Editing Race (human categorization) (section)

== {{anchor|Modern debate}} Modern scholarship ==
=== Models of human evolution ===
{{See also|Multiregional hypothesis|Recent single origin hypothesis}}

Today, all [[humans]] are classified as belonging to the species ''Homo sapiens''. However, this is not the first species of [[homininae]]: the first species of genus ''Homo'', ''[[Homo habilis]]'', evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. ''[[Homo erectus]]'' evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout Europe and Asia. Virtually all [[physical anthropologist]]s agree that ''[[Anatomically modern human|Archaic Homo sapiens]]'' (A group including the possible species ''[[Homo heidelbergensis|H. heidelbergensis]]'', ''H. rhodesiensis'', and ''H. neanderthalensis'') evolved out of African ''H. erectus'' ({{lang|la|[[sensu lato]]}}) or ''[[Homo ergaster|H. ergaster]]''.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Camilo J. |last1=Cela-Conde |author-link1=Camilo Jose Cela Conde |first2=Francisco J. |last2=Ayala |author-link2=Francisco J. Ayala |date=2007 |title=Human Evolution Trails from the Past |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |page=195}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Lewin |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Lewin |date=2005 |title=Human Evolution an illustrated introduction |edition=Fifth |page=159 |publisher=[[Blackwell Publishing]]}}</ref> Anthropologists support the idea that [[anatomically modern humans]] (''Homo sapiens'') evolved in North or East Africa from an [[archaic human]] species such as ''H. heidelbergensis'' and then migrated out of Africa, mixing with and replacing ''H. heidelbergensis'' and ''H. neanderthalensis'' populations throughout Europe and Asia, and ''H. rhodesiensis'' populations in Sub-Saharan Africa (a combination of the [[Recent African origin of modern humans|Out of Africa]] and [[Multiregional origin of modern humans|Multiregional]] models).<ref name="StringerSurvivors">{{cite book |first=Chris |last=Stringer |author-link=Chris Stringer |title=Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth |date=2012 |location=London |publisher=Times Books |isbn=978-0-8050-8891-5 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/lonesurvivorshow0000stri}}</ref>{{verify source|date=January 2013}}

=== Biological classification ===
{{further|Race (biology)|Species|Subspecies|Systematics|Phylogenetics|Cladistics}}
In the early 20th century, many [[Anthropology|anthropologists]] taught that race was an entirely biological phenomenon and that this was core to a person's behavior and identity, a position commonly called [[racial essentialism]].<ref name="cravens" /> This, coupled with a belief that [[linguistics|linguistic]], cultural, and social groups fundamentally existed along racial lines, formed the basis of what is now called [[scientific racism]].<ref name="currell" /> After the [[Nazi eugenics]] program, along with the rise of anti-colonial movements, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hirschman |first=Charles |date=2004 |title=The Origins and Demise of the Concept of Race |journal=[[Population and Development Review]] |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=385–415 |doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2004.00021.x |s2cid=145485765 |issn=1728-4457}}</ref> New studies of [[culture]] and the fledgling field of [[population genetics]] undermined the scientific standing of racial essentialism, leading race anthropologists to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation.<ref name="cravens" /> A significant number of modern anthropologists and [[biologist]]s in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.<ref name="Cravens; Angier; et al." />

The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were the [[anthropology|anthropologists]] [[Franz Boas]], who provided evidence of phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors,<ref name="Smedley; Boas" /> and [[Ashley Montagu]], who relied on evidence from genetics.<ref name="Marks; Montagu" /> [[E. O. Wilson]] then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies".<ref name="wilson" />

[[Human genetic variation]] is predominantly within races, continuous, and complex in structure, which is inconsistent with the concept of genetic human races.<ref name=goodman>{{cite journal |last=Goodman |first=A. H. |date=November 2000 |title=Why genes don't count (for racial differences in health) |journal=[[American Journal of Public Health]] |volume=90 |issue=11 |pages=1699–1702 |issn=0090-0036 |pmc=1446406 |pmid=11076233 |doi=10.2105/ajph.90.11.1699}}</ref> According to the biological anthropologist [[Jonathan M. Marks|Jonathan Marks]],<ref name="Marks 2008" />

{{blockquote|By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic&nbsp;– that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal&nbsp;– that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left&nbsp;– the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal&nbsp;– was very small.

A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it&nbsp;– as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools&nbsp;– did not exist.
}}

==== Subspecies ====
[[Race (biology)|The term ''race'' in biology]] is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of ''[[subspecies]]''.<ref name="Keita; Templeton; Long" /> (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the [[species]] level is usually the subspecies;<ref name="conservation" /> there are narrower [[Infraspecific name|infraspecific ranks in botany]], and ''race'' does not correspond directly with any of them.) Traditionally, [[subspecies]] are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations.<ref name="Templeton 1998" /> Studies of human genetic variation show that human populations are not geographically isolated.<ref>{{harvnb|Templeton|1998}} "Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human 'races' are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human 'races' are not and never were 'pure'."</ref> and their genetic differences are far smaller than those among comparable subspecies.<ref>{{cite book |last=Relethford |first=John H. |author-link=John Relethford |editor-first=Naomi |editor-last=Zack |editor-link=Naomi Zack |date=23 February 2017 |chapter=Biological Anthropology, Population Genetics, and Race |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190236953.013.20 |isbn=978-0-19-023695-3 |quote=Human populations do not exhibit the levels of geographic isolation or genetic divergence to fit the subspecies model of race.}}</ref>

