:: wikimiki.org ::

Discrimination

Discrimination

To discriminate is to make a distinction. There are several meanings of the word, including statistical discrimination, or the actions of a circuit called a `discriminator`. This article addresses the most common colloquial sense of the word, invidious discrimination. That is, to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Examples include social, racial, religious, sexual, disability, ethnic and age-related discrimination.

Government sanctioned discrimination

By virtue of establishing nationalism (as opposed to globalism) every government has formalized and supported discrimination. Examples of discrimination within countries include: apartheid in South Africa; institutionalized racial segregation in the USA from the Civil War through the 1960s; the "Jewish problem" in Nazi Germany; and re-education camps in some communist countries. Many governments have attempted to control discrimination through civil rights legislation, equal opportunity laws and institutionalised policies of affirmative action (called reverse discrimination by its opponents). Even in western, secular countries, governments practice discrimination. For example, governments may provide better treatment to citizens than to non-citizens. Unemployed citizens may receive welfare benefits funded by taxpayers, while unemployed non-citizens may be denied such benefits. Governments often have the power to forcefully expel non-citizens but cannot expel citizens. Discrimination based on citizenship status is not generally considered illegal.

Religious discrimination

Religious intolerance often manifests itself in discriminatory behaviours. During the Middle Ages, in the Crusades, Popes, kings, and emperors tried to draw on Christian unity to defend their lands from some followers of Islam, which was spreading along Europe's southern and eastern borders. Some Roman Catholic countries have historically persecuted dissenters, for example with the Spanish Inquisition. Some rulers of Protestant countries sponsored discrimination against Roman Catholics. During Tudor and Stuart times, rulers of the United Kingdom persecuted both Catholics and non-Catholics at intervals for political reasons. However, today, Muslims are widely faced job related discrimination in the West, particularly in the United Sates, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This is termed "Sophisticated discrimination" where the act of discrimination is performed in a way that it cannot be proven easly. According to the EEOC, since September 11, 2001, it has received more than 800 charge filings nationwide, alleging backlash discrimination by individuals who are or who are perceived to be Muslim, Arabic, Middle Eastern, South Asian or Sikh. The two most common issues alleged are harassment and discharge. Another out of the ordinary example of discrimination against Muslims is occurring in an extremely large context on very different platform. The European Union leaders are openly declaring that Turkey is unqualified to be a full member of the institution despite meeting all of the requirements because of its "religious and ethnic differences". This has been stated by the leaders of France, Austria, Germany and the Vatican. To some, this is conceived to be a case of a largest religious discrimination against a nation of seventy million by a major international governmental organization. Currently, Non-Muslims too are discriminated against under remaining few Islamic theocratic states. Jews and Christians have historically had fewer rights than Muslim citizens under Muslim states; non-Muslim monotheists have been consigned to the status of dhimmis in some cases. Marxist states have discriminated against all religions at some time or another. This continues in North Korea, China and Vietnam, and many former Soviet republics. The Kingdom of Jordan forbids Jews from becoming citizens, although peoples of any other group are allowed to do so (law No. 6, sect. 3, of April 3, 1954; restated in law no. 7, sect. 2, of April 1, 1963). Saudi Arabia forbids non-Muslims from practising their religion in public, and clergy may not enter the country to lead ceremonies of other faiths. Christians asking Muslims to convert to Christianity have been persecuted and arrested; Muslims who have converted to Christianity have been executed as apostates. Fictional tales of Jews committing diabolic crimes are published by the state. The article on discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia discusses this subject in more depth. According to reports from the U.S. Department of State, non-Muslims also suffer discrimination in many non-Arab Muslim nations. Separate articles discuss discrimination against non-Muslims in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan and Sudan. The State of Israel is often accused of discrimination against Palestinians; this topic is discussed in the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some New religious movements often claim that they are discriminated for their non-conformist beliefs. They claim apostates of these movements are the ones carrying the discrimination. Some others claim that non-religious people (atheists, agnostics, etc.) are subject to the most widespread religious discrimination. During his 1988 Presidential campaign, George H.W. Bush stated that atheists should not be considered patriots or citizens. Religious Students may be said to be discriminated in schools both publicly and privately. For example, names of clubs have been changed due to claims by administrative staff that some part of the name or the symbolism it represents may offend other students, parents, or teachers.

Ageism

Ageism is discrimination against a person or group on the grounds of age. Although theoretically the word can refer to the discrimination against any age group, ageism usually comes in one of two forms: discrimination against youth, and discrimination against the elderly. In many countries, companies more or less openly refuse to hire people above a certain age despite the increasing lifespans and average age of the population. The reasons for this range from vague feelings that younger people are more "dynamic" and create a positive image for the company, to more concrete concerns about regulations granting older employees higher salaries or other benefits without these expenses being fully justified by an older employees' greater experience. Some underage teenagers consider that they're victims of ageism—prejudice on the grounds of age—and that they should be treated more respectfully by adults and not as second-class citizens. Some complain that social stratification in age groups causes outsiders to incorrectly stereotype and generalize the group, for instance that all adolescents are equally immature, violent or rebellious, listen to rock or rap music and do drugs. Some have organized groups against ageism.

The paradox of discrimination

Many people assume that when there is discrimination, one group of people is given more favorable treatment than others. This is not always the case. It is possible to have cases where it is not at all clear which group is given the more favorable treatment.
- Example: A country is under attack during wartime. The war is so ferocious that 80% of the combatants are killed. A law has been passed to forcefully conscript males between 18-24 years of age into the frontline, but females are forbidden to participate.
- Question: Who is suffering unfair discrimination? There are four possible answers: #Males are suffering unfair discrimination. They are forced to participate in the effort which will result in a high probability of death. #Females are suffering unfair discrimination. They are prevented from participation in the war effort to protect their homeland. #Both males and females are suffering unfair discrimination. #No one suffers unfair discrimination. The ruling was made because of valid intrinsic reasons suiting men and women to different activities. (This is not to assert anything about the relative suitability of men and women for conflict.) There may however be other examples of a situation some might regard as discriminatory, but in which there was no discrimination because of the decision was based on the intrinsic suitedness of the two groups to the roles being apportioned. An example might be symphony orchestras made up of all-white musicians selected by blind auditions. In a blind audition, the musician plays behind a curtain. The reviewer can't see the player, so there is no possibility of skin or race influencing the choice. Even here, the situation is complicated by possible indirect or institutionalized discrimination. Suppose black people are just as capable of being musicians but have not had access to training. For example, in 1989, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra was threatened with losing a $1.3m subsidy from the state of Michigan unless it hired a second black musician. It side-stepped the blind audition and hired a black man, who noted nonetheless that he would've preferred to be hired normally. This affirmative action hiring was clearly in the narrowest sense discriminatory, yet a chain of events followed leading to the Detroit Symphony African-American Fellowship Program in which young black musicians join the orchestra in rehearsals and performances. They receive coaching and audition preparation tips from orchestra members. Seven Detroit fellows have won seats in major American orchestras. The key to the paradox is the subjectively interpreted phrase "more favorable treatment". Different people have different ideas about what constitutes "favorable treatment". To a male who does not want to die, favorable treatment means not being forced to go to the frontline. To a female who wants to defend her homeland, favorable treatment means being allowed to do so. Different groups of people will have different perceptions of a situation. Four people who witness a car accident will have four different perceptions of what happened and how it happened. Therefore it is possible to have a situation where two groups of people vehemently oppose each other, both objecting to the same piece of legislation on the grounds that it "gives more favorable treatment" to the other group.

