my mind H. Sapiens is a species, do you not differ Race from Species? 2) If you do differ: Then what is the definition of race? How come we name dogs/cats/cows etc by different races but not humans? Any serious thoughts/answeres appreciated. Thanks :)
You can't differ "race" from species because "race" doesn't exist. You can try to distinguish "race" according to how , as a concept, it has been understood, defined and utilized, but none of those things make it a biological reality. Consequently, there is no legitimate definition of race because it's not a legitimate "thing". Woefully, he didn't mention this, but the proper "label" is family.
@@rembeadgc This. More people from the scientific community need to be up front about this. "Race" is NOT a scientific concept. It is poorly defined and used almost exclusively in a political context to create divisions within humanity.
I realize this was form a year ago... but I thought I would tackle the question anyway... www.pcc.edu/illumination/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2018/05/race-and-racism-curriculum.pdf "Race: Race is a socially constructed artifact that categorizes people based on visual differences which are imputed to indicate invisible differences. These categorizations are amorphous and fluid over time which reflects their social rather than physical basis. Its significance arises out of the meanings we as societies assign to it, and the way we structure race in our societies. This structuring shapes what we refer to as "institutional racism" (defined below)." BTW, just because race is socially constructed, this doesn't mean the effect of this myth, racism isn't real. It's like pointing out that money is also socially constructed, therefore, poverty can't be real. I also think since the timing of the etymology of "race" meaning "species" coincides with a lot of the bad early anthropology, he should have used "species" for race several times as to not accidentally erase the reality of the social construction and the effects of it. Because that can come off if not done carefully as colorblind, however, when pitching this to white people, it might help to walk them through the basics, but for PoCs it can be off-putting. I specialized in systems, BTW, which deals with social inequalities...
@@user-qp4ij4yl8y except don't! because they will call you names. They want you to believe that humans are the only species in all of animalia to have no subspecies.
Does anybody here understand science? I.e biology, the differences between a race, a species and a genus? I came here eager to learn but this is a whole lot of theory, most of which was disproved by science before it was, incorrectly, theorised. I came here under the impression that anthropology was a serious field of science and will be leaving disappointed. Not everything is open to opinion, e.g we can disagree on whether gravity is a downward pushing force or a downward pulling force but whether gravity exists, or not, is irrefutable. You can be of the opinion that gravity is just a social construct designed to stop us leaving Earth, but you'd be in denial of observable facts and have no tangible evidence to support your theory, much like this man.
@@pedroguerrero3862 too uncomfortable to learn the truth for Nikolas, so he resorts to name-calling. He rather prefers the pecking order he falls in 'white man's burden' and does not like that it is being called out for what it is.
The very word "race" has lost its true meaning in "civilized" countries. We are all "racing" to find out the truth about the human species, the culture, language, hereditary lineage (biological), and where we all originated from, archaeology. We are a Human Species, we race around like rats that just escaped the cage and now we have to scramble to be better than anyone else, have more than anyone else, be first at everything; that is the race of humanity. So, on these census sheets that our governments want us to fill out we should just write Human of Earth and maybe they will get the point!!
You start with a royal non sequitur Margaret - how is the "very word "race" " a word at all in other civilised or uncivilised countries" The word 'race' is an English word not a word in Chinese or Koisan.
Study on your own for now if you can't go to school at the moment. When you can, go back to school to first get your associate's degree. to save money, you can do it at your local community college and complete your FAFSA for gov grants or loans. When you are ready to start your bachelor's, choose your major as anthropology.
Fascinating topic. I hear anthropologists making the case over and over that it is wrong to rank cultures, there are differences but it is wrong to believe that some cultures are better than others. And give examples like Arctic hunters and modern urbanites. Neither could do well in the other's environment. A fair point. But it seems to me that there are clear objective indicators and that many cry out for ranking. A few examples: 1. Athens and Spata 2. Modern Liberal Democratic and Totalitarian sociries 3. Jewish culture. Notice the huge number of Nobel prizes won by people of Jewish ancestry. 4. American Civil War North and South. 5. Latin and North American society. Notice how millions of Latin Americans are boring with their feet to get to the United States. 6. Muslim and Judeo-Chtristian culture. To me the essential characteristic is freedom. To what extent does the culture promote freedom, enabling individuals to pursue their innate abilities to the fullest. I never hear that from anthropologists.
Any professor at any university, like Scott Lacey, had better argue that race is nothing but a "social construct", if he values his job security because the Leftist politics of every university would cost Professor Lacey his job, if he were to suggest otherwise. If there is no such thing as "race", then there should be no such thing as "racism" because we are all one human race. Right? But since "racism" is the most overused and abused word in the English language, particularly among Democrats and their name-calling; obviously the consensus is that race is real and not just a social construct, regardless of what anthropologist are forced to teach in the classroom.
Money is also a social construct. If you believe racism isn't real because race isn't real, does that mean I can have all your money and property too and you wouldn't experience something called poverty?
@@yoonmikim5663 Money is a total false equivalency here. Money is a human construct.. humans are not and neither is race. Do you suppose someone sat down and said 'lets make humans with epicanthic folds over their eyes.. or white skin?
In my opinion, this course, although full of great and truthful information, still falls short because the way in which the word "race" is being used (phrase to phrase, sentence to sentence) is still legitimizing it as an actual "thing" or category. This leads people to continue thinking that it has some relevance. Where, IMO, these lectures and forums fail is that they don't actively replace the word "race" with another, more accurate word. That word is family. This is what will really change the game. However, the "scientific" community, as a whole, IMO, hasn't come to grips with the implications of that idea.
rembeadgc : What does the word ‘family’ offer that the word ‘race’ doesn’t? With words being merely signifiers, what would be the purpose of just swapping one out for another?
The appropriate term is "cline", and it is used academically. As you can imagine, however, there aren't very many people that are familiar with the term. It's unfortunate, but science communicators have to balance veracity with... Edibility?
The ego makes the individual feel inferior or superior because of their race. You can choose not to use the word race, however genetics and archaeology will continue to progress and elucidate the interesting and unique differences that make people who they are.
You must like cultural marxism, where everything is to be blamed on European Christians. Science is racist, its only racist, because the industrial revolution was created by one Race, Caucasians. Everyone else threw rocks at planes.
Excellent presentation. Note: (around the 15 min. mark) Franz Boas was not Polish. He was a German Jewish immigrant. The presenter is confusing Boas with his contemporary, Bronislaw Malinowski. Also, cultural anthropologists do not generally think of their discipline as a science. The other subdisciplines, biological anthropology and archaeology are scientific.
