Copyright © Philip M. Parker, INSEAD. Terms of Use.

RACES

Specialty Definition: RACES

Top     

Specialty Definition: Athletics

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

For the Major League Baseball team, see Oakland Athletics.

Athletics (in the US also known as track and field or track and field athletics) is a collection of sport events, which can roughly be divided into running, throwing and jumping.

Athletic events are usually organised around a 400 m running track, on which most of the running events take place. All of the field events, jumping and throwing, take place in the field in the centre of the running track.

Many athletic events have an ancient origin and were already conducted in competitive form by the ancient Greeks. Athletics was included in the Olympic Games in 1896 and has been part of the program ever since. An international governing body, the IAAF was founded in 1912. The IAAF established separate outdoor World Championships in 1983. The AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) was the governing body in the United States until it collapsed under pressure from advancing professionalism in the late 1970's. A new governing body called The Athletics Congress (TAC) was formed, it was later renamed USA Track and Field (USATF or USA T&F). An additional, less structured organization, the Road Runners Club of America (RRCA) also exists in the USA to promote road racing. Both organizations allow athletes to receive money for racing putting an end to the "shamateurism" that existed before.

Events

This is not an exhaustive list of events. There are many variations not listed. For example, running events have many variations: races of unusual length (e.g. 300m) or using imperial measures.

Men and women do not compete against each other and often times their events differ.

• Track running
  • Sprints: events up to and including 400m. Common events are 60m, 100m, 200 m and 400 m.
  • Middle distance: events from 800 to 3000 m. Common events are 800 m, 1500 m, mile, 3000 m, 3000 m steeple chase.
  • Long Distance: events from 5000 m and up. Common events are 5000 m and 10000 m.
  • Hurdling: Common events are 100 m, 110 m, 400 m.
  • Road: conducted on open roads. Common events are half-marathon and marathon.
  • Walking: walking, usually conducted on open roads. Common events are 10 km, 20 km and 50 km.
• Throwing
  • Shot put
  • Hammer throw
  • Javelin throw
  • Discus throw
• Jumping
  • High jump
  • Long jump
  • Pole vault
  • Triple jump
• Composite events
  • Pentathlon
  • Heptathlon
  • Decathlon