Gender Discrimination

Any action that specifically denies opportunities, privileges, or rewards to a person or a group because of their sex. Internationally, the United Nations concludes that women are facing a global glass ceiling and that in no society do women enjoy the same opportunities as men. In the most developed country, the USA, the Glass Ceiling Commission states that between 95 and 97 per cent of senior managers in the country's biggest corporations are men (...)The term 'glass ceiling' describes the process by which women are barred from promotion by means of an invisible barrier. Traditionally, sexual differences have been used to justify male-dominated societies in which women have been given inferior and secondary roles in their working lives. There are differences between men and women, other than the physical, but there is little agreement as to what they are. Generally, legislation to promote gender equality is complex and varied, with a wide divergence in different countries. In the UK, the principal legislation is found in the Equal Pay Act of 1970, providing for equal pay for comparable work; and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, which makes discrimination against women or men (including discrimination on the grounds of marital status) illegal in the working situation.

References

Category:Discrimination Category:Prejudices Category:Core issues in ethics ja:差別

Statistical discrimination

Statistical discrimination is an economic theory of inequality based on group stereotypes. In its simplest version, individuals are discriminated against because stereotypes are held against the groups they are associated with. This type of preferential treatment is labeled "statistical" because stereotypes may be based on the discriminated group's average behavior. When this is the case, individuals are treated unfairly because their group are, on average, has the behavior.

Bibliography

- Glenn Loury, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, Princeton University Press. Informally illustrates the theory in the context of United States' racial differences.
- Phelps
- Kenneth Arrow
- Coate and Loury Category:Labor

Race

A race is a population of humans distinguished from other populations. The most widely used racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color and facial features). Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, vary by culture and time and are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics. Since the 1940s, evolutionary scientists have rejected the view of race according to which a number of finite lists of essential characteristics could be used to determine a like number of races. By the 1960s, data and models from population genetics called into question taxonomic understandings of race, and many have turned from conceptualizing and analyzing human variation in terms of race to doing so in terms of populations and clines instead. However, many scientists believe that race is a valid and useful concept. Moreover, since the 1990s, data and models from genomics and cladistics have resulted in a revolution in our understanding of human evolution, which has led some to propose a new "lineage" definition of race. These scientists have made related arguments that races are valid when understood as fuzzy sets, clusters, or extended families. Currently, opinions differ substantially within and among academic disciplines. Many evolutionary and social scientists, drawing on such biological research, think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, lack taxonomic rigour and validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and that the races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that race is best understood as a social construct. Other scientists, however, have argued that this shift is motivated more by political than scientific reasons.

Historical origins of "race"

social construct.]]

History of the term

Given our visual acuity and complex social relationships, humans presumably have always observed and speculated about the physical differences among individuals and groups. But different societies have attributed markedly different meanings to these distinctions. The division of humanity into distinct "races" can be traced as far back as the Ancient Egyptian sacred text the Book of Gates, which identifies four categories that are now conventionally labelled "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians". However, such distinctions tended to merge differences defined by features such as skin color, with tribal and national identity. Classical civilizations from Rome to China tended to invest much more importance in family or tribal affiliations than in physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). Ancient Greek and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible biological differences between peoples known to them. Such categories often also included fantastical human-like beings that were supposed to exist in far-away lands. Some Roman writers adhered to an environmental determinism in which climate could affect the appearance and character of groups (Isaac 2004). But in many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances could become full members of a society by growing up within that society or by adopting the society's cultural norms (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990). Medieval models of race mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asian), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (European) peoples. The word race entered the English language in the 16th century, from French race "race, breed, lineage" (which in turn was probably a loan from Italian razza). Meanings of the term in the 16th century included "wines with a characteristic flavour", "people with common occupation", and "generation". The meaning "tribe" or "nation" emerged in the 17th century. The modern meaning, "one of the major divisions of mankind", dates to the late 18th century, but it never became exclusive (cf. continued use of "the human race"). The ultimate origin of the word is unknown; suggestions include Arabic ra'is meaning "head", but also "beginning" or "origin". The English word "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, were products of the European era of exploration (Smedley 1999). As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences between human groups. The rise of the African slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups to justify the barbarous treatment of African slaves (Meltzer 1993). Drawing on classical sources and on their own internal interactions—for example, the hostility between the English and Irish was a powerful influence on early thinking about the differences between people (Takaki 1993)—Europeans began to sort themselves and others into groups associated with physical appearance and with deeply ingrained behaviors and capacities. A set of "folk beliefs" took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities (Banton 1977). Although similar ideas can be found in other cultures (Lewis 1990; Dikötter 1992), they appear not to have had as much influence on social structures as they did in Europe and the parts of the world colonized by Europeans.

History of race research

The first scientific attempts to categorize race date from the 17th century, along with the development of European imperialism and colonization around the world. The first post-Classical published classification of humans into distinct races seems to be François Bernier's Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in 1684. In the 18th century, the differences between human groups became a focus of scientific investigation (Todorov 1993). Initially, scholars focused on cataloging and describing "The Natural Varieties of Mankind," as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach entitled his 1775 text (which established the five major divisions of humans still reflected in some racial classifications). But as the science of anthropology took shape in the 19th century, European and American scientists increasingly sought explanations for the behavioral and cultural differences they attributed to groups (Stanton 1960). For example, they measured the shapes and sizes of skulls and related the results to group differences in intelligence or other attributes (Lieberman 2001). Both before and after the 1859 publication of On the Origin of Species, a debate raged in Europe over whether different human groups had the same origin or were the product of separate creations or evolutionary lineages (Wolpoff and Caspari 1997). From the 17th through the 19th centuries, the merging of folk beliefs about group differences with scientific explanations of those differences produced what one scholar has called an "ideology of race" (Smedley 1999). According to this ideology, races are primordial, natural, enduring, and distinct. Some groups might be the result of mixture between formerly distinct populations, but careful study can distinguish the ancestral races that had combined to produce admixed groups. In the 19th century a number of natural scientists wrote on race: Georges Cuvier, James Cowles Pritchard, Louis Agassiz, Charles Pickering, and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. These scientists made three claims about race: first, that races are objective, naturally occurring divisions of humanity; second, that there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as forms of activity and interpersonal relations and culture, and by extension the relative material success of cultures); third, that race is therefore a valid scientific category that can be used to explain and predict individual and group behavior. Races were distinguished by skin color, facial type, cranial profile and size, texture and color of hair. Moreover, races were almost universally considered to reflect group differences in moral character and intelligence. Their understanding of race was usually both essentialist (defining a race by a list of characteristics) and taxonomic (hierarchical). The advent of Darwinian models of evolution and Mendelian genetics, however, called into question the scientific validity of both characteristics, and required a radical reconsideration of race. The concept of race found wide application in many societies. The eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries asserted as self-evident the biological inferiority of particular groups (Kevles 1985). In many parts of the world, the idea of race became a way of rigidly dividing groups by use of culture as well as physical appearances (Hannaford 1996). Campaigns of oppression and genocide often used supposed racial differences to motivate inhuman acts against others (Horowitz 2001).