In 1978, [[Sewall Wright]] suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. Wright argued: "It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other."<ref name="Wright 1978" /> While in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists.<ref name="Keita; Templeton" /> Likewise this [[Typology (anthropology)|typological]] approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":4" />

==== Ancestrally differentiated populations (clades) ====
In 2000, philosopher Robin Andreasen proposed that [[cladistics]] might be used to categorize human races biologically, and that races can be both biologically real and socially constructed.<ref name="Andreasen 2000" /> Andreasen cited tree diagrams of relative [[genetic distance]]s among populations published by [[Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza|Luigi Cavalli-Sforza]] as the basis for a phylogenetic tree of human races (p.&nbsp;661). Biological anthropologist [[Jonathan M. Marks|Jonathan Marks]] (2008) responded by arguing that Andreasen had misinterpreted the genetic literature: "These trees are phenetic (based on similarity), rather than cladistic (based on [[Monophyly|monophyletic]] descent, that is from a series of unique ancestors)."{{sfn|Marks|2008|p=28–29}} Evolutionary biologist [[Alan Templeton]] (2013) argued that multiple lines of evidence falsify the idea of a phylogenetic tree structure to human genetic diversity, and confirm the presence of gene flow among populations.{{sfn|Templeton|2013}} Marks, Templeton, and Cavalli-Sforza all conclude that genetics does not provide evidence of human races.{{sfn|Templeton|2013}}{{sfn|Marks|2008}}

Previously, anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995) had also critiqued the use of cladistics to support concepts of race. They argued that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories ''in their initial grouping of samples''". For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation. They argued that this ''a priori'' grouping limits and skews interpretations, obscures other lineage relationships, deemphasizes the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity.<ref name="Lieberman 1995" />

In 2015, Keith Hunley, Graciela Cabana, and Jeffrey Long analyzed the [[Human Genome Diversity Project]] sample of 1,037 individuals in 52 populations,<ref name=":12">{{cite journal |last1=Hunley |first1=Keith L. |last2=Cabana |first2=Graciela S. |last3=Long |first3=Jeffrey C. |author-link3=Jeffrey C. Long |date=1 December 2015 |title=The apportionment of human diversity revisited |journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |volume=160 |issue=4 |pages=561–569 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.22899 |issn=1096-8644 |pmid=26619959 |doi-access=free}}</ref> finding that diversity among non-African populations is the result of a serial founder effect process, with non-African populations as a whole nested among African populations, that "some African populations are equally related to other African populations and to non-African populations", and that "outside of Africa, regional groupings of populations are nested inside one another, and many of them are not monophyletic".<ref name=":12" /> Earlier research had also suggested that there has always been considerable gene flow between human populations, meaning that human population groups are not monophyletic.<ref name="Templeton 1998" /> Rachel Caspari has argued that, since no groups currently regarded as races are monophyletic, by definition none of these groups can be clades.{{sfn|Caspari|2003}}

==== Clines ====
One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was the anthropologist [[C. Loring Brace]]'s observation that such variations, insofar as they are affected by [[natural selection]], slow migration, or [[genetic drift]], are distributed along geographic gradations or [[Cline (biology)|clines]].{{sfn|Brace|Montagu|1965|p={{page needed|date=October 2021}}}} For example, with respect to skin color in Europe and Africa, Brace writes:{{sfn|Brace|2000|p=301}}
{{blockquote|To this day, skin color grades by imperceptible means from Europe southward around the eastern end of the Mediterranean and up the Nile into Africa. From one end of this range to the other, there is no hint of a skin color boundary, and yet the spectrum runs from the lightest in the world at the northern edge to as dark as it is possible for humans to be at the equator.}}
In part, this is due to [[isolation by distance]]. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion was that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines".<ref name="Livingstone" />

In a response to Livingstone, [[Theodore Dobzhansky]] argued that when talking about race one must be attentive to how the term is being used: "I agree with Dr. Livingstone that if races have to be 'discrete units', then there are no races, and if 'race' is used as an 'explanation' of the human variability, rather than vice versa, then the explanation is invalid." He further argued that one could use the term race if one distinguished between "race differences" and "the race concept". The former refers to any distinction in gene frequencies between populations; the latter is "a matter of judgment". He further observed that even when there is clinal variation: "Race differences are objectively ascertainable biological phenomena&nbsp;... but it does not follow that racially distinct populations must be given racial (or subspecific) labels."<ref name="Livingstone" /> In short, Livingstone and Dobzhansky agree that there are genetic differences among human beings; they also agree that the use of the race concept to classify people, and how the race concept is used, is a matter of social convention. They differ on whether the race concept remains a meaningful and useful social convention.