Yes well it's quite clear without having to just repeat that we are all the same race homo sapiens. I don't think that no one is refutiating that. I mean isn't it a consencus that if a male and female can produce a fertile, reproducing offspring, it is of the same race. For example tigers and lions can't produce an offspring capable of reproducing, ergo not the same species, but still close enough species to produce an offspring. For example a japanese and a nigerian can produce a healthy fertile child together. So we are the same race. But can't we agree that there is a difference between how they look? They are not the same from the stand point of behaviour and thinking, but a different sub-species of the same race. The culture and the enviroment we grow up in has a deep impact on how we behave and think, but why do we assume that the culture is separate from biology? Maybe the culture is an reprecentation of that sub-species' biology. I mean we have different types of bone structures between races, so why is it such a great leap to make to assume the brain might as well has differences in structure, not large, but large enough to manifest themselves in different types of social structures and cultures. I mean if we continue to think the example of Japan and Nigeria, they were both separate from each other, somewhat isolated, but produced vastly different cultures. Japan is an mountainous island with almost no natural resources apart from wood and fish. Nigeria is a country with rich natural resources, but still Japan has always been functioning as a society much better and been more prosperous. Maybe the fault is the people and the kinds of cultures they produce, not the enviroment in this case? In this case I would suggest that relative to Nigerian culture, Japan is much better. Most people who could choose, would indeed choose Japan, because it is safer and better for a person to live in. Perhaps certain ethnic groups have as a whole, statistically biological tendencies for certain types of personalities? For example Japanese people as a whole are more concienscious than Nigerian peoples, therefore making them more productive and more likely to defer gratification. if you don't know that that means see the other lecture from great courses plus on personalities. th-cam.com/video/Fk8aRx2fFgA/w-d-xo.html Just an observation, don't mean I know for sure, I'm not highly educated person, but thought it's worth thinking about.
"why is it such a great leap to make to assume the brain might as well has differences in structure, not large, but large enough to manifest themselves in different types of social structures and cultures." Because the white race has gone through every possible kind of social structure itself. Feudalism, Capitalism, Communism, Nation Socialism, Monarchy, Anarchy, Theocracy, Liberalism, Fascism, ...everything. So there isn't any form of social organisation that is particular for white people. Why should there be one particular to other races? Asian societies have pretty much also gone through all kinds of social organisations. African societies, not so much, but that's also because they lacked the material means, the industrial revolution which enabled large scale division of labour and media technology which enabled large scale nation states to make propaganda so to conceive of millions of people that don't even know each other as one tribe. And Japan wasn't always the liberal capitalist democracy that it is now. It's only been that way since post WW2, since the Americans exported it their form of social organisation to them. China wasn't always the state capitalist society ruled by communist party that it is now. It used to be an empire ruled by a monarch. Then a communist revolution ruled by Mao. Communism is an ideology that originated in Europe and from there spread all over the world, e.g. also to Latin America. Capitalism is english ideology that spread all over the world and changed the forms of social organisation. The social organisation of peoples have changed radically over the course of history. Agriculture, which radically changed social organistion, didn't originate in Europe, but the middle east and was exported to Europe.
You are touching on some interesting points here, I understand you question, but in terms of anthropology it is a bit ethnocentric. I am a first year anthro minor, so I'm not 100% qualified to answer this, but I still want to try. Yes, this is a diffrence in the looks of Nigerians and Japanese descent. But, what I have learned is that the physical differentiations are not as much as we like to think. Anthropologists believe that the human race started in Africa (they just found what they believe is the 'mother' of humans recently). In terms of skin pigmentation, it is the human bodies natural reaction to more or less sun. People who live in colder climates adapted over generations, while those who have been in warmer, more sunny climates have darker skin due their bodies natural response to survival of sun exposure. In terms of facial structres, I cannot be sure as I have not covered the topic enough to comment. What I think youre getting at in terms of Nigerian/ Japanese culture is that Japan seems more "civilized" than Nigerian culture. This idea is, I believe false. Japanese culture is more in line with Western ideologies, and thus we believe it is more civilized. In order to understand cultures, you have to understand the history of a society, or be aware of historical conciousness and historisiztion. Nigeria, like Africa has, to be frank, gone through hell and back. Because of their abundaces of resources, they have been exploited by Western civilization. All you have to do is look at Lewis H. Morgan (who was talked about in this video) and his ideas of barbarism and civlized, these theories pushed exploitation and racism. The West took complete advantage of resources (including people, which they saw as less than). Japan has had their share of problems, but not to the extent that Nigeria has faced. So, in order to critque the differences between Nigerian and Japanese culture, you have to look at the whole history of these communities. The issue with Nigeria is that due to its upheavel over history, it is maybe not as safe as Japan. This is because Nigeria was essentially robbed of their own prosperity (its currently under commonwealth). Because they dont have the same say as Japan does in their dealings, you have a somewhat corrupt government and broken systems. Even if they are in control now, they are suffering the reprocussions of past traumas. Also, to say that Japan's culture is better is ethnocentric, we cannot say that it is better and more valuable. Africa was seen as 'savage', so were Indigienous peoples. In reality, these cultures had/have very complex, highly sophisticated and under appreciated art, cultures, societies, but because we think of culture in terms of Western ideals and because of backwards sterotypes, we think they are less than (which is not the case at all). All you have to do is look at ethnographies by Frank Boas, Bronisław Malinowski and Margret Mead (mother and fathers of modern anthro). I hope that makes a litttlllee bit of sense!
Scott M. Lacy, professor at Fairfield University, discusses racial discrimination, its causes, and related beliefs. Various reasons why humans appear act and live differently have been offered. Everything points to the idea that people come in diverse races, some savage, others respectable. Several scholars have tried to link skin color, hair type, cuisine, and culture to biology and anthropology. They said that because people developed from diverse animal species, their race is different. It's always been muddled with ethnicity and socio-economic Early academics utilized Darwin's theory of natural selection and single or multicellular organism method to explain the idea of race. These hypotheses have been used to describe humans as savage, barbarian, or civilized. The “White Man's burden” has also been imposed on non-whites. White people felt morally bound to civilize non-whites, leading to colonialism and increased discrimination. Even in the past, the legal system was ill-informed and ineffective. "If nature has created human distinct, no law can make them equal," was the ludicrous assertion used to justify the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896. After training barbaric humans to behave in the same manner as their more civilized counterparts, colonization began. Male and female non-whites were sterilized to prevent the reproduction of additional barbarians. There is still racial classification at both public and private institutions. One of the first questions on any application for school, bank, or tax purposes these days.
Savagery isnt exclusive to past civilizations not one bit and for people to move forward in academic disciplines such as this they have to get over certain generalized theories and then maybe we can all get on the same level if not higher level of understanding
Take the out of Africa theory out of the equation because it is documented that all skin color was in America. And there are American "genetic " relations to oceanic people and Australians. So when it comes to markers, is there a way to tell who passed down that marker, which way it came from? For example, lets say an American has the same marker as an African, how can one tell which way it came from? Was it an American who passed it down to an African via past migration or was it an African who passed it down to an American? Are those markers exact matches or is it just similar to each other and somebody just went on ahead and said this is an African marker or this an American marker and they are genetically ancestral related? Or they saying they are genetically related because of similarities or exact matches? If so, how can they tell who receive what from who?