20th- and 21st-century debates over race

Scale of race research

Discussions of race are complicated because race research has taken place on at least two scales (global and national) and from the point of view of different research aims. Evolutionary scientists are typically interested in humanity as a whole; and taxonomic racial classifications are often either unhelpful to, or refuted by, studies that focus on the question of global human diversity. Policy-makers and applied professions (such as law-enforcement or medicine), however, are typically concerned only with genetic variation at the national or sub-national scale, and find taxonomic racial categories useful. These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since 2002: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design. While Rosenberg et al. studied individuals from populations across the globe without respect to geography, Serre & Pääbo sampled individuals with respect to geography. By sampling individuals from major populations on each continent, Rosenberg et al. find evidence for genetic "clusters" (i.e., races). In contrast, Serre & Pääbo find that with respect to geography human genetic variation is continuous and "clinal". The research interest of Rosenberg et al. is medicine (i.e., epidemiology), whereas the research interest of Serre & Pääbo is human evolution. Tang et al. studied genetic variation within the United States with an interest in whether race/ethnicity or geography is of greater importance to epidemiological research. In contrast to Serre & Pääbo, Tang et al. find that race/ethnicity is of greater importance within the United States. Further [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v77n3/42406/brief/42406.abstract.html recent research] correlating self-identified race with [http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software/structure2_1.html population genetic structure] echoed the conculsions in Tang. Indeed, the contrasting conclusions between global and national levels of analysis were predicted by Serre & Pääbo: :It is worth noting that the colonization history of the United States has resulted in a "sampling" of the human population made up largely of people from western Europe, western Africa, and Southeast Asia. Thus, studies in which individuals from Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia are used... might be an adequate description of the major components of the U.S. population.

Race as subspecies

With the advent of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, biologists developed a new, more rigorous model of race as subspecies. For these biologists, a race is a recognizable group forming all or part of a species. A monotypic species has no races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:
- All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
- The individuals vary considerably but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned (many plant species fit into this category, which is why horticulturists interested in preserving, say, a particular flower color avoid propagation from seed, and instead use vegetative methods like propagation from cuttings).
- The variation between individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines between separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow between the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow between them are likely to represent a monotypic species even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious. A polytypic species has two or more races (or, in current parlance, two or more sub-types). These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which would interbreed freely if given the chance to do so. Note that groups which would not interbreed freely, even if brought together such that they had the opportunity to do so, are not races: they are separate species. Although this attempt at conceptual precision gained currency with many biologists, especially zoologists, evolutionary scientists have criticized it on a number of fronts.

The rejection of race and the rise of "population" and "cline"

At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists questioned, and subsequently abandoned, the claim that biologically distinct races are isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups. Then, the rise of population genetics led some mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon. Those who came to reject the validity of the concept, race, did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional, the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical (Lieberman and Byrne 1993). The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors (Boas 1912), and Ashley Montagu (1941, 1942), who relied on evidence from genetics. Zoologists Edward O. Wilson and W. Brown then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies" (Wilson and Brown 1953). One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as they are affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines" (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observe, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995). Finally, geneticist Richard Lewontin, observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not between populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" was an appropriate or useful way to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). This view is purportedly debunked as Lewontin's Fallacy. Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic F_ST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation². However, because of technical limitations of F_ST, many geneticists now believe that low F_ST values do not invalidate the suggestion that there might be different human races (Edwards, 2003). Meanwhile, neo-Marxists such as David Harvey (1982, 1984, 1992) believe that race is a social construct that in reality does not exist, used instead to extenuate class differences. These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race. Mid-century, anthropologist William 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" (Boyd 1950). Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the 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." Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992). 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 U.S. civil rights movement and the emergence of numerous anti-colonial movements worldwide. In the face of these issues, some evolutionary scientists have simply abandoned the concept of race in favor of "population." What distinguishes population from previous groupings of humans by race is that it refers to a breeding population (essential to genetic calculations) and not to a biological taxon. Other evolutionary scientists have abandoned the concept of race in favor of cline (meaning, how the frequency of a trait changes along a geographic gradient). The concepts of population and cline are not, however, mutually exclusive and both are used by many evolutionary scientists. In the face of this rejection of race by evolutionary scientists, many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs in shared religion, nationality, or race. Moreover, they understood these shared beliefs to mean that religion, nationality, and race itself are social constructs and have no objective basis in the supernatural or natural realm (Gordon 1964). See also the American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm].

Summary of different definitions of race

The United States government has provided definitions regarding race (see for example Race (U.S. Census)). Racial classification in the U.S. 2000 census was based solely on self-identification, did not pre-suppose disjointedness, and did not include a category "Hispanic," which is considered an ethnicity, rather than a race, by the U.S. Census.

The origins, patterns, and physical manifestations of human genetic variation

Origins of modern humans

:see also single-origin hypothesis, multiregional hypothesis. multiregional hypothesis Any biological model for race must account for the development of racial differences during human evolution. For much of the 20th century, however, anthropologists relied on an incomplete fossil record for reconstructing human evolution. Their models seldom provided a firm basis for drawing inferences about the origin of races. Modern research in molecular biology, however, has provided evolutionary scientists with a whole new kind of data, which adds considerably to the knowledge of our past. There has been considerable debate among anthropologists as to the origins of Homo sapiens. About a million years ago Homo erectus migrated out of Africa and into Europe and Asia. The debate hinges on whether Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens more or less simultaneously in Africa, Europe, and Asia, or whether Homo sapiens evolved only in Africa, and eventually supplanted Homo erectus in Europe and Asia. Each model suggests different possible scenarios for the evolution of distinct races.

Multiregional hypothesis

Advocates of the first scenario (see Frayer et al. 1993), the multiregional continuity evolution model, cite as evidence anatomical continuity in the fossil record in South Central Europe (Smith 1982), East Asia and Australia (Wolpoff 1993) (anatomical affinity is taken to suggest genetic affinity). They argue that very strong genetic similarities among all humans do not prove recent common ancestry, but rather reflect the interconnectedness of human populations around the world, resulting in relatively constant gene flow (Thorne and Wolpoff 1992). They further argue that this model is consistent with clinal patterns (Wolpoff 1993). The most important element of this model for theories of race is that it allows a million years for the evolution of Homo sapiens around the world; this is more than enough time for the evolution of different races. Leiberman and Jackson (1995), however, have noted that this model depends on several findings relevant to race: (1) that marked morphological contrasts exist between individuals found at the center and at the perimeter of Middle Pleistocene range of the genus Homo; (2) that many features can be shown to emerge at the edge of that range before they develop at the center; and (3) that these features exhibit great tenacity through time. Regional variations in these features can thus be taken as evidence for long term differences among genus Homo individuals that prefigure different races among present-day Homo sapiens individuals.