{{Multiple image
| align =
| direction = vertical
| width = 280
| image1 = Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.png
| caption1 =
| image2 = Map of blood group b.gif
| caption2 = Skin color (above) and blood type B (below) are nonconcordant traits since their geographical distribution is not similar.
}}

In 1964, the biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly&nbsp;– for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for [[HBB#Sickle cell disease|beta-S hemoglobin]], on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa.<ref name="ehrlich" /> As the anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observed, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous".<ref name="Lieberman 1995" />

Patterns such as those seen in human physical and genetic variation as described above, have led to the consequence that the number and geographic location of any described races is highly dependent on the importance attributed to, and quantity of, the traits considered. A skin-lightening mutation, estimated to have occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, partially accounts for the appearance of light skin in people who migrated out of Africa northward into what is now Europe. East Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations.<ref name="weiss" /> On the other hand, the greater the number of traits (or [[allele]]s) considered, the more subdivisions of humanity are detected, since traits and gene frequencies do not always correspond to the same geographical location. Or as {{harvtxt|Ossorio|Duster|2005}} put it:{{blockquote|1=Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans' physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated. This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation, is also observed for many alleles that vary from one human group to another. Another observation is that traits or alleles that vary from one group to another do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 1930s and 1950s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races.<ref name="Marks 2002" /> Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people.}}

==== Genetically differentiated populations ====
{{main|Race and genetics|Human genetic variation}}
Another way to look at differences between populations is to measure genetic differences rather than physical differences between groups. The mid-20th-century anthropologist [[William C. Boyd]] defined race as: "A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant 'constellation'".<ref name="boyd" /> Leonard Lieberman and Rodney Kirk have pointed out that "the paramount weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing".<ref name="lieberman" /> Moreover, the anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless.<ref name="molnar" /> The [[Human Genome Project]] states "People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."<ref name="project" /> [[Massimo Pigliucci]] and Jonathan Kaplan argue that human races do exist, and that they correspond to the genetic classification of [[ecotype]]s, but that real human races do not correspond very much, if at all, to folk racial categories.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |last2=Kaplan |first2=Jonathan |title=On the Concept of Biological Race and Its Applicability to Humans |journal=[[Philosophy of Science (journal)|Philosophy of Science]] |date=December 2003 |volume=70 |issue=5 |pages=1161–1172 |doi=10.1086/377397 |s2cid=44750046 |url=http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1078/1/Kaplan-RaceFinalVersionPSA.doc}}</ref> In contrast, Walsh & Yun reviewed the literature in 2011 and reported: "Genetic studies using very few chromosomal loci find that genetic polymorphisms divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy and that they correspond to the traditional anthropological categories."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Walsh |first1=Anthony |last2=Yun |first2=Ilhong |title=Race and Criminology in the Age of Genomic Science |journal=[[Social Science Quarterly]] |date=October 2011 |volume=92 |issue=5 |pages=1279–1296 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00818.x}}</ref>

Some biologists argue that racial categories correlate with biological traits (e.g. [[phenotype]]), and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings.{{sfn|Bamshad|Wooding|Salisbury|Stephens|2004}}

===== Distribution of genetic variation =====
The distribution of genetic variants within and among human populations are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a population, the clinal nature of variation, and heterogeneity across the genome (Long and Kittles 2003). In general, however, an average of 85% of statistical genetic variation exists within local populations, ≈7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ≈8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents.{{sfn|Lewontin|1972}}<ref>{{cite book |last1=Jorde |first1=Lynn B. |last2=Carey |first2=John C. |last3=Bamshad |first3=Michael J. |last4=White |first4=Raymond L. |date=2000 |title=Medical Genetics |edition=2nd |publisher=[[Mosby (imprint)|Mosby]] |isbn=978-0-8151-4608-7}}{{page needed|date=October 2021}}</ref> The [[recent African origin]] theory for humans would predict that in Africa there exists a great deal more diversity than elsewhere and that diversity should decrease the further from Africa a population is sampled. Hence, the 85% average figure is misleading: Long and Kittles find that rather than 85% of human genetic diversity existing in all human populations, about 100% of human diversity exists in a single African population, whereas only about 60% of human genetic diversity exists in the least diverse population they analyzed (the Surui, a population derived from New Guinea).{{sfn|Long|2009|p=802}} Statistical analysis that takes this difference into account confirms previous findings that "Western-based racial classifications have no taxonomic significance".<ref name=":12"/>

===== Cluster analysis =====
A 2002 study of random biallelic genetic loci found little to no evidence that humans were divided into distinct biological groups.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Romualdi |first1=Chiara |last2=Balding |first2=David |author-link2=David Balding |last3=Nasidze |first3=Ivane S. |last4=Risch |first4=Gregory |last5=Robichaux |first5=Myles |last6=Sherry |first6=Stephen T. |last7=Stoneking |first7=Mark |author-link7=Mark Stoneking |last8=Batzer |first8=Mark A. |author-link8=Mark Batzer |last9=Barbujani |first9=Guido |author-link9=Guido Barbujani |date=April 2002 |title=Patterns of human diversity, within and among continents, inferred from biallelic DNA polymorphisms |journal=[[Genome Research]] |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=602–612 |doi=10.1101/gr.214902 |issn=1088-9051 |pmid=11932244 |pmc=187513}}</ref>

In his 2003 paper, "[[Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy]]", [[A. W. F. Edwards]] argued that rather than using a locus-by-locus analysis of variation to derive taxonomy, it is possible to construct a human classification system based on characteristic genetic patterns, or ''clusters'' [[Race and genetics#Structure|inferred from multilocus genetic data]].<ref name="edwards" /><ref name="Dawkins & Wong"/> Geographically based human studies since have shown that such genetic clusters can be derived from analyzing of a large number of loci which can assort individuals sampled into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups.<ref name="Harpending; et al." />{{sfn|Tang|Quertermous|Rodriguez|Kardia|2005}} Joanna Mountain and [[Neil Risch]] cautioned that while genetic clusters may one day be shown to correspond to phenotypic variations between groups, such assumptions were premature as the relationship between genes and [[complex traits]] remains poorly understood.<ref name="mountain" /> However, Risch denied such limitations render the analysis useless: "Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out?&nbsp;... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility."<ref name="gitschier" />