One question 🙋🏻♂️ I do have out of Curosity is if race is indeed a social construct and does not accurately identifying humans into certain groups then we’re do these specific physical traits come from an Arfican couple don’t just make a Native American baby are these physical traits biological and how can you map it I Perfectly understand mental capability and life style aren’t biological but hair and skin color are Can someone respectively explain this to me I’m curious
Well, I'm white. I sure hope I don't represent humanity's apex. Lol. If that's true we're in trouble. Actually, I've been making the argument that there's no such thing as race for a long time. I originally learned it from the older Great Courses on Anthropology. I like the way she put it. She says something like "Science doesn't care whose feelings get hurt." Which is true but then she goes on to explain why most anthropologists don't believe in race. This is science. This isn't just some up with people, happy clappy, good will to all type of thing. I think a lot of people don't get that. They hear that "race is a social construct" they think it's some deeply liberal sjw thing. And speaking of deeply liberal sjw types of things, the idea that race doesn't exist is, I think, more distasteful to certain minority groups who, over the years, have developed that as their identity and as a source of pride. I don't want to take that away from them. I think it's great that they're proud but again, science doesn't care. I don't really know where that leaves me. I tend to think more like a liberal but science comes first. Any thoughts from anyone?
Yes, the idea of race is a social construct. The first time race was seperated in American history was in 1600s Virginia. Lower class white people and slaves were talking about a revolte against promient whites, as obviously blacks were slaves and were mistreated and the whites felt as if they were being taken advantage of. In order to chill everyone out, they made a law how whites were basically just marginally better than blacks and gave them small plots of land. This act gave lower-class whites a better standing in society, and it shut down any talk of an uprising. So, yeah its a concept that kept only true Europeans (Anglo-Saxons) at the top of the heirarchy. -btw, this is what I was taught in my first yr antho course and my mind was blown
Simply put: Evolution. If white people were to live in the desert from now on, they would adapt to said enviornment, their skin would probably turn dark in a matter of several generations, to say one of many, many examples.
He didn't say that physical differences weren't biological or genetic. You're still applying traditional racialized thinking. It's that physical differences don't come from "race". He answered your question in the video. You might want to watch it again.
I can only conclude that there are minor differences between the races that we are incapable of coming to terms with. We cannot see minor differences for what they are and instead must conclude that one is inferior and one is superior.
That's exactly what he said: 'Cultures are not better or worse than others - they are just different.' They are relative and can not be ranked on some arbitrary scale of worse of better. He did not say they were equal. Humans are equal in the sense that we are all human but that does not mean we are equal in any other sense - we are different as well.
I understand and share your good wishes for equality and non-discrimination. But there are considerations not addressed here. For example, in Spanish countries where nobody discriminates against themselves, there is a greater incidence of illnesses like Diabetes; and it is well known in the medical field, that the Black-American population and the White-non-Hispanic population do respond Differently to certain Medical Treatments (Antihypertensives, Antilipidemics...), also that the Asiatic population has a Higher-Pain-Threshold that is Not Cultural related (since certain Spanish populations that are the Epithome of "Machism", have a much lower pain threshold).
Dr. Seba says that because our biology is from Africa, we cannot eat the things Europeans or Asians eat, that is the reason our risks are higher. I should be eating roots and berries or yucca instead of potatoes!
You sure shouldn't eat what you don't have the genes and gut bacteria to digest, or you'll likely get some sort of abdominal cramp or perhaps chronic pain from inflammation or so many other illnesses. And yes, population types have specific genes, blue eyes are one example upon many.
If race is a "cultural construct, independent of biology and geography" then why are there biological differences among different races? If for example an Asian and Sub-Saharan African man would have died in a forrest and their remains found 50 years from now, scientists would be able to determine what race those remains belong to just by visually examining the bone structures. Differences are not just in bone structures but also in brain size, skin colour, DNA (modern Europeans and East Asians have about 2% of Neandhertal DNA while Sub-Saharan Africans basically none - for example Homo Sapiens share about 99% of DNA with Chimpanzee) etc. Are we all just supposed to ignore these scientific facts because of modern political correctness and not talk about them? Because someone's feelings might get offended?
From a scientific perspective. The social sciences have worked hard over the past 80 years or so to eliminate it's earlier eurocentric bias. Perhaps you should stick to speaking about things you actually understand.
Words that came from a myth or not science and defuse them you've changed the subject. To keep it scientific you after use physical evidence instead of a myth.
Leftist antropology is a farce, rewriting history through the lense of todays morals, the biggest intellectual sin of all time. You do not judge history with todays morals, it has to be taken into context.
Do you think if we eliminated the concept of race we would still be prejudicial to cultures and assume cultures by visual aspects? It seems like our brains really want to make lists and groups and I wonder if we remove race we will see just another layer of the onion.
yes, the best we have is to see each other culturally and through the ancestors. but after we move from that we may come to a point where we see humans as humans - may take a while lol
Anthropology is simply the study of humanity, usually prehistory. Linguistics has been used before to see if certain groups are related or have interacted, since people who have similar languages tend to have connected origins, so linguistics can be used in anthropology, like how chemistry can be used to understand biology.
that is correct. Breeds of dogs are genuinely just the same species bred to exhibit specific traits for generations. What we call breeds are entirely just the result of choice breeding. It's like if a family tree only ever bred with people that had big noses or male pattern hair loss, that trait is going to dominate others.
@@michaelsoutherland3023 I have two dogs I would never describe them as a chihuahua or doberman and I'm offended when people do. They are both beautiful individual dogs.
Yes race is obviously a myth. Some people in positions of authority have told us that the science says it's a myth and therefore it is. I'm glad he explained why we are asked statistical questions about ethnicity despite it being a myth. We need to collect data on people's perceived ethnicity so we can know what type of institutional racism they are always being subjected to.
But aren’t we the same species? Not the same race. That’s like comparing the golden retriever to the pitbull. Both dogs, different breeds. I like this video anyway but we’re the same species. Just like dogs developed because of surrounding environments and selective breeding so did we. This video was very informative and I liked it. Thank you. I hope you see this and perhaps let me know your input as wel.
I've always been identified as white or Caucasian by any official health or legal observation and my family has a lot of health issues particularly cancer diabetes and heart disease... By now every "race" has been subject at one point or another through out history to racism or other environmental pressures when considered by this lecture. That said, can someone point out an instance where this wouldn't be the case historically? I'm have a hard time coming up with one myself... Thanks, very interesting presentation.
It started out with the four main root race theory Australoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, And Caucasoid for the five main root race they included those former namesakes as well as Capoid being added too
He is sitting real idea and peoples . . . far as i can tell he isn't avoiding. But yeah i could see that ot might sound - preachy? I think it's written as an persuasive essay.
We are "one human race", except in presidential elections when race is the core topic; and when somebody decides that a mandated quota for "Diversity and Inclusion" can help a "person of color" deprive a white person of opportunity. Those same people will, in a different context, argue that there is only "one human race", when advocating interracial marriage or wanting to immigrate illegally into nations that were historically white. The argument that DNA is similar among all people is unpersuasive, too, when you consider that human DNA is also nearly identical to chimpanzee DNA. And yet, nobody would argue that humans and chimps are "one human race". Clearly, there are many human races. Forensic scientists can even determine race by examining the structure of tooth and bone, in an otherwise decayed human body, as at a crime scene.