Out of Africa

Middle Pleistocene (numbers are millennia before present).]] Information about the history of our species comes from two main sources: the paleoanthropological record and historical inferences based on current genetic differences observed in humans. Although both sources of information are fragmentary, they have been converging in recent years on the same general story. Since the 1990s, it has become common to use multilocus genotypes to distinguish different human groups and to allocate individuals to groups (Bamshad et al. 2004). These data have led to an examination of the biological validity of races as evolutionary lineages and the description of races in cladistic terms. The technique of multilocus genotyping has been used to determine patterns of human demographic history. Thus, the concept of "race" afforded by these techniques is synonymous with ancestry, broadly understood. Studies of human genetic variation imply that Africa was the ancestral source of all modern humans, and that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa and displaced Homo erectus between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago (Cann et al. 1987). Indigenous Australians are believed to be an early out-group that remained isolated. Most other groups, including Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans, were found to be a single related (monophyletic) group resulting from a later out-migration from Africa, which could reasonably be divided into West and East Eurasian groups. The existing fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, within the last ∼200,000 years, from a pre-existing population of humans (Klein 1999). Although it is not easy to define "anatomically modern" in a way that encompasses all living humans and excludes all archaic humans (Lieberman et al. 2002), the generally agreed-upon physical characteristics of anatomical modernity include a high rounded skull, facial retraction, and a light and gracile, as opposed to heavy and robust, skeleton (Lahr 1996). Early fossils with these characteristics have been found in eastern Africa and have been dated to ∼160,000–200,000 years ago (White et al. 2003; McDougall et al. 2005). At that time, the population of anatomically modern humans appears to have been small and localized (Harpending et al. 1998). Much larger populations of archaic humans lived elsewhere in the Old World, including the Neandertals in Europe and an earlier species of humans, Homo erectus, in Asia (Swisher et al. 1994). Fossils of the earliest anatomically modern humans found outside Africa are from two sites in the Middle East and date to a period of relative global warmth, ∼100,000 years ago, though this region was reinhabited by Neandertals in later millennia as the climate in the northern hemisphere again cooled (Lahr and Foley 1998). Groups of anatomically modern humans appear to have moved outside Africa permanently sometime >60,000 years ago. One of the earliest modern skeletons found outside Africa is Mungo Man, from Australia, and has been dated to ∼42,000 years ago (Bowler et al. 2003), although studies of environmental changes in Australia argue for the presence of modern humans in Australia >55,000 years ago (Miller et al. 1999). To date, the earliest anatomically modern skeleton discovered from Europe comes from the Carpathian Mountains of Romania and is dated to 34,000–36,000 years ago (Trinkaus et al. 2003). Existing data on human genetic variation support and extend conclusions based on the fossil evidence. African populations exhibit greater genetic diversity than do populations in the rest of the world, implying that humans appeared first in Africa and later colonized Eurasia and the Americas (Tishkoff and Williams 2002; Yu et al. 2002; Tishkoff and Verrelli 2003). The genetic variation seen outside Africa is generally a subset of the variation within Africa, a pattern that would be produced if the migrants from Africa were limited in number and carried just part of African genetic variability with them (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 2003). Patterns of genetic variation suggest an earlier population expansion in Africa followed by a subsequent expansion in non-African populations, and the dates calculated for the expansions generally coincide with the archaeological record (Jorde et al. 1998). Aspects of the relationship between anatomically modern and archaic humans remain contentious. Studies of mtDNA (Ingman et al. 2000), the Y chromosome (Underhill et al. 2000), portions of the X chromosome (Kaessmann et al. 1999), and many (though not all) autosomal regions (Harpending and Rogers 2000) support the "Out of Africa" account of human history, in which anatomically modern humans appeared first in eastern Africa and then migrated throughout Africa and into the rest of the world, with little or no interbreeding between modern humans and the archaic populations they gradually replaced (Tishkoff et al. 2000; Stringer 2002). However, several groups of researchers cite fossil and genetic evidence to argue for a more complex account. They contend that humans bearing modern traits emerged several times from Africa, over an extended period, and mixed with archaic humans in various parts of the world (Hawks et al. 2000; Eswaran 2002; Templeton 2002; Ziętkiewicz et al. 2003). As a result, they say, autosomal DNA from archaic human populations living outside Africa persists in modern populations, and modern populations in various parts of the world still bear some physical resemblance to the archaic populations that inhabited those regions (Wolpoff et al. 2001). However, distinguishing possible contributions to the gene pool of modern humans from archaic humans outside Africa is difficult, especially since many autosomal loci coalesce at times preceding the separation of archaic human populations (Pääbo 2003). In addition, studies of mtDNA from archaic and modern humans and extant Y chromosomes suggest that any surviving genetic contributions of archaic humans outside Africa must be small, if they exist at all (Krings et al. 1997; Nordborg 1998; Takahata et al. 2001; Serre et al. 2004). The observation that most genes studied to date coalesce in African populations points toward the importance of Africa as the source of most modern genetic variation, perhaps with some subdivision in the ancestral African population (Satta and Takahata 2002). Sequence data for hundreds of loci from widely distributed worldwide populations eventually may clarify the population processes associated with the appearance of anatomically modern humans (Wall 2000), as well as the amount of gene flow among modern humans since then.

Cladistics

Mungo Man A phylogenetic tree like the one shown above is usually derived from DNA or protein sequences from populations. Often mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human demographics. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, which is believed to have originated in Africa. Horizontal distance corresponds to two things: #Genetic distance. Given below the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is roughly 2%, or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans. #Temporal remoteness of the most recent common ancestor. Rough estimates are given above the diagram, in millions of years. The mitochondrial most recent common ancestor of modern humans lived roughly 200,000 years ago, latest common ancestors of humans and chimps between four and seven million years ago. Chimpanzees and humans belong to different genera, indicated in red. Formation of species and subspecies is also indicated, and the formation of "races" is indicated in the green rectangle to the right (note that only a very rough representation of human phylogeny is given). Note that vertical distances are not meaningful in this representation.

Distribution of variation

A thorough description of the differences in patterns of genetic variation between humans and other species awaits additional genetic studies of human populations and nonhuman species. But the data gathered to date suggest that human variation exhibits several distinctive characteristics. First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically less diverse—a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution (Li and Sadler 1991; Kaessmann et al. 2001). For example, the chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of diversity than do humans (Ebersberger et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2004). Two random humans are expected to differ at approximately 1 in 1000 nucleotide pairs, whereas two random chimpanzees differ at 1 in 500 nucleotide pairs. However, with a genome of approximate 3 billion nucleotides, on average two humans differ at approximately 3 million nucleotides. Most of these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are neutral, but some are functional and influence the phenotypic differences between humans. It is estimated that about 10 million SNPs exist in human populations, where the rarer SNP allele has a frequency of at least 1% (see International HapMap Project). The distribution of variants within and among human populations also differs from that of many other species. The details of this distribution 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, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). This distribution of genetic variation differs from the pattern seen in many other mammalian species, for which existing data suggest greater differentiation between groups (Templeton 1998; Kittles and Weiss 2003). In the field of population genetics, it is believed that the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans reflects human demographic history. Our history as a species also has left genetic signals in regional populations. For example, in addition to having higher levels of genetic diversity, populations in Africa tend to have lower amounts of linkage disequilibrium than do populations outside Africa, partly because of the larger size of human populations in Africa over the course of human history and partly because the number of modern humans who left Africa to colonize the rest of the world appears to have been relatively low (Gabriel et al. 2002). In contrast, populations that have undergone dramatic size reductions or rapid expansions in the past and populations formed by the mixture of previously separate ancestral groups can have unusually high levels of linkage disequilibrium (Nordborg and Tavare 2002). In the field of population genetics, it is believed that the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans reflects human demographic history. It is believed that humans passed through a population bottleneck before a rapid expansion coinciding with migrations out of Africa leading to an African-Eurasian divergence around 100,000 years ago (ca. 5,000 generations), followed by a European-Asian divergence about 40,000 years ago (ca. 2,000 generations). The rapid expansion of a previously small population has two important effects on the distribution of genetic variation. First, the so-called founder effect occurs when founder populations bring only a subset of the genetic variation from their ancestral population. Second, as founders become more geographically separated, the probability that two individuals from different founder populations will mate becomes smaller. The effect of this assortative mating is to reduce gene flow between geographical groups, and to increase the genetic distance between groups. The expansion of humans from Africa affected the distribution of genetic variation in two other ways. First, smaller (founder) populations experience greater genetic drift because of increased fluctuations in neutral polymorphisms. Second, new polymorphisms that arose in one group were less likely to be transmitted to other groups as gene flow was restricted. Many other geographic, climatic, and historical factors have contributed to the patterns of human genetic variation seen in the world today. For example, population processes associated with colonization, periods of geographic isolation, socially reinforced endogamy, and natural selection all have affected allele frequencies in certain populations (Jorde et al. 2000b; Bamshad and Wooding 2003). In general, however, the recency of our common ancestry and continual gene flow among human groups have limited genetic differentiation in our species.