Early human genetic cluster analysis studies were conducted with samples taken from ancestral population groups living at extreme geographic distances from each other. It was thought that such large geographic distances would maximize the genetic variation between the groups sampled in the analysis, and thus maximize the probability of finding cluster patterns unique to each group. In light of the historically recent acceleration of human migration (and correspondingly, human gene flow) on a global scale, further studies were conducted to judge the degree to which genetic cluster analysis can pattern ancestrally identified groups as well as geographically separated groups. One such study looked at a large multiethnic population in the United States, and "detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity&nbsp;– as opposed to current residence&nbsp;– is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population."{{sfn|Tang|Quertermous|Rodriguez|Kardia|2005}}

{{harvtxt|Witherspoon|Wooding|Rogers|Marchani|2007}} have argued that even when individuals can be reliably assigned to specific population groups, it may still be possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster. They found that many thousands of genetic markers had to be used in order for the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" to be "never". This assumed three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian). The entire world population is much more complex and studying an increasing number of groups would require an increasing number of markers for the same answer. The authors conclude that "caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes".<ref name="Witherspoon, et al. 2007" /> Witherspoon, et al. concluded: "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."<ref name="Witherspoon, et al. 2007" />

Anthropologists such as [[C. Loring Brace]],<ref name="Brace 2005" /> the philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther,<ref name="encyclopedia" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaplan |first1=Jonathan Michael |last2=Winther |first2=Rasmus Grønfeldt |date=2014 |title=Realism, Antirealism, and Conventionalism About Race |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/KAPRAA |journal=[[Philosophy of Science (journal)|Philosophy of Science]] |volume=81 |issue=5 |pages=1039–1052 |doi=10.1086/678314 |s2cid=55148854}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Winther |first=Rasmus Grønfeldt |date=2015 |title=The Genetic Reification of 'Race'?: A Story of Two Mathematical Methods |url=http://philpapers.org/archive/WINTGR.pdf |journal=[[Critical Philosophy of Race]] |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=204–223}}</ref>{{sfnp|Kaplan|Winther|2013}} and the geneticist [[Joseph L. Graves|Joseph Graves]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Graves |first=Joseph |date=7 June 2006 |title=What We Know and What We Don't Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race |url=http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/ |website=Race and Genomics }}</ref> have argued that the cluster structure of genetic data is dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the influence of these hypotheses on the choice of populations to sample. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental, but if one had chosen other sampling patterns, the clustering would be different. Weiss and Fullerton have noted that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form and all other populations could be described as being clinally composed of admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan genetic materials.<ref name="evolutionary" /> Kaplan and Winther therefore argue that, seen in this way, both Lewontin and Edwards are right in their arguments. They conclude that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that crosscut racial distinctions. Moreover, the genomic data underdetermines whether one [[Lumpers and splitters|wishes to see subdivisions (i.e., splitters) or a continuum (i.e., lumpers)]]. Under Kaplan and Winther's view, racial groupings are objective social constructions (see Mills 1998<ref>{{cite book |last=Mills |first=Charles W. |author-link=Charles Wade Mills |date=1988 |chapter=But What Are You Really? The Metaphysics of Race |title=Blackness visible: essays on philosophy and race |pages=41–66 |publisher=[[Cornell University Press]] |location=Ithaca, New York}}</ref>) that have conventional biological reality only insofar as the categories are chosen and constructed for pragmatic scientific reasons. In earlier work, Winther had identified "diversity partitioning" and "clustering analysis" as two separate methodologies, with distinct questions, assumptions, and protocols. Each is also associated with opposing ontological consequences vis-a-vis the metaphysics of race.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://philpapers.org/archive/WINTGR.pdf |title=The Genetic Reification of "Race"? A story of two mathematical methods |access-date=15 January 2020}}</ref> Philosopher Lisa Gannett has argued that biogeographical ancestry, a concept devised by [[Mark D. Shriver|Mark Shriver]] and [[Tony Frudakis]], is not an objective measure of the biological aspects of race as Shriver and Frudakis claim it is. She argues that it is actually just a "local category shaped by the U.S. context of its production, especially the forensic aim of being able to predict the race or ethnicity of an unknown suspect based on DNA found at the crime scene".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gannett |first=Lisa |title=Biogeographical ancestry and race |journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences |date=September 2014 |volume=47 |pages=173–184 |doi=10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.05.017 |pmid=24989973}}</ref>

===== Clines and clusters in genetic variation =====
Recent studies of human genetic clustering have included a debate over how genetic variation is organized, with clusters and clines as the main possible orderings. {{harvtxt|Serre|Pääbo|2004}} argued for smooth, clinal genetic variation in ancestral populations even in regions previously considered racially homogeneous, with the apparent gaps turning out to be artifacts of sampling techniques. {{harvtxt|Rosenberg|Mahajan|Ramachandran|Zhao|2005}} disputed this and offered an analysis of the Human Genetic Diversity Panel showing that there were small discontinuities in the smooth genetic variation for ancestral populations at the location of geographic barriers such as the [[Sahara]], the Oceans, and the [[Himalayas]]. Nonetheless, {{harvtxt|Rosenberg|Mahajan|Ramachandran|Zhao|2005}} stated that their findings "should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of biological race&nbsp;... Genetic differences among human populations derive mainly from gradations in allele frequencies rather than from distinctive 'diagnostic' genotypes." Using a sample of 40 populations distributed roughly evenly across the Earth's land surface, {{harvtxt|Xing|et al.|2010|p=208}} found that "genetic diversity is distributed in a more clinal pattern when more geographically intermediate populations are sampled".