I'm a cultural/social anthropologist ( among other things ;) and I can say with full confidence that no other discipline gives you a better set of tools to explain and understand the complexities of the human world. Totally recommend getting a degree in anthropology. Good luck finding a job though ;)
I totally agree! Years ago I was studying to become an anthropologist at University and it was a mind changing experience! Although I never finished, I feel I am more mature in my thinking on humanity and find more interest in the diversity and the investigation of how what when and where of humans.
No offense, but I feel the same way about economics, in which I have an undergraduate degree---but I am really fascinated by anthropology also!
We might do away with not wits with degrees. It takes more than a degree to develop a good mind .
I've wanted to be an anthropologist since I was a kid. Unfortunately finances have gotten in the way of actually getting a degree. However I do my best to learn from free/cheap online courses.
Learning about thermodynamics opened my mind. I think a education in any meaningful subject will do that.
I am beginning my anthropolgy studies here on youtube. Anyone with me?
The best teacher here is Станислав Дробышевский. Unfortunately, you don't speak Russian ;)
Me too
nameless76 mozwhaz here I am too
@@chinzanasweat no I don't.
Me to
Thank you. The presenter keeps the subject interesting and explains clearly so that I can understand this subject...1st time taking Socioloy...as an "older" student, very 1st semester.
I am also a “mature” student working through my first year of undergrad studies and am really wanting to study sociology and social work. I am just about done my first year credits and these TH-cam videos really help. I also like the series called Crash Course. They cover all kinds of great subjects and we watched many of their videos in my intro sociology class. Lots of luck to you
If I had a teacher like this guy in high school I probably would not have dropped out
Thats a sad story
A small tip for anyone: Speed the video up to 1.25x and we will talk at a much more consistent pace. Don't mean to be rude in any way, but I felt the regular speed was too slow and I was getting a little bored. (You can click the cogwheel/gear icon in the bottom right corner of the vid to find the speed setting.)
Thank you for this video. I love world-building, exploring human history, culture, philosophy and all other kinds of things.
1.5x is better in my opinion
Sometimes I do miss the days before the internet because when I was looking for information I read books. The best part was that I trusted my sources.
After watching this video I now want to be a Anthropologist.
Judging by your profile you're here for the same reason as me 🙂😂
One of the most compelling and informative lectures I’ve ever seen.
I love Anthropology because it is a science of sciences. It's multidisciplinary approach draws on a lot of empirical science to explain perceived phenomena.
Basically, those that live in hots are comfortable with their way of life that's why they don't see the need to make a change. Most often you will see how peaceful and happy they are. Being simple does not make you less than.
My anthropology class sent me here and of all of the 240p videos I have watched its nice to see one that is quite a bit more current in terms of quality, and information as well! Great video and good information!
Thank you for your comment, we are glad you enjoyed this video.
I was completely trying to argue this guy because he felt really bias until his new Yorker vs intuit analogy that really hit different and opened my eyes to what he was telling me!!
you were trying to argue this guy.... that was explaining how biological race doesn't exist? in 2021? bruh
He never backs up his assertions. Just claiming there are no races doesn’t make them go away. Are the differences between a parakeet and a bald eagles social constructs? We don’t have to deny reality to recognize the fundamental value and equal worth of all human beings. It’s amazing that he can say with a straight face that What other people think of a black person affects them more than their own biology.
Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context. Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. Different cultures define different racial groups, often focused on the largest groups of social relevance, and these definitions can change over time. The establishment of racial boundaries often involves the subjugation of groups defined as racially inferior, as in the one-drop rule used in the 19th-century United States to exclude those with any amount of African ancestry from the dominant racial grouping, defined as "white".[1] Such racial identities reflect the cultural attitudes of imperial powers dominant during the age of European colonial expansion.[2] This view rejects the notion that race is biologically defined. Although commonalities in physical traits such as facial features, skin color, and hair texture comprise part of the race concept, this linkage is a social distinction rather than an inherently biological one.
Bald eagles and parakeets are different breeds of the same species (or race, put into human terms). The human “race” is more properly called “Homo sapiens sapiens”, our scientific name for the species.
You can find all citations in the course guidebook (link above).
@@TheGreatCourses the homo sapien is a species, not a race. There is no human race, the hominid is a genus.
@@ferdomrkvicka1247 The difference being whenever somebody says they're "proud of the accomplishments of the white race" they are usually a white supremacist
I have never met somebody who holds that opinion that was not a white supremacist or "race realist"
Parakeets and bald eagles are different SPECIES. "Africans" and "Asians" belong to the SAME SPECIES.
Race is real, it has always been real. When "scientists" say there is no scientific basis for race what they're referring to is that there is no definitive line where you go from one race to another. Genetically there is a basis for race, but there are ethnic groups that sit between the different races.
Race is 100% real though and that's just a scientific fact. The cause of the different races is because of interbreeding between different hominids. We all have a common ancestor that forms the basis of what we consider modern humans, but we also have ancestors that we don't all share. Europeans have between 1% and 5% neanderthal dna. Asians have neanderthal dna and denisovan dna. Sub Saharan Africans have 0% to 0.3% neanderthal dna. Sub Saharan Africans can also attribute as much as 19% of their dna to a "ghost species" hominid that's yet to have been discovered.
This admixture from other hominid species is the reason we're all so significantly different and also why we're all so we'll adapted to our local environment. Red hair and pale skin are believed to be from neanderthal for example. Had we not had this archaic admixture survival in our various regions would have been significantly more difficult.
So in conclusion race is real, it can be proven, and it's not debatable. The fight against the existence of race is driven entirely by egalitarianism instead of actual science. The fact that there are mixed people in between the races changes nothing ESPECIALLY considering the clustering at the extremities.
Genetically there are 3 distinct races, caucasoids, mongoloids, and negroids though not all ethnic groups clearly fall into one of these groups. I'm not really a fan of these labels though since they're not very accurate. Mongoloid is probably the least accurate, but I won't get into it. Races are an overview of clusters of ethnic groups. Genetically we've already proven ethnicity, That's the whole basis of dna ancestry like 23andme. So you can think of it like this as a comparison only: if your ethnicity is like your immediate family, then your race is like your extended family where some are closer than others, and all of humanity would be like the town you live in.
Something you might be wondering is race only about appearance? Nope not even close. Races or ethnic clusters also affect things like risk of heart disease and ability to process lactose or alcohol. A more controversial subject is behavioral differences. It's pretty much proven there are differences in behavior the only question is the extent. The biggest behavioral difference is social behavior particularly on a large scale. Studying this gets complicated and into stimuli outside of race for example the length of winter in a region. It appears that on average that ethnicities that exist in colder regions with longer winter's tend to have higher trust societies, meaning people trust eachother more and there are lower rates of antisocial behavior. An interesting exception to this rule is Islanders, specifically pacific islanders, which also exhibit high trust societies and lower rates of antisocial behavior. I won't get into it all though since nobody has made it this far into the comment.
Please keep talking!
Amazing explanation!
More….
Currently, I am studying Law and this 8:28 hit me. Such an eye-opening statement. Kudos!