Substructure in the human population

genetic drift New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound (see validity of human races). A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies. However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races". These questions are particularly pressing for biomedicine, where self-described race is often used as an indicator of ancestry (see race in biomedicine below). Although the genetic differences among human groups are relatively small, these differences nevertheless can be used to situate many individuals within broad, geographically based groupings. For example, computer analyses of hundreds of polymorphic loci sampled in globally distributed populations have revealed the existence of genetic clustering that roughly is associated with groups that historically have occupied large continental and subcontinental regions (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Bamshad et al. 2003). Some commentators have argued that these patterns of variation provide a biological justification for the use of traditional racial categories. They argue that the continental clusterings correspond roughly with the division of human beings into sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans, western Asians, and northern Africans; eastern Asians; Polynesians and other inhabitants of Oceania; and Native Americans (Risch et al. 2002). Other observers disagree, saying that the same data undercut traditional notions of racial groups (King and Motulsky 2002; Calafell 2003; Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). They point out, for example, that major populations considered races or subgroups within races do not necessarily form their own clusters. Thus, samples taken from India and Pakistan affiliate with Europeans or eastern Asians rather than separating into a distinct cluster. However, samples from the Kalash, a small population living in northwestern Pakistan, form their own cluster on a level comparable with those of the major continental regions (Rosenberg et al. 2002). Sampling design can have a critical influence on the results of such studies. Studies of genetic clustering often have relied on samples taken from widely separated and socially defined populations. When samples were analyzed from individuals who were more evenly distributed geographically, clustering was far less evident (Serre and Pääbo 2004). Furthermore, because human genetic variation is clinal, many individuals affiliate with two or more continental groups. Thus, the genetically based "biogeographical ancestry" assigned to any given person generally will be broadly distributed and will be accompanied by sizable uncertainties (Pfaff et al. 2004). In many parts of the world, groups have mixed in such a way that many individuals have relatively recent ancestors from widely separated regions. Although genetic analyses of large numbers of loci can produce estimates of the percentage of a person's ancestors coming from various continental populations (Shriver et al. 2003; Bamshad et al. 2004), these estimates may assume a false distinctiveness of the parental populations, since human groups have exchanged mates from local to continental scales throughout history (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Hoerder 2002). Even with large numbers of markers, information for estimating admixture proportions of individuals or groups is limited, and estimates typically will have wide CIs (Pfaff et al. 2004).

Physical variation in humans

The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ∼90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within every human group, and ∼10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002). A prominent exception to the common distribution of physical characteristics within and among groups is skin color. Approximately 10% of the variance in skin color occurs within groups, and ~90% occurs between groups (Relethford 2002). This distribution of skin color and its geographic patterning—with people whose ancestors lived predominantly near the equator having darker skin than those with ancestors who lived predominantly in higher latitudes—indicate that this attribute has been under strong selective pressure. Darker skin appears to be strongly selected for in equatorial regions to prevent sunburn, skin cancer, the photolysis of folate, and damage to sweat glands (Sturm et al. 2001; Rees 2003). A leading hypothesis for the selection of lighter skin in higher latitudes is that it enables the body to form greater amounts of vitamin D, which helps prevent rickets (Jablonski 2004). However, the vitamin D hypothesis is not universally accepted (Aoki 2002), and lighter skin in high latitudes may correspond simply to an absence of selection for dark skin (Harding et al. 2000). Because skin color has been under strong selective pressure, similar skin colors can result from convergent adaptation rather than from genetic relatedness. Sub-Saharan Africans, tribal populations from southern India, and Indigenous Australians have similar skin pigmentation, but genetically they are no more similar than are other widely separated groups. Furthermore, in some parts of the world in which people from different regions have mixed extensively, the connection between skin color and ancestry has been substantially weakened (Parra et al. 2004). In Brazil, for example, skin color is not closely associated with the percentage of recent African ancestors a person has, as estimated from an analysis of genetic variants differing in frequency among continent groups (Parra et al. 2003). Considerable speculation has surrounded the possible adaptive value of other physical features characteristic of groups, such as the constellation of facial features observed in many eastern and northeastern Asians (Guthrie 1996). However, any given physical characteristic generally is found in multiple groups (Lahr 1996), and demonstrating that environmental selective pressures shaped specific physical features will be difficult, since such features may have resulted from sexual selection for individuals with certain appearances or from genetic drift (Roseman 2004).

Social interpretation of physical variation

Incongruities of racial classifications

Even as the idea of "race" was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, the shortcomings of the concept were apparent. In the Old World, the gradual transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups emphasized that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them," as Blumenbach observed in his writings on human variation (Marks 1995, p. 54). In parts of the Americas, the situation was somewhat different. The immigrants to the New World came largely from widely separated regions of the Old World—western and northern Europe, western Africa, and, later, eastern Asia and southern Europe. In the Americas, the immigrant populations began to mix among themselves and with the indigenous inhabitants of the continent. In the United States, for example, most people who self-identify as African American have some European ancestors—in one analysis of genetic markers that have differing frequencies between continents, European ancestry ranged from an estimated 7% for a sample of Jamaicans to ∼23% for a sample of African Americans from New Orleans (Parra et al. 1998). Similarly, many people who identify as European American have some African or Native American ancestors, either through openly interracial marriages or through the gradual inclusion of people with mixed ancestry into the majority population. In a survey of college students who self-identified as "white" in a northeastern U.S. university, ∼30% were estimated to have <90% European ancestry (Shriver et al. 2003). In the United States, social and legal conventions developed over time that forced individuals of mixed ancestry into simplified racial categories (Gossett 1997). An example is the "one-drop rule" implemented in some state laws that treated anyone with a single known African American ancestor as black (Davis 2001). The decennial censuses conducted since 1790 in the United States also created an incentive to establish racial categories and fit people into those categories (Nobles 2000). In other countries in the Americas where mixing among groups was more extensive, social categories have tended to be more numerous and fluid, with people moving into or out of categories on the basis of a combination of socioeconomic status, social class, ancestry, and appearance (Mörner 1967). Efforts to sort the increasingly mixed population of the United States into discrete categories generated many difficulties (Spickard 1992). By the standards used in past censuses, many millions of children born in the United States have belonged to a different race than have one of their biological parents. Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories (such as "mulatto" and "octoroon") and "blood quantum" distinctions that became increasingly untethered from self-reported ancestry. A person's racial identity can change over time, and self-ascribed race can differ from assigned race (Kressin et al. 2003). Until the 2000 census, Latinos were required to identify with a single race despite the long history of mixing in Latin America; partly as a result of the confusion generated by the distinction, 42% of Latino respondents in the 2000 census ignored the specified racial categories and checked "some other race" (Mays et al. 2003).

Ethnicity as a way of categorizing people

As the problems surrounding the word "race" became increasingly apparent during the 20th century, the word "ethnicity" was promoted as a way of characterizing the differences between groups (Huxley and Haddon 1936; Hutchinson and Smith 1996). Ethnicity typically emphasizes the cultural, socioeconomic, religious, and political qualities of human groups rather than their genetic ancestry. It may encompass language, diet, religion, dress, customs, kinship systems, or historical or territorial identity (Cornell and Hartmann 1998). However, as a way of understanding human groups, ethnicity also suffers from several shortcomings. First, ascribing an ethnic identity to a group can imply a much greater degree of uniformity than is actually the case. In the United States, the ethnic group "Hispanic or Latino" contains such subgroups as Cuban Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and recent immigrants from Central America (Hayes-Bautista and Chapa 1987). Combining these groups into a single category may serve useful bureaucratic or political ends but does not necessarily result in a better understanding of these groups. Also, ethnicity, like race, is a malleable concept that can change dramatically in different times or circumstances (Waters 1990; Smelser et al. 2001). Ethnic groups may come into existence and then dissipate as a result of broad historical or social trends. Individuals might change ethnic groups over the course of their lives or identify with more than one group. A researcher, clinician, or government official might assign an ethnicity to an individual quite different from the one that person would acknowledge (Kressin et al. 2003). Finally, despite attempts to distinguish "ethnicity" from "race," the two terms often are used interchangeably (Oppenheimer 2001). Ethnic groups can share a belief in a common ancestral origin (Cornell and Hartmann 1998), which also can be a defining characteristic of a racial group. Furthermore, ethnic groups tend to promote marriage within the group, which creates an expectation of biological cohesion regardless of whether that cohesion existed in the past.