[[Guido Barbujani]] has written that human genetic variation is generally distributed continuously in gradients across much of Earth, and that there is no evidence that genetic boundaries between human populations exist as would be necessary for human races to exist.{{sfn|Barbujani|2005}}

Over time, human genetic variation has formed a nested structure that is inconsistent with the concept of races that have evolved independently of one another.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hunley |first1=Keith L. |last2=Healy |first2=Meghan E. |last3=Long |first3=Jeffrey C. |author-link3=Jeffrey C. Long |date=18 February 2009 |title=The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long-range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race |journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |volume=139 |issue=1 |pages=35–46 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.20932 |pmid=19226641 |hdl=2027.42/62159 |hdl-access=free |url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/62159/1/20932_ftp.pdf}}</ref>

=== Social constructions ===
{{Main|Race and society|}}

As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term ''population'' to talk about genetic differences, [[History|historians]], [[cultural anthropology|cultural anthropologists]] and other [[social sciences|social scientists]] re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or [[Identity (social science)|identity]], i.e., a way among many possible ways in which a society chooses to divide its members into categories.

Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "[[Ethnic group#Ethnicity and race|ethnicity]]" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history. Alongside empirical and conceptual problems with "race", following the [[Second World War]], evolutionary and social scientists were acutely aware of how beliefs about race had been used to justify discrimination, [[apartheid]], slavery, and genocide. This questioning gained momentum in the 1960s during the [[civil rights movement]] in the United States and the emergence of numerous anti-colonial movements worldwide. They thus came to believe that race itself is a social construct, a concept that was believed to correspond to an objective reality but which was believed in because of its social functions.<ref name="Gordon 1964" />

Craig Venter and Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, Venter realized that although the genetic variation within the human species is on the order of 1–3% (instead of the previously assumed 1%), the types of variations do not support the notion of genetically defined races. Venter said, "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet.&nbsp;... When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."<ref name="FORA.tv 2008" />

Anthropologist Stephan Palmié has argued that race "is not a thing but a social relation";{{sfn|Palmié|2007}} or, in the words of [[Katya Gibel Mevorach]], "a metonym", "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference".{{sfn|Mevorach|2007}} As such, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race; only history and social relationships will.

[[Imani Perry]] has argued that race "is produced by social arrangements and political decision making",<ref>{{cite book |first=Imani |last=Perry |author-link=Imani Perry |title=More Beautiful and More Terrible: The Embrace and Transcendence of Racial Inequality in the United States |location=New York |publisher=[[New York University Press]] |date=2011 |page=23}}</ref> and that "race is something that happens, rather than something that is. It is dynamic, but it holds no objective truth."<ref>{{cite book |first=Imani |last=Perry |author-link=Imani Perry |title=More Beautiful and More Terrible: The Embrace and Transcendence of Racial Inequality in the United States |location=New York |publisher=[[New York University Press]] |date=2011 |page=24}}</ref> Similarly, in ''[[Racial Culture: A Critique]]'' (2005), Richard T. Ford argued that while "there is no necessary correspondence between the ascribed identity of race and one's culture or personal sense of self" and "group difference is not intrinsic to members of social groups but rather contingent o[n] the social practices of group identification", the social practices of [[identity politics]] may coerce individuals into the "compulsory" enactment of "prewritten racial scripts".<ref>{{cite book |last=Ford |first=Richard T. |author-link=Richard Thompson Ford |title=Racial Culture: A Critique |date=2005 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=0-691-11960-0 |pages=117–118, 125–128}}</ref>

==== Brazil ====
{{Main|Race in Brazil}}
[[File:Redenção.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|Portrait "Redenção de Cam" (1895), showing a Brazilian family becoming "whiter" each generation]]
Compared to 19th-century United States, 20th-century [[Demographics of Brazil|Brazil]] was characterized by a perceived relative absence of sharply defined racial groups. According to anthropologist [[Marvin Harris]], this pattern reflects a different history and different [[social relations]].

Race in Brazil was "biologized", but in a way that recognized the difference between ancestry (which determines [[genotype]]) and [[phenotypic]] differences. There, racial identity was not governed by rigid descent rule, such as the [[one-drop rule]], as it was in the United States. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only a very limited number of categories to choose from,<ref name="Harris 1980" /> to the extent that full [[sibling]]s can pertain to different racial groups.<ref>{{cite journal |pmc=140919 |pmid=12509516 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0126614100 |volume=100 |issue=1 |title=Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians |date=January 2003 |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] |pages=177–182 |last1=Parra |first1=F. C. |last2=Amado |first2=R. C. |last3=Lambertucci |first3=J. R. |last4=Rocha |first4=J. |last5=Antunes |first5=C. M. |last6=Pena |first6=S. D. |bibcode=2003PNAS..100..177P |doi-access=free}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable floatleft"
|-
! colspan="4" |Self-reported ancestry of people from<br />Rio de Janeiro, by race or skin color (2000 survey)<ref name="Telles">{{cite book |pages=[https://archive.org/details/raceinanotherame0000tell/page/81 81–84] |title=Race in Another America: The significance of skin color in Brazil |first=Edward Eric |last=Telles |author-link=Edward Telles |chapter=Racial Classification |date=2004 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=0-691-11866-3 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/raceinanotherame0000tell/page/81}}</ref>
|-
! Ancestry!! ''brancos'' !! ''pardos''!! ''negros''
|-
| European only
| 48% || 6%||–
|-
| African only
| – ||12%||25%
|-
| Amerindian only
| – ||2%||–
|-
| African and European
| 23% ||34%||31%
|-
| Amerindian and European
| 14% ||6%||–
|-
| African and Amerindian
| – ||4%||9%
|-
| African, Amerindian and European
| 15% ||36%||35%
|-
| Total
| 100% ||100%||100%
|-
| Any African
| 38% ||86%||100%
|}

Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in [[conformity]] with all the possible combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum, and not one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. That is, race referred preferentially to appearance, not heredity, and appearance is a poor indication of ancestry, because only a few genes are responsible for someone's skin color and traits: a person who is considered white may have more African ancestry than a person who is considered black, and the reverse can be also true about European ancestry.<ref>{{cite web |first=Silvia |last=Salek |date=10 July 2007 |title=BBC delves into Brazilians' roots |work=[[BBC News]] |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6284806.stm |access-date=13 July 2009}}</ref> The complexity of racial classifications in Brazil reflects the extent of genetic mixing in [[Brazilian society]], a society that remains highly, but not strictly, [[social stratification|stratified]] along color lines. These [[Socioeconomic status|socioeconomic]] factors are also significant to the limits of racial lines, because a minority of ''[[pardo]]s'', or brown people, are likely to start declaring themselves white or black if socially upward,<ref>{{cite book |last=Ribeiro |first=Darcy |author-link=Darcy Ribeiro |title=O Povo Brasileiro |trans-title=The Brazilian People |publisher=Companhia de Bolso |edition=4th reprint |date=2008 |language=pt}}</ref> and being seen as relatively "whiter" as their perceived social status increases (much as in other regions of Latin America).<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Levine-Rasky |editor-first=Cynthia |date=2002 |title=Working through whiteness: international perspectives |publisher=[[SUNY Press]] |isbn=978-0-7914-5340-7 |page=73 |quote='Money whitens' If any phrase encapsulates the association of whiteness and the modern in Latin America, this is it. It is a cliché formulated and reformulated throughout the region, a truism dependent upon the social experience that wealth is associated with whiteness, and that in obtaining the former one may become aligned with the latter (and vice versa).}}</ref>

[[Racial fluidity|Fluidity of racial categories]] aside, the "biologification" of race in Brazil referred above would match contemporary concepts of race in the United States quite closely, though, if Brazilians are supposed to choose their race as one among, Asian and Indigenous apart, three IBGE's census categories. While assimilated [[Amerindians]] and people with very high quantities of Amerindian ancestry are usually grouped as ''[[caboclo]]s'', a subgroup of ''pardos'' which roughly translates as both [[mestizo]] and [[hillbilly]], for those of lower quantity of Amerindian descent a higher European genetic contribution is expected to be grouped as a ''pardo''. In several genetic tests, people with less than 60-65% of European descent and 5–10% of Amerindian descent usually cluster with [[Afro-Brazilian]]s (as reported by the individuals), or 6.9% of the population, and those with about 45% or more of Subsaharan contribution most times do so (in average, Afro-Brazilian DNA was reported to be about 50% Subsaharan African, 37% European and 13% Amerindian).<ref name="plosone.org" /><ref name="afrobras">{{cite web |url=http://www.afrobras.org.br/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2112&Itemid=2 |title=Negros de origem européia |trans-title=Blacks of European origin |language=pt |website=afrobras.org.br |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101124105905/http://www.afrobras.org.br/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2112&Itemid=2 |archive-date=24 November 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Genetic signatures of parental contribution in black and white populations in Brazil |doi=10.1590/S1415-47572009005000001 |date=2009 |last1=Guerreiro-Junior |first1=Vanderlei |last2=Bisso-Machado |first2=Rafael |last3=Marrero |first3=Andrea |last4=Hünemeier |first4=Tábita |last5=Salzano |first5=Francisco M. |last6=Bortolini |first6=Maria Cátira |journal=[[Genetics and Molecular Biology]] |volume=32 |pages=1–11 |pmid=21637639 |issue=1 |pmc=3032968}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Genetic heritage variability of Brazilians in even regional averages, 2009 study |doi=10.1590/S0100-879X2009005000026 |date=2009 |last1=Pena |first1=S. D. J. |last2=Bastos-Rodrigues |first2=L. |last3=Pimenta |first3=J. R. |last4=Bydlowski |first4=S. P. |journal=Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research |volume=42 |issue=10 |pages=870–876 |pmid=19738982 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable floatright"
|-
! colspan="11" |Ethnic groups in Brazil (census data)<ref>{{cite web |title=Brasil: 500 anos de povoamento |trans-title=Brazil: 500 years of settlement |publisher=IBGE |url=http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/ |access-date=29 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090923103736/http://www.ibge.gov.br/ibgeteen/povoamento/ |archive-date=23 September 2009 |language=pt}}</ref>
|-
!Ethnic group || white || black || multiracial
|- style="text-align:right;"
| 1872 || 3,787,289 || 1,954,452 || 4,188,737
|- style="text-align:right;"
| 1940 || 26,171,778 || 6,035,869 || 8,744,365
|- style="text-align:right;"
| 1991 || 75,704,927 || 7,335,136 || 62,316,064
|}