World Records

Men

Event	Performance	Athlete	Date, Place
100 m	9.78	Tim Montgomery (U.S.)	Sept. 14, 2002, Paris, France
200 m	19.32	Michael Johnson (U.S.)	Aug. 1, 1996, Atlanta, Ga.
400 m	43.18	Michael Johnson (U.S.)	Aug. 26, 1999, Seville, Spain
800 m	1:41.11	Wilson Kipketer (Denmark)	Aug. 24, 1997, Cologne, Germany
1,000 m	2:11.96	Noah Ngeny (Kenya)	Sept. 5, 1999, Rieti, Italy
1,500 m	3:26.00	Hicham El Guerrouj (Morocco)	July 14, 1998, Rome, Italy
2,000 m	4:44.79	Hicham El Guerrouj (Morocco)	Sept. 7, 1999, Berlin, Germany
3,000 m	7:20.67	Daniel Komen (Kenya)	Sept. 1, 1996, Rieti, Italy
5,000 m	12:39.36	Haile Gebrselassie (Ethiopia)	June 13, 1998, Helsinki, Finland
10,000 m	26:22.75	Haile Gebrselassie (Ethiopia)	June 1, 1998, Hengelo, Netherlands
20,000 m	56:55.6	Arturo Barrios (Mexico)	March 30, 1991, La Flèche, France
25,000 m	1:13:55.8	Toshihiko Seko (Japan)	March 22, 1981, Christchurch, N.Z.
30,000 m	1:29:18.8	Toshihiko Seko (Japan)	March 22, 1981, Christchurch, N.Z.
3,000 m Steeplechase	7:55.72	Brahim Boulami (Morocco)	Aug. 16, 2002, Zürich, Switzerland
110 m Hurdles	12.91	Colin Jackson (U.K.)	Aug. 20, 1993, Stuttgart, Germany
400 m Hurdles	46.78	Kevin Young (U.S.)	Aug. 6, 1992, Barcelona, Spain
High Jump	2.45	Javier Sotomayor (Cuba)	July 27, 1993, Salamanca, Spain
Pole Vault	6.14	Sergey Bubka (Ukraine)	July 31, 1994, Sestriere, Italy
Long Jump	8.95	Mike Powell (U.S.)	Aug. 30, 1991, Tokyo, Japan
Triple Jump	18.29	Jonathan Edwards (U.K.)	Aug. 7, 1995, Göteborg, Sweden
Shot Put	23.12	Randy Barnes (U.S.)	May 20, 1990, Los Angeles, Calif.
Discus	74.08	Jürgen Schult (E.Ger.)	June 6, 1986, Neubrandenburg, E.Ger.
Hammer	86.74	Yury Syedikh (U.S.S.R.)	Aug. 30, 1986, Stuttgart, W.Ger.
Javelin	98.48	Jan Zelezný (Czech Rep.)	May 25, 1996, Jena, Germany
Decathlon	9026 (10.64, 8.11, 15.33, 2.12, 47.79, 13.92, 47.92, 4.80, 70.16, 4:21.98)	Roman Sebrle (Czech Rep.)	May 27, 2001, Götzis, Austria
20,000 m Walk	1:17:21	Jefferson Pérez (Ecuador)	Aug. 23, 2003, Paris, France
30,000 m Walk	2:01:44.1	Maurizio Damilano (Italy)	Oct. 3, 1992, Cuneo, Italy
50,000 m Walk	3:40:57.9	Thierry Toutain (France)	Sept. 29, 1996, Héricourt, France
4x100 m Relay	37.40	Mike Marsh, Leroy Burrell, Dennis Mitchell, Carl Lewis (U.S.)	Aug. 8, 1992, Barcelona, Spain
4x200 m Relay	1:18.68	Mike Marsh, Leroy Burrell, Floyd Heard, Carl Lewis (U.S.)	April 17, 1994, Walnut, Calif.
4x400 m Relay	2:54.20	Jerome Young, Antonio Pettigrew, Tyree Washington, Michael Johnson (U.S.)	July 22, 1998, New York City
4x800 m Relay	7:03.89	Peter Elliott, Garry Cook, Steve Cram, Sebastian Coe (U.K.)	Aug. 30, 1982, London, England
4x1,500 m Relay	14:38.8	Thomas Wessinghage, Harald Hudak, Michael Lederer, Karl Fleschen (W.Ger.)	Aug. 17, 1977, Cologne, W.Ger.
4x110 m Hurdles Relay	54.40	University of Tennessee (U.S.)	May 22, 1981, Knoxville, Tenn.
Marathon	2:04:55	Paul Tergat (Kenya)	Sept. 28, 2003, Berlin, Germany