Ancestry as a way of categorizing people

An alternative to the use of racial or ethnic categories is to categorize individuals in terms of ancestry. Ancestry may be defined geographically (e.g., Asian, sub-Saharan African, or northern European), geopolitically (e.g., Vietnamese, Zambian, or Norwegian), or culturally (e.g., Brahmin, Lemba, or Apache). The definition of ancestry may recognize a single predominant source or multiple sources. Ancestry can be ascribed to an individual by an observer, as was the case with the U.S. census prior to 1960; it can be identified by an individual from a list of possibilities or with use of terms drawn from that person's experience; or it can be calculated from genetic data by use of loci with allele frequencies that differ geographically, as described above. At least among those individuals who participate in biomedical research, genetic estimates of biogeographical ancestry generally agree with self-assessed ancestry (Tang et al. 2005), but in an unknown percentage of cases, they do not (Brodwin 2002; Kaplan 2003). race in biomedicine Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry. The inference of population structure from multilocus genotyping depends on the selection of a large number of informative genetic markers. These studies usually find that groups of humans living on the same continent are more similar to one another than to groups living on different continents. Many such studies are criticized for assigning group identity a priori. However, even if group identity is stripped and group identity assigned a posteriori using only genetic data, population structure can still be inferred. For example, using 377 markers, Rosenberg et al. (2002) were able to assign 1,056 individuals from 52 populations around the globe to one of six genetic clusters, of which five correspond to major geographic regions. However, in analyses that assign individuals to group it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is admixture. Some racial or ethnic groups, especially Hispanic groups, do not have homogenous ancestry. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Likewise, many white Americans have mixed European and African ancestry, where ~30% of whites have less than 90% European ancestry. In this context, it is becoming more common place to describe "race" as fractional ancestry. Without the use of genotyping, this has been approximated by the self-described ancestry of an individual's grand-parents. Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Genetic techniques that distinguish ancestry between continents can also be used to describe ancestry within continents. However, the study of intra-continental ancestry may require a greater number of informative markers. Populations from neighboring geographic regions typically share more recent common ancestors. As a result, allele frequencies will be correlated between these groups. This phenomenon is often seen as a cline of allele frequencies. The existence of allelic clines has been offered as evidence that individuals cannot be allocated into genetic clusters (Kittles & Weiss 2003). However, others argue that low levels of differentiation between groups merely make the assignment to groups more difficult, not impossible (Bamshad et al. 2004). Despite its seemingly objective nature, ancestry also has limitations as a way of categorizing people (Elliott and Brodwin 2002). When asked

Sex

:This article is about sex, meaning the different biological sexes — male, female, etc. For alternate uses, such as the activity called "sex", see Sex (disambiguation) A sex is one of two specimen categories of species that recombine their genetic material in order to reproduce, a process called genetic recombination, or conjugation. The somewhat similar term gender has more to do with identity than biology. Typically, a species will have two sexes: male and female. The female sex is defined as the one which produces the larger gamete (i.e., reproductive cell) and which bears the offspring. The categories of sex are, therefore, reflective of the reproductive functions that an individual is capable of performing at some point during its life cycle, and not of the mating types, which genetically can be more than two.
Sex determination in the animal kingdom
Some species, such as earthworms, honeybees, and geckos, are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. In the insect order Hymenoptera, which includes honeybees, the queen (i.e., fully functional female) can decide to fertilize an egg or to lay it without its being fertilized. Fertilized eggs will develop into females — workers if given standard nutrition in their larval stages and queens if lavishly fed with royal jelly. Unfertilized eggs, which have only half the number of chromosomes as fertilized eggs, develop into drones, i.e., male bees. In other species (e.g. earthworms), all individuals are hermaphrodites, that is, individuals that have male and female sex organs.
The X-Y system
In mammals and many other species, sex is determined by the sex chromosomes, called L and A in mammals. Males typically have one of each (XY), while females typically have two X chromosomes (XX). All individuals have at least one X chromosome, the Y chromosome is generally shorter than the X chromosome with which it is paired. One interesting variation is in the platypus, a rather unusual mammal in many other ways, where sex is determined by 10 chromosomes. Males are XYXYXYXYXY and females XXXXXXXXXX.
The X-O system
In some species of grasshoppers, crickets and roaches, the Y chromosome is absent, so that males have one X chromosome (XO) while females have two (XX).
The Z-W system
In birds, some fish, butterflies and moths, males have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (ZZ) and females have one of each type (ZW).
The haplo-diplo system
In most bees and ants, sex is determined by whether the egg is fertilized or not. If an egg is not fertilized, it develops into a haploid male while fertilized eggs develop into diploid female.
Other systems
In other species, including crocodiles, and most insects, sex may be determined by various other sex-determination systems, including those controlled by environmental factors such as temperature. Yet other species change sex during their lifetime.
Sex in non-animal species
:Main article: Plant sexuality Plants are generally hermaphrodites, but this terminology is quickly complicated by variations in the degree of sexuality. As with animals, there are only two types of gametes. These are generally called male and female based on their relative sizes and motility. In flowering plants, flowers bear the gametes. In some cases, flowers may contain only one type of gamete while in others they may contain both. In other varieties of multicellular life (e.g. the fungi division, Basidiomycota) sexual characteristics can be much more complex, and may involve many more than two sexes. For details on the sexual characteristics of fungi, see: Hypha and Plasmogamy.
See also

- Male
- Female
- Hermaphrodite
- Reproduction
- Mammalian gestation
- Sexual differentiation
- Distance sex
- Human sexuality
- Animal beastiality
External links and further reading

- Francoeur, Robert T. (ed.), [http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/IES/BEGIN.HTM The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality] [full text]
- Raymond J. Noonan, Robert T. Francoeur, and Martha Cornog, "Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality". Continuum, August 2003, ISBN 0826414885
- [http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/Reproductive_health/Human_sexual_differentiation.html Human Sexual Differentiation] by P. C. Sizonenko
- [http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996568 New Scientist article on Sex chromosomes in the platypus] Category:Biology Category:Sexuality Category:Sex Category:Gender ja:性別 simple:Sex

Ethnicity

:Ethnic group

Ageism

Ageism is bias against a person or group on the grounds of age. When that bias is the primary motivation behind acts of discrimination against that person or group, then those acts constitute age discrimination.

The two most common forms

Although ageism can refer to bias against any age group, ageism (and age discrimination) are usually focused on two targets:
- Adolescents (Ageism against adolescents is also called "Adultism")
- The elderly

Examples

Ageism

An example of ageism is thinking that all teenagers like rock music, are immature and insubordinate, use slang and profanity, watch R-rated movies and play M-rated videogames; or that all elderly are slow, weak, demented and dependent.

Age discrimination

Although like all forms of discrimination, age discrimination has always been a problem, it is most severe at present in the entertainment and computer industries. Many elderly actors, musicians, scriptwriters, programmers, and electrical engineers have all complained that it is difficult for them to find work, even though they are overwhelmingly well-qualified in terms of education and experience. In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or race discrimination. Dominic Abrams, Social Psychology professor at the University, concluded that ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population. [http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/media/how_ageist_is_britain.pdf How Ageist is Britain?] - Age Concern survey (PDF).