16:31 "equally modern" isn't that questionable? Doesn't the word "modern" entail progression from from one state to another? For example, if an amazon tribe have used the same technology for generations without any progression, can we say that their society is equally modern to e.g. England, that have seen much change to their society? The amazon tribe might be perfectly adapted to their environment and I don't want to put any value judgement on one society being better than the other, but doesn't the word "modern" loose it's original meaning when saying that all societies are "equally modern"?
To the tribe in the Amazon they are modern despite their lack of technological progress compared to the rest of the world.
Well it is often forced. An example there was a documentary where a man living 'traditionally' in the arctic circle used a small gun to hunt but the person making the documentary make him use spears and the like that hadn't been used in the area for centuries.
Well this whole video is actually wrong. Race does exist. The reason so many people say there's no genetic basis for race is because there isn't a definite line where one race ends and another begins. They kind of bleed into eachother. There are genetic clusterings of ethnic groups in the 3 main races of people though which is made up by east Asians (which includes native Americans), Caucasians/Europeans, and Africans.
The cause of races is archaic admixture from other hominids with the modern human ancestor we all have in common. You may have heard that Europeans have 1%-5% neanderthal dna or that Asians have neanderthal and denisovan dna. You probably haven't been told that Africans have between 0% and .3% neanderthal dna but can have as much as 19% of there dna from an archaic species yet to be identified.
So there absolutely is a basis for race, only the implications are debatable. Is it the cause of some people being more "modern" than others? Possibly. Things we know for a fact are attributed to race are the ability to metabolize lactose and alcohol.
@@alexhurt7919 If humans are of different races they would not be able to reproduce with each other or the offspring would be sterile at the very least.
@@moxide incorrect it is a misconception that the definition of a different species lacks the ability to reproduce, many animals who are clearly different species can reproduce with each other and their offering are fertile aswell the different racial groups would correctly be classified as different subspecies, tigers and lions are different species they can re produce and there offspring is not sterile, goats and sheep are different species and can cross, lamas and camels can cross, even one mule out of 250,000 is fertile different species cross all the time creating new species
You describe this better than my Anthropology professor...
Thank you a clear explanation of how destructive racism is. The better we understand how this comes about the more likely we are to be able to change it.
Anthropology should be required in schools
However, ignoring the concept of race doesn't make racism go away.
@@wilburmcbride8096 lineage*
Thank you for the video! 2 questions:
1) You use the phrase "we are one race- Homo Sapiens" In my mind H. Sapiens is a species, do you not differ Race from Species?
2) If you do differ: Then what is the definition of race? How come we name dogs/cats/cows etc by different races but not humans?
Any serious thoughts/answeres appreciated. Thanks :)
You can't differ "race" from species because "race" doesn't exist. You can try to distinguish "race" according to how , as a concept, it has been understood, defined and utilized, but none of those things make it a biological reality. Consequently, there is no legitimate definition of race because it's not a legitimate "thing". Woefully, he didn't mention this, but the proper "label" is family.
@@rembeadgc This. More people from the scientific community need to be up front about this. "Race" is NOT a scientific concept. It is poorly defined and used almost exclusively in a political context to create divisions within humanity.
I realize this was form a year ago... but I thought I would tackle the question anyway...
www.pcc.edu/illumination/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2018/05/race-and-racism-curriculum.pdf
"Race: Race is a socially constructed artifact that categorizes people based on visual differences which are imputed to indicate invisible differences. These categorizations are amorphous and fluid over time which reflects their social rather than physical basis. Its significance arises out of the meanings we as societies assign to it, and the way we structure race in our societies. This structuring shapes what we refer to as "institutional racism" (defined below)."
BTW, just because race is socially constructed, this doesn't mean the effect of this myth, racism isn't real. It's like pointing out that money is also socially constructed, therefore, poverty can't be real.
I also think since the timing of the etymology of "race" meaning "species" coincides with a lot of the bad early anthropology, he should have used "species" for race several times as to not accidentally erase the reality of the social construction and the effects of it. Because that can come off if not done carefully as colorblind, however, when pitching this to white people, it might help to walk them through the basics, but for PoCs it can be off-putting.
I specialized in systems, BTW, which deals with social inequalities...
@@user-qp4ij4yl8y except don't! because they will call you names. They want you to believe that humans are the only species in all of animalia to have no subspecies.
Sub species would be the correct term any other creature with slightly different features would be classified as a sub species
Franz Boas was not a Polish (as stated at 15:25), but a German Jewish immigrant.
With so many ads constantly interrupting, I wonder what race wrote the algorithm determining ad revenue.
Does anybody here understand science? I.e biology, the differences between a race, a species and a genus?
I came here eager to learn but this is a whole lot of theory, most of which was disproved by science before it was, incorrectly, theorised.
I came here under the impression that anthropology was a serious field of science and will be leaving disappointed.
Not everything is open to opinion, e.g we can disagree on whether gravity is a downward pushing force or a downward pulling force but whether gravity exists, or not, is irrefutable. You can be of the opinion that gravity is just a social construct designed to stop us leaving Earth, but you'd be in denial of observable facts and have no tangible evidence to support your theory, much like this man.
I'm planning to major in "Human Geography", but also interesting on knowing more about "Anthropology".
Will you be able to find employment in that field?
I never reply to TH-cam but this guy is speaking truth..
No, he’s not. He is speaking a parsed left wing version of the truth
@@napoliskey why are you even here? I mean you said yourself that he's left wing so why are you listening to him if you are not willing to learn
@@pedroguerrero3862 too uncomfortable to learn the truth for Nikolas, so he resorts to name-calling. He rather prefers the pecking order he falls in 'white man's burden' and does not like that it is being called out for what it is.
The very word "race" has lost its true meaning in "civilized" countries. We are all "racing" to find out the truth about the human species, the culture, language, hereditary lineage (biological), and where we all originated from, archaeology. We are a Human Species, we race around like rats that just escaped the cage and now we have to scramble to be better than anyone else, have more than anyone else, be first at everything; that is the race of humanity. So, on these census sheets that our governments want us to fill out we should just write Human of Earth and maybe they will get the point!!
You start with a royal non sequitur Margaret - how is the "very word "race" " a word at all in other civilised or uncivilised countries" The word 'race' is an English word not a word in Chinese or Koisan.
Some people can't believe this, because the need to feel superior to others is unfortunate flowing in their veins.
I want to start looking into anthropology as a future career but I don’t even know where to get started
Study on your own for now if you can't go to school at the moment. When you can, go back to school to first get your associate's degree. to save money, you can do it at your local community college and complete your FAFSA for gov grants or loans. When you are ready to start your bachelor's, choose your major as anthropology.
This is a beautiful video lesson! Thank you so much for sharing🙏
@9:42 holy mother of God. That's eugenics. 🤯
i see it as like dogs, dogs are one being but they’re are different types of them
we made dogs by artificially breeding them together, it's not the same thing.
Fascinating topic.
I hear anthropologists making the case over and over that it is wrong to rank cultures, there are differences but it is wrong to believe that some cultures are better than others. And give examples like Arctic hunters and modern urbanites. Neither could do well in the other's environment. A fair point. But it seems to me that there are clear objective indicators and that many cry out for ranking.
