From:
Junji Koizumi [mailto:koizumi@hq.osaka-u.ac.jp]
Sent: November 19, 2010
To: 'Executive IUAES'; pouliauos@gmail.com; akorotayev@mail.ru; lgrinin@mail.ru;
entropos@unifi.it; gregory.acciaioli@uwa.edu.au; roudnev@mail.ru; mf11@mail.ru;
zhzhrm@263.net; glhaiting2007@sina.com; cristina.amescua@gmail.com; hassenchoubani@gmail.com;
martynova@iea.ras.ru; congress7@list.ru; sozbudun@hotmail.com; arefabu@gmail.com;
popoff@kunstkamera.ru; ceyhansuvari@gmail.com; elifkanca@gmail.com; kdelibas@adu.edu.tr;
marcello.mollica@unifr.ch; i.pardo@kent.ac.uk; abuelabas@hotmail.com; aalshboul@ya.edu.jo;
sumite_crau@hotmail.com; zhjijiao@126.com; buddhadebc@gmail.com; sumita_chan@hotmail.com;
1336@rambler.ru; l.Bakker@jur.ru.nl
Cc: iuaes.s-g@glocol.osaka-u.ac.jp
Subject: [iuaes.exec:00093] IUAES Statement on Race and Racism
Dear all,
Attached please find a revised version of the draft of the “IUAES Statement on ‘Race’ and Racism.” This document was prepared by Petr Skalnik, presented by Mugsy Spiegel and discussed in the meeting of Permanent Council held on October 5 at IUAES 2010 in Antalya, Turkey.
This mail is sent only to those who requested and gave me your address at the Permanent Council in Antalya. Please let me know if you have any question on this document.
With best wishes,
Junji Koizumi (The IUAES General Secretary)
IUAES Statement on ‚Race’ and Racism
PREAMBLE: As scientists
who study human evolution, the physical, social and cultural diversity of
humankind, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists,
politicians and the general public our current understanding of human variation.
Nineteenth and early twentieth century categories of ‘race‘, which today have
little or no scientific merit, have often been used to support racist doctrines.
Yet the concept persists as a social convention that all too often fosters
institutional and uncoordinated discrimination. Expression of prejudice may
or may not undermine material well-being, but it inevitably involves the maltreatment
of people and is thus often psychologically distressing, socially damaging
and culturally destructive. Scientists should endeavour to prevent their research
results being used in a biased way that serves destructively discriminatory
ends.
1. All humans living
today belong to a single species, Homo
sapiens, and share a common descent. All living human populations have
evolved from one common ancestral group over the same period of time.
2. Biological differences between human beings
reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments.
In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree
to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.
3. There is great genetic
diversity within all human populations. Neither pure nor mixed ‘races’, in
the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, exist in the human species;
nor is there evidence that they have ever existed. Therefore usage of the
term ‘race’ has been unscientific and no longer has any value in scholarly
discourse. However, ‘race’ does exist as a commonsense model – a social construct
that has been instrumental in the making of racist ideologies, theories and
practices.
4. There are obvious physical differences between and within populations living in different geographical parts of the world. Some such differences are strongly inherited; others, such as body size, shape and skin colour are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life and other environmental determinants. Genetic differences between populations reflect differences in the frequenciesa with which hereditary characteristics occur.
5. For centuries, scholars
have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things.
Attempts to categorise human populations in this manner have been wholly misplaced.
Homo sapiens has become highly diversified across the globe and the
geographic pattern of human genetic variation is complex. However it presents
no major discontinuity. Consequently humanity cannot be classified into discrete
geographic categories on the basis of biological differences. Indeed, the
complexities of human history make a nonsense of efforts to categorise particular
populations in terms of biological differences. Similarly creating multiplicities
of sub-categories cannot correct the inadequacies of those efforts. That is
because, generally, the traits that have been used to characterize a population
are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association
with one another within each population. The combination of these traits in
most individuals does not therefore correspond to any typological ’racial’
characterizations. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete ’races’
made up chiefly of typical representatives.
6. In humankind the genetic composition of each
population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors.
These include natural selection tending towards adaptation to the environment;
mutations involving modifications of genetic material; and random changes
in the frequencies of genetic characteristics. The human characteristics which
have a universal biological value for the survival of the species are not
found more frequently in any one population than in any other. Therefore it
is not possible, from the biological point of view, to speak in any way whatsoever
of a general inferiority or superiority of any particular population.
7. The human species
has a past rich in migrations, in territorial expansions and in contractions.
As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth's environments in general
but not exclusively to just one. For many millennia, human achievements in
any field have been based on culture and not on genetic improvement. Migrations
have resulted in encounters of previously separated populations, while whole
areas of cultural interaction emerged giving birth to new populations and
cultures.
8. The hereditary characteristics of human populations
are in a state of perpetual flux and distinctive local populations are continually
coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations cannot in any way
be compared to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial
selection for specific human purposes.
9. It has never been
shown that interbreeding has biological disadvantages for humanity as a whole.
The biological consequences of procreation depend only on the individual genetic
make-up of each couple. Therefore, no biological justification exists for
prohibiting intermarriage between persons of different classifications.
10. There is no necessary concordance
between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every
continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy,
and culture. There is no national, religious, geographic, linguistic, cultural
cohort, or economic class that constitutes what is popularly called a ‘race’.
However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture
frequently select each other as procreative partners, with the result that
there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical
traits on the one hand, and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the
other. But there is no known causal linkage between these physical and behavioural
traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics
to the influence of genetic inheritance. Those who do insist on such causal
links are guided by unscientific motives and in fact promote racism, an unjustified
form of discrimination which is always profoundly
hurtful to its targets whether or not it is expressed in physically violent
forms.
11. Physical, cultural, and social
environments influence the behavioural differences among individuals in society.
Although heredity influences the behavioural variability of individuals within
a given population, it does not affect the ability of members of any such
population to function in a social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual
development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its
survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The
peoples of the world today possess equal biological potential for assimilating
any human culture. Hereditary potentials for overall intelligence and cultural
development do not differ among modern human populations, and there is no
hereditary justification for considering one population superior to another.
Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning
modern or past human populations.
12. Racism has over time acquired many faces. It is no longer definable
in terms of culture being determined by physical characteristics, but has
been translated into an idiom of ethnicity, culture, and exaggerations of
cultural relativism. Migration from poor countries and regions into richer
ones has brought back racism as an explanation of poverty – through asserting
the determinant role of the migrants’ innate characteristics. Governments
that promote settlement of predominant populations into sparsely
populated regions cause demographic aggression and in effect suppress or marginalise
local culture, language, religion, etc. When governments perpetuate divisions
into autochthonous and allochthonous populations to marginalise or oppress
them, those governments’ actions constitute institutional racism. Ethnocide,
i.e. eradication of autochthonous cultures, leads in extreme cases to physical
extermination or calls for it. Genocide is an heinous crime against humanity
and as such is abhorrent to anthropology and ethnology. Anthropologists and
ethnologists must therefore oblige themselves to debunk and fight racism with
scientific argumentation and by involvement in public debates.
5 October 2010