Responses

Grass-roots activism

Many groups have been set up in various countries to combat age discrimination, including:
- United Kingdom
- Age Concern
- Help the Aged
- United States
- Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions
- Gray Panthers: In the early 1970s, Maggie Kuhn formed the Gray Panthers, an organization with a goal of eliminating ageism in all forms.
- National Youth Rights Association

Unions

Many unions have thrown themselves into the battle against age discrimination. At present, the most prominent example is the Writers Guild of America West, which since 2002 has been waging a huge legal battle against much of the entertainment industry to get rid of the age discrimination commonly faced by elder scriptwriters.

Laws

There are many laws against age discrimination, including:
- United States
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Nationalism

Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain political claims based upon that belief; above all, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state". In this form, nationalism is a universal ideology; but the term also refers to the specific ideology of nationalist movements, which make political claims on behalf of specific nations. Nationalism is also defined as a "specific conceptual perspective," born in 16th century England and eventually spread to other communities, that forms "the constitutive element of modernity." These movements may dispute each others specific claims; nevertheless, they share the same general nationalist ideology. Two of the standard (and methodologically dissimilar) works in nationalism are Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" and Liah Greenfeld's "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity." Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another; and also determine "who is a member of each nation". These criteria might include a shared language, a shared culture, and/or shared values; but the most important is probably now ethnicity, the belonging to or membership of an ethnic group. National identity refers both to these defining criteria, and to the "sense of belonging" to that group. Nationalists see membership of nation as exclusive and involuntary, meaning that you can not simply "join it", like any other association. Nationalism sees most human activity as national in character. Nations have national symbols, a national character, a national culture, a national music and national literature; national folklore, a national mythology and - in some cases - even a national religion. Individuals share national values and a national identity; admire the national hero, eat the national dish and play the national sport. Nationalism has had an enormous influence upon world history and geopolitics, since the nation-state has become the dominant form of state. Most of the world's population now lives in states which are, at least nominally, nation-states. The word 'nation' is often inaccurately used as a synonym for these states. The nation state is intended to guarantee the existence of a nation, to preserve its distinct identity, and to provide a territory where the national culture and ethos are dominant. Most nation-states appeal to a cultural and historical mythos to justify their existence, and to give them "legitimacy". Nationalists recognise that 'non-national' states exist; indeed, the struggles of early nationalist movements were often directed against empires, such as Austria-Hungary. The Vatican City exists to provide a sovereign state for the leadership of the Catholic Church; not for a nation. The global Caliphate sought by some Islamists is another example of a non-national state. Anyone who identifies with a nation, and sees nation-states as legitimate, can be described as a "nationalist". In this sense, most adults are "passive nationalists". However, the modern vernacular use of nationalism refers to political (and sometimes military) action, in support of nationalist demands. That action may include separatism, irredentism, militarism and in extreme cases "ethnic cleansing". Political scientists (and the media) usually tend to focus on these more extreme forms of nationalism.

Background and problems

Nationalism is a long controversial term, as its most general definition is broad, and has been controversial throughout history; and specific examples of nationalism are extremely diverse. Extreme emotions are aroused, when discussing nationalism, and that makes it difficult to describe and define nationalism. A recurring problem is that people define nationalism on the basis of their local experience. To a Breton nationalist, the central issue is state nationalism versus cultural nationalism; elsewhere that distinction may be irrelevant. Often supporters of nationalism fear that the negative consequences of conflicting nationalisms, ethnic tension, war, and political conflicts within states, are taken for nationalism itself, leading some to view the general concept of nationalism negatively. They argue that viewing nationalism through its most negative consequences distorts the meaning of the term. The emphasis upon specific conflicts has certainly diverted attention from general issues; for instance, the characteristics of nation-states. Nationalist movements may or may not claim that their nation is better than others. They may simply claim that the population of a given nation is better off when it is permitted to govern themselves; which is the principle of self-determination. However, conflicts often result in ideological attacks upon the identity and legitimacy of the 'enemy'. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides claim that the other is not a real nation; and therefore has no right to a state. "Jingoism" and "chauvinism" make exaggerated claims about the superiority of one nation over another. National stereotypes are also common, and are usually insulting. These are nationalist phenomena; and are worthy of attention, but they are not a sufficient basis for a general theory of nationalism.

Issues in nationalism theory

The first studies of nationalism were generally historical accounts of nationalist movements. At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and socialists produced political analyses of the nationalist movements, then active in central and eastern Europe. Most sociological theories of nationalism date from after the Second World War. Some nationalism theory is about issues which concern nationalists themselves, such as who belongs to the nation and who does not, and what belonging to a nation means. Recent general theory has looked at underlying issues, and above all with the question of which came first, nations or nationalism. Nationalist activists see themselves as representing a pre-existing nation, and the primordialist theory of nationalism agrees. It sees nations, or at least ethnic groups, as a social reality dating back 20 thousand years. The modernist theories imply that until around 1800, no-one had more than local loyalties. National identity and unity were imposed from above, by European states, because they were necessary to modernise economy and society. In this theory, nationalist conflicts are an unintended side-effect. The more recent theorists of nationalism are influenced by postmodernism and emphasise that nations are a socially constructed phenomenon. Benedict Anderson, for example, described nations as "imagined communities". Ernest Gellner comments: "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist." (Anderson and Gellner deploy terms such as 'imagined' and 'invent' in a neutral, descriptive manner. The use of these terms in this context is not intended to imply that nations are fictional or fantastic.) Modernisation theorists see such things as the printing press and capitalism as necessary conditions for nationalism. Anthony Smith proposes a synthesis of 'post-modernist' and traditional views. According to Smith, the preconditions for the formation of a nation are a fixed homeland (current or historical), high autonomy, hostile surroundings, memories of battles, sacred centres, languages and scripts, special customs, historical records and thinking. Smith considers that nations are formed through the inclusion of the whole populace (not just elites), constitution of legal and political institutions, nationalist ideology, international recognition and drawing up of borders.

Historical evolution of nationalism

Prior to 1900

Most theories of nationalism assume a European origin of the nation-state. The modern state is often seen as emerging with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty created the Westphalian system of states, which recognised each others sovereignty and territory. Some of the signatories, such as the Dutch United Provinces, could be seen as a nation state, but there was no German equivalent, notwithstanding that the Holy Roman Empire consisted of almost entirely German-speaking states. In 1648 most states in Europe were still non-national. The theory of the Westphalian origin of the modern state system is disputed. The major transition to nation-states is often seen as originating in the late 18th and 19th centuries, although this is disputed. Beginning with romantic nationalism, nationalist movements arose throughout Europe. Some of them were separatist, directed against large empires, others sought to unify a divided or fragmented territory, most notably in Germany and Italy. These movements promoted a national identity and culture, and they were successful. By the end of the 19th century most people accepted that Europe was divided into nations, and personally identified with one of these nations. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire after the First World War accelerated the formation of nation-states. According to the standard view, before the 19th century people had local, regional, or religious loyalties, but no idea of nationhood. The typical state in Europe was a dynastic state, ruled by a royal house: if there were any loyalties above regional level, then they were owed to the king and the ruling house. Dynastic states could acquire territory by royal marriage, and lose it by division of inheritance - which is now seen as absurd. Going further back, the ancient Greeks called everyone who was not Greek a barbarian (because their different language sounded like 'bar-bar' to Greek speaking people), but the Greek city states often fought amongst themselves for dominance. Nationalism introduced the idea that each nation has a specific territory, and that beyond this point the claims of other nations apply.
- Nation-states, in principle, do not seek to conquer territory.
- However, nationalist movements rarely agreed on where the border should be. As the nationalist movements grew, they introduced new territorial disputes in Europe. Nationalism also determined the political life of 19th century Europe. Where the nation was part of an empire, the national liberation struggle was also a struggle against older autocratic regimes, and nationalism was allied with liberal anti-monarchical movements. Where the nation-state was a consolidation of an older monarchy, as in Spain, nationalism was itself conservative and monarchical. Most nationalist movements began in opposition to the existing order, but by the 20th century, there were regimes which primarily identified themselves as nationalist. The standard theory of the 19th-century origin of nation-states is disputed. One problem with it is that the South American independence struggles, and the American Revolution (American War of Independence), predate most European nationalist movements. Some countries, such as the Netherlands and England, seem to have had a clear national identity well before the 19th century. Italy's unification, however, is a good example of a 19th-century nationalist movement based upon ethnicity and/or language.