A few examples:
1. Athens and Spata
2. Modern Liberal Democratic and Totalitarian sociries
3. Jewish culture. Notice the huge number of Nobel prizes won by people of Jewish ancestry.
4. American Civil War North and South.
5. Latin and North American society. Notice how millions of Latin Americans are boring with their feet to get to the United States.
6. Muslim and Judeo-Chtristian culture.
To me the essential characteristic is freedom. To what extent does the culture promote freedom, enabling individuals to pursue their innate abilities to the fullest. I never hear that from anthropologists.
That Rudyard Kipling poem gives new weight to the term "oof".
amen! we are ONE!!!
Any professor at any university, like Scott Lacey, had better argue that race is nothing but a "social construct", if he values his job security because the Leftist politics of every university would cost Professor Lacey his job, if he were to suggest otherwise.
If there is no such thing as "race", then there should be no such thing as "racism" because we are all one human race. Right?
But since "racism" is the most overused and abused word in the English language, particularly among Democrats and their name-calling; obviously the consensus is that race is real and not just a social construct, regardless of what anthropologist are forced to teach in the classroom.
Money is also a social construct. If you believe racism isn't real because race isn't real, does that mean I can have all your money and property too and you wouldn't experience something called poverty?
@@yoonmikim5663 Money is a total false equivalency here. Money is a human construct.. humans are not and neither is race. Do you suppose someone sat down and said 'lets make humans with epicanthic folds over their eyes.. or white skin?
Thanks for this I was really enlightened about what am I going to discuss in front of our class.
Hi,did you upload other episode of this series?i couldn't find them and i don't have those international bank card to log in TGC😭
Hi Niu, I'm afraid the rest of the series is only available via our Great Courses Site. www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/lp/t2/generic?Video&TH-cam&
00:15:23 Franz Boas was a German immigrant. Not Polish.
I am starting my anthrapolgy study. FromHear and this is my first classand it's exciteing
Kinda came here because of Korekiyo Shinguji from Danganronpa V3
😂
In my opinion, this course, although full of great and truthful information, still falls short because the way in which the word "race" is being used (phrase to phrase, sentence to sentence) is still legitimizing it as an actual "thing" or category. This leads people to continue thinking that it has some relevance. Where, IMO, these lectures and forums fail is that they don't actively replace the word "race" with another, more accurate word. That word is family. This is what will really change the game. However, the "scientific" community, as a whole, IMO, hasn't come to grips with the implications of that idea.
rembeadgc : What does the word ‘family’ offer that the word ‘race’ doesn’t? With words being merely signifiers, what would be the purpose of just swapping one out for another?
The appropriate term is "cline", and it is used academically. As you can imagine, however, there aren't very many people that are familiar with the term. It's unfortunate, but science communicators have to balance veracity with... Edibility?
The ego makes the individual feel inferior or superior because of their race. You can choose not to use the word race, however genetics and archaeology will continue to progress and elucidate the interesting and unique differences that make people who they are.
You must like cultural marxism, where everything is to be blamed on European Christians. Science is racist, its only racist, because the industrial revolution was created by one Race, Caucasians. Everyone else threw rocks at planes.
Excellent presentation. Note: (around the 15 min. mark) Franz Boas was not Polish. He was a German Jewish immigrant. The presenter is confusing Boas with his contemporary, Bronislaw Malinowski. Also, cultural anthropologists do not generally think of their discipline as a science. The other subdisciplines, biological anthropology and archaeology are scientific.
Yes well it's quite clear without having to just repeat that we are all the same race homo sapiens. I don't think that no one is refutiating that. I mean isn't it a consencus that if a male and female can produce a fertile, reproducing offspring, it is of the same race. For example tigers and lions can't produce an offspring capable of reproducing, ergo not the same species, but still close enough species to produce an offspring.
For example a japanese and a nigerian can produce a healthy fertile child together. So we are the same race. But can't we agree that there is a difference between how they look? They are not the same from the stand point of behaviour and thinking, but a different sub-species of the same race. The culture and the enviroment we grow up in has a deep impact on how we behave and think, but why do we assume that the culture is separate from biology? Maybe the culture is an reprecentation of that sub-species' biology. I mean we have different types of bone structures between races, so why is it such a great leap to make to assume the brain might as well has differences in structure, not large, but large enough to manifest themselves in different types of social structures and cultures.
I mean if we continue to think the example of Japan and Nigeria, they were both separate from each other, somewhat isolated, but produced vastly different cultures. Japan is an mountainous island with almost no natural resources apart from wood and fish. Nigeria is a country with rich natural resources, but still Japan has always been functioning as a society much better and been more prosperous. Maybe the fault is the people and the kinds of cultures they produce, not the enviroment in this case? In this case I would suggest that relative to Nigerian culture, Japan is much better. Most people who could choose, would indeed choose Japan, because it is safer and better for a person to live in.
Perhaps certain ethnic groups have as a whole, statistically biological tendencies for certain types of personalities? For example Japanese people as a whole are more concienscious than Nigerian peoples, therefore making them more productive and more likely to defer gratification. if you don't know that that means see the other lecture from great courses plus on personalities. th-cam.com/video/Fk8aRx2fFgA/w-d-xo.html
Just an observation, don't mean I know for sure, I'm not highly educated person, but thought it's worth thinking about.
they can actually theya re called a liger ;)
Luke McPhee He said "capable of reproduce (fertile) offsprings". I assume Ligers aren't, so Mules.
"why is it such a great leap to make to assume the brain might as well has differences in structure, not large, but large enough to manifest themselves in different types of social structures and cultures."
Because the white race has gone through every possible kind of social structure itself.
Feudalism, Capitalism, Communism, Nation Socialism, Monarchy, Anarchy, Theocracy, Liberalism, Fascism, ...everything.
So there isn't any form of social organisation that is particular for white people. Why should there be one particular to other races? Asian societies have pretty much also gone through all kinds of social organisations.
African societies, not so much, but that's also because they lacked the material means, the industrial revolution which enabled large scale division of labour and media technology which enabled large scale nation states to make propaganda so to conceive of millions of people that don't even know each other as one tribe.
And Japan wasn't always the liberal capitalist democracy that it is now. It's only been that way since post WW2, since the Americans exported it their form of social organisation to them.
China wasn't always the state capitalist society ruled by communist party that it is now. It used to be an empire ruled by a monarch. Then a communist revolution ruled by Mao. Communism is an ideology that originated in Europe and from there spread all over the world, e.g. also to Latin America. Capitalism is english ideology that spread all over the world and changed the forms of social organisation.
The social organisation of peoples have changed radically over the course of history.
Agriculture, which radically changed social organistion, didn't originate in Europe, but the middle east and was exported to Europe.
A wolf and a dog share the same DNA and can breed together as you say.... Still vastly different beings...