{| class="wikitable floatright"
|-
! colspan="5" |Ethnic groups in Brazil (1872 and 1890)<ref name="Ramos">{{cite book |last=Ramos |first=Arthur |date=2003 |title=A mestiçagem no Brasil |trans-title=Miscegenation in Brazil |language=pt |publisher=EDUFAL |location=Maceió, Brazil |isbn=978-85-7177-181-9 |page=82}}</ref>
|-
! Years
! whites
! multiracial
! blacks
! Indians
|-
| 1872
| 38.1%
| 38.3%
| 19.7%
| 3.9%
|-
| 1890
| 44.0%
| 32.4%
| 14.6%
| 9%
|}

If a more consistent report with the genetic groups in the gradation of genetic mixing is to be considered (e.g. that would not cluster people with a balanced degree of African and non-African ancestry in the black group instead of the multiracial one, unlike elsewhere in Latin America where people of high quantity of African descent tend to classify themselves as mixed), more people would report themselves as white and ''pardo'' in Brazil (47.7% and 42.4% of the population as of 2010, respectively), because by research its population is believed to have between 65 and 80% of autosomal European ancestry, in average (also >35% of European mt-DNA and >95% of European Y-DNA).<ref name="plosone.org">{{cite journal |title=The Genomic Ancestry of Individuals from Different Geographical Regions of Brazil Is More Uniform Than Expected |date=2011 |first1=Sérgio D. J. |last1=Pena |first2=Giuliano |last2=Di Pietro |first3=Mateus |last3=Fuchshuber-Moraes |first4=Julia Pasqualini |last4=Genro |first5=Mara H. |last5=Hutz |first6=Fernanda de Souza Gomes |last6=Kehdy |first7=Fabiana |last7=Kohlrausch |first8=Luiz Alexandre Viana |last8=Magno |first9=Raquel Carvalho |last9=Montenegro |first10=Manoel Odorico |last10=Moraes |first11=Maria Elisabete Amaral |last11=de Moraes |first12=Milene Raiol |last12=de Moraes |first13=Élida B. |last13=Ojopi |first14=Jamila A. |last14=Perini |first15=Clarice |last15=Racciopi |first16=Ândrea Kely Campos |last16=Ribeiro-dos-Santos |first17=Fabrício |last17=Rios-Santos |first18=Marco A. |last18=Romano-Silva |first19=Vinicius A. |last19=Sortica |first20=Guilherme |last20=Suarez-Kurtz |journal=[[PLoS One]] |volume=6 |issue=2 |page=e17063 |pmid=21359226 |pmc=3040205 |editor-last=Harpending |editor-first=Henry |bibcode=2011PLoSO...617063P |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0017063 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf |title=Allele frequencies of 15 STRs in a representative sample of the Brazilian population |doi=10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.05.006 |date=2010 |last1=De Assis Poiares |first1=Lilian |last2=De Sá Osorio |first2=Paulo |last3=Spanhol |first3=Fábio Alexandre |last4=Coltre |first4=Sidnei César |last5=Rodenbusch |first5=Rodrigo |last6=Gusmão |first6=Leonor |last7=Largura |first7=Alvaro |last8=Sandrini |first8=Fabiano |last9=Da Silva |first9=Cláudia Maria Dornelles |journal=Forensic Science International: Genetics |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=e61–e63 |pmid=20129458 |archive-date=8 April 2011 |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/5xmleMZgv?url=http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite thesis |url=http://bdtd.bce.unb.br/tedesimplificado/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=3873 |first=Neide Maria de |last=Oliveira Godinho |title=O Impacto das Migrações na Constituição Genética de Populações Latino-Americanas |trans-title=The Impact of Migration on the Genetic Constitution of Latin American Populations |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110706162307/http://bdtd.bce.unb.br/tedesimplificado/tde_arquivos/36/TDE-2008-08-21T100337Z-3085/Publico/2008_NeideMOGodinho.pdf |archive-date=6 July 2011 |type=PhD thesis |publisher=[[Universidade de Brasília]] |date=2008 |language=pt}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Reinaldo José |last=Lopes |date=5 October 2009 |title=DNA de brasileiro é 80% europeu, indica estudo |website=Folha de S.Paulo |url=http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u633465.shtml |trans-title=Brazilian DNA is nearly 80% European, indicates study |language=pt}}</ref>

From the last decades of the [[Empire of Brazil|Empire]] until the 1950s, the proportion of the white population increased significantly while Brazil welcomed 5.5 million immigrants between 1821 and 1932, not much behind its neighbor Argentina with 6.4 million,<ref name="whitaker">{{cite book |title=Argentina |first=Arthur P. |last=Whitaker |location=Hoboken, New Jersey |publisher=[[Prentice Hall]] |date=1984}}, Cited in {{cite web|url=http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1990/1/90.01.06.x.html |title=Yale immigration study |publisher=[[Yale University]]}}</ref> and it received more European immigrants in its colonial history than the United States. Between 1500 and 1760, 700.000 Europeans settled in Brazil, while 530.000 Europeans settled in the United States for the same given time.<ref>{{cite book |first=Renato Pinto |last=Venâncio |chapter=Presença portuguesa: de colonizadores a imigrantes |trans-chapter=Portuguese presence: from colonizers to immigrants |title=Brasil: 500 anos de povoamento |trans-title=Brazil: 500 years of settlement |publisher=IBGE |location=Rio de Janeiro |date=2000}}, Relevant extract available here: {{cite web |url=https://brasil500anos.ibge.gov.br/territorio-brasileiro-e-povoamento/portugueses |access-date=16 October 2021 |title=território brasileiro e povoamento |trans-title=Brazilian territory and settlement |language=pt |publisher=IBGE}}</ref> Thus, the historical construction of race in Brazilian society dealt primarily with gradations between persons of majority European ancestry and little minority groups with otherwise lower quantity therefrom in recent times.

