Here I make two related points: (1) “Races” aren’t true divisions among human beings; the whole idea is a social construct. (2) Racism, however, is very real.

Neither should have to be addressed in this day and age, but the first keeps popping up. Census forms, news articles, books, online discussions, etc., continue to use the word “race” as if no one has ever countered the idea before. And when anyone argues that races aren’t real, someone always pops up with “If races aren’t real, then how can there be racism?” — because the dictionary definitions insist that part of racism is the existence of races.

Humanity Is Not Divided Into ‘Races’

It’s well-known that early humans existed as separate tribes and/or families with varying languages, customs, superstitions, and even physical appearance. Each group saw itself as distinct from neighboring groups even if both groups would appear identical to outsiders. But it wasn’t until Europeans began worldwide exploration and conquest that the idea of “races” crept into humanity’s consciousness. This idea held that the divisions were natural, and immutable; it began to be formalized sometime in the 1700s.

Much of this ideology was couched in “scientific” terms by early (European) scientists trying to understand and investigate the phenotypical differences between groups of humans. For example, Johann Blumenbach in 1775 published “The Natural Varieties Of Mankind”, in which he proposed five “natural” divisions among humans. To be fair to Blumenbach, he did point out the lack of distinct boundaries between groups of humans. But others took the idea further, even proposing polygenism, the theory that each “race” of humans (especially “the Negro”) had a different evolutionary origin. Some white men proposed “hierarchies” of races, ranking them from best (white) to worst (black), and asserted that intellectual, behavioral, and even moral qualities were inherited per race. Unfortunately, many people still believe this.

As science continued to progress, we learned (1) all humans share a common ancestor, (2) all modern humans belong to the same subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens), and (3) almost all differences between groups are cultural rather than biological. Unfortunately, many people continue to reject this unity of humanity. And even among those who do accept it, many people continue to perceive racial differences and behave as if they’re real divisions.

In 1998, still battling racial ideology, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement on it, including this bit:

“With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic ‘racial’ groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within ‘racial’ groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.”

Several years ago, I came across this makeup chart of skin colors, which shows 66 different skin tones but still has a noticeable break between each one. In real life, there is no cutoff between black and white. I pictured all 7.5 billion humans arranged in a long row, from darkest skin tone to lightest skin tone. (And yes, I did the math: that row would be more than two million miles long.) Start at one end and move slowly down the line. You’ll notice zero difference (in skin color) from the first person to the second person. Even the 100th person would have the same skin tone as the first one. In order to notice any difference from Person One, you’d have to pass many thousands of people. But when you did find that person — let’s call her Person 1 Million — her skin tone would appear identical to anyone in her part of the line. You have to keep moving quite a ways to find someone obviously different in skin tone from her. This process repeats. You simply would not be able to find a point on the spectrum where there was a break between two people, a place where you could say “everyone to the left of me is ‘black’ and everyone to the right of me is ‘white’.”

(And even that thought experiment ignores the variability of each individual over time — due to things like exertion, sun exposure, aging, etc. After exercise, I am noticeably redder than I was when I began. In winter, I am noticeably paler than during the rest of the year. After months of spring and summer yard work, I become browner than during winter. If I forget sunscreen before swimming, I get red but then fade to tan over a few days.)

This is an obvious oversimplification; we know skin tone isn’t the only feature used to distinguish between perceived races. But we would find similar results no matter which identifying feature we looked for — eye color/shape, nose breadth/length, mouth shape, hair texture/color, etc. — or even combinations of features. Therefore any line drawn that separates people into “races” must be entirely arbitrary. And the two people closest to that line, on either side of it, would appear identical to one another.

Such a thought experiment relies on simple reasoning, which isn’t always reliable. Genetic studies could have easily destroyed any notion of a continuum between humans. Instead, scientists found more variation within perceived races than between them, and zero genetic markers unique to one “race” or another. (There is a statistical correlation between gene frequencies and perceived races, which isn’t the same thing, and relies entirely upon self-reporting of racial identity.)

How Can There Be ‘Racism’ If ‘Races’ Don’t Exist?

If race isn’t a real thing, if it is indeed simply a social construct, some will ask, then how can there be racism? (Seriously, I’ve seen people ask this.) The answer is glaringly obvious, of course: people still think there are races, and act in bigoted ways, preferring in-group people to out-group people. And even people who know “race” is a social construct still act as if that’s not the case.

Further, many of the power imbalances in society were set up generations ago, when the people in charge still largely believed “races” were true divisions between groups of humans. Those power imbalances persist today, regardless of what science eventually uncovered.

Racism happens to be the term we still use to describe the phenomenon.

Are there better words? Perhaps not. “Bigotry” works well for individual thoughts and behavior, but it applies to a number of things besides the perception of race and doesn’t describe the economic and social oppression on a large scale. “Discrimination” has a distinct meaning as well, and like “bigotry” isn’t specific enough or broad enough to apply.

Conclusion

Above, I meant only to counter the semantic ploy (the dishonest argument that racism can’t exist if races aren’t real), and I think I’ve done that.

I know there are actual people alive today who don’t believe that anyone is oppressed currently due to their physical appearance (what used to be perceived as “race”). I probably can’t convince any of them (and I believe some of them are simply trolling). I wonder whether there are people still on the fence, and what could possibly sway them to admit that racism — both systemic and individual — still exists in the United States? That last bit is on my mind a lot lately.