You are touching on some interesting points here, I understand you question, but in terms of anthropology it is a bit ethnocentric. I am a first year anthro minor, so I'm not 100% qualified to answer this, but I still want to try. Yes, this is a diffrence in the looks of Nigerians and Japanese descent. But, what I have learned is that the physical differentiations are not as much as we like to think. Anthropologists believe that the human race started in Africa (they just found what they believe is the 'mother' of humans recently). In terms of skin pigmentation, it is the human bodies natural reaction to more or less sun. People who live in colder climates adapted over generations, while those who have been in warmer, more sunny climates have darker skin due their bodies natural response to survival of sun exposure. In terms of facial structres, I cannot be sure as I have not covered the topic enough to comment.
What I think youre getting at in terms of Nigerian/ Japanese culture is that Japan seems more "civilized" than Nigerian culture. This idea is, I believe false. Japanese culture is more in line with Western ideologies, and thus we believe it is more civilized. In order to understand cultures, you have to understand the history of a society, or be aware of historical conciousness and historisiztion. Nigeria, like Africa has, to be frank, gone through hell and back. Because of their abundaces of resources, they have been exploited by Western civilization. All you have to do is look at Lewis H. Morgan (who was talked about in this video) and his ideas of barbarism and civlized, these theories pushed exploitation and racism. The West took complete advantage of resources (including people, which they saw as less than). Japan has had their share of problems, but not to the extent that Nigeria has faced. So, in order to critque the differences between Nigerian and Japanese culture, you have to look at the whole history of these communities. The issue with Nigeria is that due to its upheavel over history, it is maybe not as safe as Japan. This is because Nigeria was essentially robbed of their own prosperity (its currently under commonwealth). Because they dont have the same say as Japan does in their dealings, you have a somewhat corrupt government and broken systems. Even if they are in control now, they are suffering the reprocussions of past traumas. Also, to say that Japan's culture is better is ethnocentric, we cannot say that it is better and more valuable. Africa was seen as 'savage', so were Indigienous peoples. In reality, these cultures had/have very complex, highly sophisticated and under appreciated art, cultures, societies, but because we think of culture in terms of Western ideals and because of backwards sterotypes, we think they are less than (which is not the case at all). All you have to do is look at ethnographies by Frank Boas, Bronisław Malinowski and Margret Mead (mother and fathers of modern anthro).
I hope that makes a litttlllee bit of sense!
Salut! Super la vidéo! Je suis aussi un passionné d'anthropologie!
Very intuitive and engaging.
Scott M. Lacy, professor at Fairfield University, discusses racial discrimination, its causes, and related beliefs. Various reasons why humans appear act and live differently have been offered. Everything points to the idea that people come in diverse races, some savage, others respectable. Several scholars have tried to link skin color, hair type, cuisine, and culture to biology and anthropology. They said that because people developed from diverse animal species, their race is different. It's always been muddled with ethnicity and socio-economic Early academics utilized Darwin's theory of natural selection and single or multicellular organism method to explain the idea of race. These hypotheses have been used to describe humans as savage, barbarian, or civilized. The “White Man's burden” has also been imposed on non-whites. White people felt morally bound to civilize non-whites, leading to colonialism and increased discrimination.
Even in the past, the legal system was ill-informed and ineffective. "If nature has created human distinct, no law can make them equal," was the ludicrous assertion used to justify the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896. After training barbaric humans to behave in the same manner as their more civilized counterparts, colonization began. Male and female non-whites were sterilized to prevent the reproduction of additional barbarians. There is still racial classification at both public and private institutions. One of the first questions on any application for school, bank, or tax purposes these days.
Right on! Very professional and accurate! I support everything you say
wonderful knowledge
Great lecture.
Savagery isnt exclusive to past civilizations not one bit and for people to move forward in academic disciplines such as this they have to get over certain generalized theories and then maybe we can all get on the same level if not higher level of understanding
Take a look at us now .
If this isn't Savage I don't know what is. What a mess humans have made
Take the out of Africa theory out of the equation because it is documented that all skin color was in America. And there are American "genetic " relations to oceanic people and Australians. So when it comes to markers, is there a way to tell who passed down that marker, which way it came from? For example, lets say an American has the same marker as an African, how can one tell which way it came from? Was it an American who passed it down to an African via past migration or was it an African who passed it down to an American? Are those markers exact matches or is it just similar to each other and somebody just went on ahead and said this is an African marker or this an American marker and they are genetically ancestral related? Or they saying they are genetically related because of similarities or exact matches? If so, how can they tell who receive what from who?
The model at the background is black barrack Obamma.
One question 🙋🏻♂️ I do have out of Curosity is if race is indeed a social construct and does not accurately identifying humans into certain groups then we’re do these specific physical traits come from an Arfican couple don’t just make a Native American baby are these physical traits biological and how can you map it
I Perfectly understand mental capability and life style aren’t biological but hair and skin color are
Can someone respectively explain this to me I’m curious
On every form that asks about race I check "Other" and write in human.
What form other than a census form asks for your race?
A cultural way to learn something new.
We do not lecture on biological anthropology but social and cultural anth. Our core course is kinship not race.
Well, I'm white. I sure hope I don't represent humanity's apex. Lol. If that's true we're in trouble.
Actually, I've been making the argument that there's no such thing as race for a long time. I originally learned it from the older Great Courses on Anthropology. I like the way she put it. She says something like "Science doesn't care whose feelings get hurt." Which is true but then she goes on to explain why most anthropologists don't believe in race. This is science. This isn't just some up with people, happy clappy, good will to all type of thing. I think a lot of people don't get that. They hear that "race is a social construct" they think it's some deeply liberal sjw thing.
And speaking of deeply liberal sjw types of things, the idea that race doesn't exist is, I think, more distasteful to certain minority groups who, over the years, have developed that as their identity and as a source of pride. I don't want to take that away from them. I think it's great that they're proud but again, science doesn't care. I don't really know where that leaves me. I tend to think more like a liberal but science comes first. Any thoughts from anyone?
Yes, the idea of race is a social construct. The first time race was seperated in American history was in 1600s Virginia. Lower class white people and slaves were talking about a revolte against promient whites, as obviously blacks were slaves and were mistreated and the whites felt as if they were being taken advantage of. In order to chill everyone out, they made a law how whites were basically just marginally better than blacks and gave them small plots of land. This act gave lower-class whites a better standing in society, and it shut down any talk of an uprising. So, yeah its a concept that kept only true Europeans (Anglo-Saxons) at the top of the heirarchy.
-btw, this is what I was taught in my first yr antho course and my mind was blown
Your being "white" depends on how one defines "white".
Wow thank you for this!!!
Where does our physical differences come from then if it is not biological nor genetic? I did not get it.
heritage
Simply put: Evolution. If white people were to live in the desert from now on, they would adapt to said enviornment, their skin would probably turn dark in a matter of several generations, to say one of many, many examples.
He didn't say that physical differences weren't biological or genetic. You're still applying traditional racialized thinking. It's that physical differences don't come from "race". He answered your question in the video. You might want to watch it again.
I can only conclude that there are minor differences between the races that we are incapable of coming to terms with. We cannot see minor differences for what they are and instead must conclude that one is inferior and one is superior.