==== European Union ====
{{See also|Demographics of the European Union}}
According to the [[Council of the European Union]]:
{{cquote
|quote=The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races.
|source=Directive 2000/43/EC<ref name="32000L0043">{{CELEX|32000L0043|text=Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin}}</ref>
}}
The [[European Union]] uses the terms racial origin and ethnic origin synonymously in its documents and according to it "the use of the term 'racial origin' in this directive does not imply an acceptance of such [racial] theories".<ref name="32000L0043" /><ref>{{cite web|title=European Union Directives on the Prohibition of Discrimination|url=http://www.humanrights.is/human-rights-and-iceland/equality--non-discrimination/|work=HumanRights.is|publisher=Icelandic Human Rights Centre|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120724051826/http://www.humanrights.is/human-rights-and-iceland/equality--non-discrimination|archive-date=24 July 2012}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=September 2015}} [[Ian Haney López|Haney López]] warns that using "race" as a category within the law tends to legitimize its existence in the popular imagination. In the diverse geographic context of [[Europe]], ethnicity and ethnic origin are arguably more resonant and are less encumbered by the ideological baggage associated with "race". In European context, historical resonance of "race" underscores its problematic nature. In some states, it is strongly associated with laws promulgated by the [[Nazi]] and [[Fascist]] governments in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed, in 1996, the [[European Parliament]] adopted a resolution stating that "the term should therefore be avoided in all official texts".{{sfn|Bell|2009|p={{page needed|date=December 2021}}}}

The concept of racial origin relies on the notion that human beings can be separated into biologically distinct "races", an idea generally rejected by the scientific community. Since all human beings belong to the same species, the [[European Commission against Racism and Intolerance|ECRI]] (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) rejects theories based on the existence of different "races". However, in its Recommendation ECRI uses this term in order to ensure that those persons who are generally and erroneously perceived as belonging to "another race" are not excluded from the protection provided for by the legislation. The law claims to reject the existence of "race", yet penalize situations where someone is treated less favourably on this ground.{{sfn|Bell|2009|p={{page needed|date=December 2021}}}}

==== United States ====
{{Main|Race and ethnicity in the United States}}
{{See also|Miscegenation#Admixture in the United States|Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States}}

The immigrants to the [[United States]] came from every region of Europe, Africa, and Asia. They [[miscegenation|mixed]] among themselves and with the [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|indigenous inhabitants of the continent]]. In the United States most people who self-identify as [[African American]] have some [[European ethnic groups|European ancestors]], while many people who identify as [[European American]] have some African or Amerindian ancestors.

Since the early history of the United States, Amerindians, African Americans, and European Americans have been classified as belonging to different races. Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories, such as [[mulatto]] and [[octoroon]]. The criteria for membership in these races diverged in the late 19th century. During the [[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction]] era, increasing numbers of Americans began to consider anyone with "[[one-drop theory|one drop]]" of known "Black blood" to be Black, regardless of appearance. By the early 20th century, this notion was made statutory in many states. [[Amerindians]] continue to be defined by a certain percentage of "Indian blood" (called ''[[Blood quantum laws|blood quantum]]''). To be White one had to have perceived "pure" White ancestry. The one-drop rule or [[hypodescent]] rule refers to the convention of defining a person as racially black if he or she has any known African ancestry. This rule meant that those that were mixed race but with some discernible African ancestry were defined as black. The one-drop rule is specific to not only those with African ancestry but to the United States, making it a particularly African-American experience.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sexton |first=Jared |title=Amalgamation Schemes |url=https://archive.org/details/amalgamationsche00jare |url-access=registration |date=2008 |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]]}}</ref>

The [[United States Census|decennial censuses]] conducted since 1790 in the United States created an incentive to establish racial categories and fit people into these categories.<ref name="nobles" />

The term "[[Hispanic]]" as an [[ethnonym]] emerged in the 20th century with the rise of migration of laborers from the [[Hispanophone|Spanish-speaking countries]] of [[Latin America]] to the United States. Today, the word "Latino" is often used as a synonym for "Hispanic". The definitions of both terms are non-race specific, and include people who consider themselves to be of distinct races (Black, White, Amerindian, Asian, and mixed groups).<ref name="OMB 1997" /> However, there is a common misconception in the US that Hispanic/Latino is a race<ref>{{cite book |last=Horsman |first=Reginald |title=Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Radial Anglo-Saxonism |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |date=1981 |page=210}}, This reference is speaking in historic terms but there is not reason to think that this perception has altered much</ref> or sometimes even that national origins such as Mexican, Cuban, Colombian, Salvadoran, etc. are races. In contrast to "Latino" or "Hispanic", "[[Anglo]]" refers to non-Hispanic [[White American]]s or non-Hispanic [[European American]]s, most of whom speak the English language but are not necessarily of English descent.