20th Century nationalism

By the end of the 19th century, nationalist ideas had begun to spread to Asia. In India, nationalism began to encourage calls for the end of British rule. The 20th century nationalist movement in India is generally thought to have been led by Mahatma Gandhi, although many other leaders were involved as well. In China, nationalism created a justification for the Chinese state that was at odds with the idea of the universal empire. In Japan, nationalism combined with Japanese "exceptionalism" to form Japanese imperialism, as extreme nationalism often leads to imperialism. World War I led to new nation-states in Europe being encouraged by the United States, who were opposed to the old Imperial Empires, and by France, who wished to isolate Germany and Austria by a series of client states. The result of this pressure was that several multi-nation empires (Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire) disintegrated. The Russian Empire also lost territory. The Versailles Treaty, based upon US President Wilson's 14 Points, was an attempt to recognize the principle of nationalism, as most of Europe was divided into nation-states in what was euphemistically called an "attempt to keep the peace". However, multi-nation and multi-ethnic states survived; and two new ones emerged, Czechoslovakia (where Czechs took control even though they only made up 43% of the population), and Yugoslavia, (which became dominated by the Serbs). World War II initiated a new wave of nation-state formation, by the emergence of fascism and Nazism ("national socialism") before the War, and by independence from European colonial Empires, which declined after the War. The most dramatic decolonisation was in Africa, which was transformed from a collection of European colonies into a continent of nation-states. Few of them corresponded to the European ideal of "a single people, with one language" and a clear territory. Ironically, the one that best met those criteria, Somalia, disintegrated. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to an unexpected revival of national movements in Europe around 1990. Its constituent states became independent, for the second time (in modern history) in the case of the Baltic states. In the second half of the 20th century, some trends emerged which might indicate a weakening of the nation-state and nationalism. The European Union is widely seen transferring power from the national level to both sub-national and supra-national levels. Critics of globalization almost always see it as a threat to national identity, culture, and sovereignty. Free trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the GATT, and the increasing internationalisation of trade markets, are seen as damaging to the national economy, and have led to a revival of economic nationalism. Protest movements vehemently oppose these negative aspects of globalization, (see Anti-globalisation). Not all anti-globalists are nationalists, but nationalism continues to assert itself in response to those trends. Nationalist parties continue to do well in elections, and most people continue to have a strong sense of attachment to their nationality. Moreover, globalism and European federalism are not always opposed to nationalism. For example, theorists of Chinese nationalism within the People's Republic of China have articulated the idea that China's national power is substantially enhanced, rather than being reduced, by engaging in international trade and multinational organizations. For a time sub-national groups such as Catalonian autonomists and Welsh nationalists supported a stronger European Union in the hope that a Europe of the regions would limit the power of the present nation-states. However, with Euroscepticism now widespread in the EU, this transformation is no longer on its political agenda.

Language and nationalism

A common language has been a defining characteristic of the nation, and an ideal for nationalists. For example, in France before the French Revolution, regional languages such as Breton and Occitan were spoken, which were mutually incomprehensible. Standard French was also spoken in large parts of the country and had always been the language of administration, but after the Revolution it was imposed as the national language in non-French-speaking regions. For instance, in Brittany, Celtic names were forbidden. The formation of nation-states, and their consolidation after independence, was generally accompanied by policies to restrict, replace, or abandon minority languages. That accelerates the tendency noted in sociolinguistic research, that high-status languages displace low-status languages. See also: Language policy in France. Some theorists believe that nationalism became pronounced in the 19th century simply because language became a more important unifier due to increased literacy. With more people reading newspapers, books, pamphlets and so on, which were increasingly widely available to read since the spread of the printing press, it became possible for the first time to develop a broader cultural attachment beyond the local community. At the same time, differences in language solidified, breaking down old dialects, and excluding those from completely different language groups. Nationalist movements from Ireland to India promote the teaching, preservation, and use of traditional languages, such as Celtic languages, Hebrew, and Hindi. (See also: Language revival.) The United States, a country which historically welcomes immigrants of varying nationality, has what can be seen as a pattern of discrimination against languages other than English. Prominent examples are the German language, which was nearly eradicated during World War I, and French and Italian, which have nearly disappeared from everyday life. Today Spanish is a large second language across large portion of the country. Some politicians, such as Pat Buchanan have consciously opposed the rise of Spanish as a second American language, for fear that it would undermine traditional institutions. In the Arab World during the colonial period, the Turkish language, French language, Spanish language and English language were often imposed, although the intensity of imposition varied widely. When the colonial period ended (mostly after World War Two), a process of "Arabisation" began; reviving Arabic to unify their states and to facilitate a broader Arab identity, motivated by Pan-Arabism. Countries such as Algeria and Western Sahara underwent large scale Arabisations, changing from French and Spanish to Arabic respectively. However within the Arab World, some nationalistic attempts were made to emancipate a domestic vernacular and treat classical Arabic as a formal foreign language. It was often incomprehensible to the non-literate population of nominally Arab countries, which were politically - but not necessarily linguistically, culturally or ethnically, Arabized. These policies were first promoted in Egypt in the mid 20th century by the Egyptian scholar and nationalist Ahmad Lutfi al-Sayyid, who called for the formalization of the Egyptian Vernacular as the native language of the Egyptian people. More recently Bayoumi Andil, an Egyptian Linguist and Egyptologist, did research in what he nationalistically defines as the "Modern Egyptian Language", which led him to declare it "irrelevant" to Arabic. He claimed that it was the fourth phase of the ancient Egyptian language descended from Coptic, with which it is intimately related, syntactically, morphological, and phonologicaly. Similar attempts to emphasise minority languages completely independent of Arabic were made by the Nubians who are split between Egypt and Sudan, and relatively more successfully by the Amazigh (also known as Imazighen or Berber) in Morocco.

Prominent figures

See the List of prominent figures in nationali

Discrimination

Government sanctioned discrimination

Religious discrimination

Ageism

The paradox of discrimination

Gender Discrimination

See also

References

Statistical discrimination

Bibliography

Race

Historical origins of "race"

History of the term

History of race research

20th- and 21st-century debates over race

Scale of race research

Race as subspecies

The rejection of race and the rise of "population" and "cline"

Summary of different definitions of race

The origins, patterns, and physical manifestations of human genetic variation

Origins of modern humans

Multiregional hypothesis

Out of Africa

Cladistics

Distribution of variation

Substructure in the human population

Physical variation in humans

Social interpretation of physical variation

Incongruities of racial classifications

Ethnicity as a way of categorizing people

Ancestry as a way of categorizing people

Sex

Sex determination in the animal kingdom

The X-Y system

The X-O system

The Z-W system

The haplo-diplo system

Other systems

Sex in non-animal species

See also

External links and further reading

Ethnicity

Ageism

The two most common forms

Examples

Ageism

Age discrimination

Responses

Grass-roots activism

Unions

Laws

Further reading

See also

Nationalism

Background and problems

Issues in nationalism theory

Historical evolution of nationalism

Prior to 1900

20th Century nationalism

Language and nationalism

Prominent figures