Just little correction of the facts; Franz Boas was a German not Polish immigrant...(too bad cos I’m Polish-American lol)
Thank you very much! I like such kind of clear presentation on the topic that confuses all human being!
Glad it was helpful!
ok this is epic
Thank you great insight
great video
You had me until 27:00
Creationist?
Well. There are physical differences and there are cultural differences. All humans are equal. All cultures are CERTAINLY NOT.
That's exactly what he said: 'Cultures are not better or worse than others - they are just different.' They are relative and can not be ranked on some arbitrary scale of worse of better. He did not say they were equal. Humans are equal in the sense that we are all human but that does not mean we are equal in any other sense - we are different as well.
Equal to what?
At a deep and underlying level, cultures have enormous similarities in their structures.
I understand and share your good wishes for equality and non-discrimination. But there are considerations not addressed here. For example, in Spanish countries where nobody discriminates against themselves, there is a greater incidence of illnesses like Diabetes; and it is well known in the medical field, that the Black-American population and the White-non-Hispanic population do respond Differently to certain Medical Treatments (Antihypertensives, Antilipidemics...), also that the Asiatic population has a Higher-Pain-Threshold that is Not Cultural related (since certain Spanish populations that are the Epithome of "Machism", have a much lower pain threshold).
Dr. Seba says that because our biology is from Africa, we cannot eat the things Europeans or Asians eat, that is the reason our risks are higher. I should be eating roots and berries or yucca instead of potatoes!
You sure shouldn't eat what you don't have the genes and gut bacteria to digest, or you'll likely get some sort of abdominal cramp or perhaps chronic pain from inflammation or so many other illnesses.
And yes, population types have specific genes, blue eyes are one example upon many.
Filip Molin potatoes were originally from Peru and Bolivia, and domesticated around 10,000 years ago..
Everyones biology started in Africa.
If race is a "cultural construct, independent of biology and geography" then why are there biological differences among different races? If for example an Asian and Sub-Saharan African man would have died in a forrest and their remains found 50 years from now, scientists would be able to determine what race those remains belong to just by visually examining the bone structures. Differences are not just in bone structures but also in brain size, skin colour, DNA (modern Europeans and East Asians have about 2% of Neandhertal DNA while Sub-Saharan Africans basically none - for example Homo Sapiens share about 99% of DNA with Chimpanzee) etc. Are we all just supposed to ignore these scientific facts because of modern political correctness and not talk about them? Because someone's feelings might get offended?
All from a European perspective
From a scientific perspective. The social sciences have worked hard over the past 80 years or so to eliminate it's earlier eurocentric bias. Perhaps you should stick to speaking about things you actually understand.
Woow, what a well thought, thorough and objective look at so complex and controversial science. Thank you!
Amazing!!!!
I wish Americans would take anthropology and sociology instead of listening to Republicans and Democrats about what to think about our neighbors
23 and me is a thing.
Words that came from a myth or not science and defuse them you've changed the subject. To keep it scientific you after use physical evidence instead of a myth.
Anthropology is legendary!
Leftist antropology is a farce, rewriting history through the lense of todays morals, the biggest intellectual sin of all time. You do not judge history with todays morals, it has to be taken into context.
Do you think if we eliminated the concept of race we would still be prejudicial to cultures and assume cultures by visual aspects? It seems like our brains really want to make lists and groups and I wonder if we remove race we will see just another layer of the onion.
yes, the best we have is to see each other culturally and through the ancestors. but after we move from that we may come to a point where we see humans as humans - may take a while lol
(Korekiyo has entered the chat)
💡
Wait, Chomsky is not an anthropologist.
Anthropology is simply the study of humanity, usually prehistory. Linguistics has been used before to see if certain groups are related or have interacted, since people who have similar languages tend to have connected origins, so linguistics can be used in anthropology, like how chemistry can be used to understand biology.
UPSC anthropology anyone?
We are a hybrid species we know that because of R- R+ blood types
fantastic
One dog breed. The dog. All breeds are just a social construct derp
German Shepherds and Border Collies must have their dog treats taxed for Pitbulls, Chihuahas, and Pugs.
But then East Asia lad!
just brilliant.
So then there arent dog breeds (races)? A Chihuahua is the same breed (race) as a Schnauzer or an Australian Cattle Dog under this logic.
that is correct. Breeds of dogs are genuinely just the same species bred to exhibit specific traits for generations. What we call breeds are entirely just the result of choice breeding. It's like if a family tree only ever bred with people that had big noses or male pattern hair loss, that trait is going to dominate others.
Then "race" is base on phenotype...
@@michaelsoutherland3023 I have two dogs I would never describe them as a chihuahua or doberman and I'm offended when people do. They are both beautiful individual dogs.
15:20
Yes race is obviously a myth. Some people in positions of authority have told us that the science says it's a myth and therefore it is. I'm glad he explained why we are asked statistical questions about ethnicity despite it being a myth. We need to collect data on people's perceived ethnicity so we can know what type of institutional racism they are always being subjected to.
But aren’t we the same species? Not the same race. That’s like comparing the golden retriever to the pitbull. Both dogs, different breeds. I like this video anyway but we’re the same species. Just like dogs developed because of surrounding environments and selective breeding so did we. This video was very informative and I liked it. Thank you. I hope you see this and perhaps let me know your input as wel.
I've always been identified as white or Caucasian by any official health or legal observation and my family has a lot of health issues particularly cancer diabetes and heart disease... By now every "race" has been subject at one point or another through out history to racism or other environmental pressures when considered by this lecture. That said, can someone point out an instance where this wouldn't be the case historically? I'm have a hard time coming up with one myself... Thanks, very interesting presentation.
Charles Murray did nothing wrong.
It started out with the four main root race theory Australoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, And Caucasoid for the five main root race they included those former namesakes as well as Capoid being added too
dua
The language of intersectional communism and critical race theory is thick in this video.
earlier humans have been discovered
Does anyone feel this sound kinda propagandistic? Why do I feel that?
He is sitting real idea and peoples . . . far as i can tell he isn't avoiding. But yeah i could see that ot might sound - preachy? I think it's written as an persuasive essay.
Not kinda, totally. It is your basic "woke" curriculum being taught in many of our institutions of higher learning. Science is replaced by sociology.
@@glennkane6954 what's not "scientific" about this?
Nice
We are "one human race", except in presidential elections when race is the core topic; and when somebody decides that a mandated quota for "Diversity and Inclusion" can help a "person of color" deprive a white person of opportunity. Those same people will, in a different context, argue that there is only "one human race", when advocating interracial marriage or wanting to immigrate illegally into nations that were historically white. The argument that DNA is similar among all people is unpersuasive, too, when you consider that human DNA is also nearly identical to chimpanzee DNA. And yet, nobody would argue that humans and chimps are "one human race". Clearly, there are many human races. Forensic scientists can even determine race by examining the structure of tooth and bone, in an otherwise decayed human body, as at a crime scene.
George X Its a funny world we live in. No questions about that.
Israel has right of return for ethnic Jews.
Just about U! 😉
Check out the DNA buddy
I found my self becoming angry with the man I almost expect him to say that dyslexia is a (social construct.)