Women

Event	Performance	Athlete	Date, Place
100 m	10.49	Florence Griffith Joyner (U.S.)	July 16, 1988, Indianapolis, Ind.
200 m	21.34	Florence Griffith Joyner (U.S.)	Sept. 29, 1988, Seoul, S.Kor.
400 m	47.60	Marita Koch (E.Ger.)	Oct. 6, 1985, Canberra, Australia
800 m	1:53.28	Jarmila Kratochvílová (Czechoslovakia)	July 26, 1983, Munich, W.Ger.
1,000 m	2:28.98	Svetlana Masterkova (Russia)	Aug. 23, 1996, Brussels, Belgium
1,500 m	3:50.46	Qu Junxia (China)	Sept. 11, 1993, Beijing, China
2,000 m	5:25.36	Sonia O'Sullivan (Ireland)	July 8, 1994, Edinburgh, Scotland
3,000 m	8:06.11	Wang Junxia (China)	Sept. 13, 1993, Beijing, China
5,000 m	14:28.09	Jiang Bo (China)	Oct. 23, 1997, Shanghai, China
10,000 m	29:31.78	Wang Junxia (China)	Sept. 8, 1993, Beijing, China
20,000 m	1:05:26.6	Tegla Loroupe (Kenya)	Sept. 3, 2000, Borgholzhausen, Germany
25,000 m	1:27:05.8	Tegla Loroupe (Kenya)	Sept. 21, 2002, Mengerskirchen, Germany
30,000 m	1:45:50.0	Tegla Loroupe (Kenya)	June 7, 2003, Warstein, Germany
100 m Hurdles	12.21	Yordanka Donkova (Bulgaria)	Aug. 20, 1988, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
400 m Hurdles	52.61	Kim Batten (U.S.)	Aug. 11, 1995, Göteborg, Sweden
High Jump	2.09	Stefka Kostadinova (Bulgaria)	Aug. 30, 1987, Rome, Italy
Pole Vault	4.82	Yelena Isinbayeva (Russia)	July 13, 2003, Gateshead, England
Long Jump	7.52	Galina Chistyakova (U.S.S.R.)	June 11, 1988, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Triple Jump	15.50	Inesa Kravets (Ukraine)	Aug. 10, 1995, Göteborg, Sweden
Shot Put	22.63	Natalya Lisovskaya (U.S.S.R.)	June 7, 1987, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Discus	76.80	Gabriele Reinsch (E.Ger.)	July 9, 1988, Neubrandenburg, E.Ger.
Hammer	75.97	Mihaela Melinte (Romania)	May 13, 1999, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Javelin	71.54	Osleidys Menéndez (Cuba)	July 1, 2001, Rethymno, Greece
Heptathlon	7291 (12.69, 1.86, 15.80, 22.56, 7.27, 45.66, 2:08.51)	Jackie Joyner-Kersee (U.S.)	Sept. 23-24, 1988, Seoul, S.Kor.
5,000 m Walk	20:02.60	Gillian O'Sullivan (Ireland)	July 13, 2002, Dublin, Ireland
10,000 m Walk	41:56.23	Nadezhda Ryashkina (U.S.S.R.)	July 24, 1990, Seattle, Wash.
4x100 m Relay	41.37	Silke Gladisch, Sabine Rieger, Ingrid Auerswald, Marlies Göhr (E.Ger.)	Oct. 6, 1985, Canberra, Australia
4x200 m Relay	1:27.46	LaTasha Jenkins, LaTasha Colander-Richardson, Nanceen Perry, Marion Jones (U.S.)	April 29, 2000, Philadelphia, Pa.
4x400 m Relay	3:15.17	Tatyana Ledovskaya, Olga Nazarova, Mariya Pinigina, Olga Bryzgina (U.S.S.R.)	Oct. 1, 1988, Seoul, S.Kor.
4x800 m Relay	7:50.17	Nadezhda Olizarenko, Lyubov Gurina, Lyudmila Borisova, Irina Podyalovskaya (U.S.S.R.)	Aug. 5, 1984, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Marathon	2:15:25	Paula Radcliffe (U.K.)	April 13, 2003, London, England

See also

• List of sports

  Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Athletics."

Top     

Race

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

Alternative meaning: racing

Race is a type of classification used to group living things based on such elements as language, heredity, physical attributes and behavior, where all members belong to the same species yet appear to warrant further classification. Although it is sometimes applied to the entire human population ("the human race"), this article is primarily concerned with "race" as the term has been used to designate groups of humans. The term race is not used in contemporary scientific classification, but is sometimes used within, and often outside of, the scientific community in much the same sense as the terms subspecies, population or breed are in biology. It is also common in folk taxonomies and social scientists have argued that it often reflects and is used to legitimate social inequalities. Thus, the use of the word "race" has long been, and remains, controversial. This article reviews debates over the scientific validity of "race," the historical construction, social functions, and cultural meanings of racial schema, and the ethics and politics of the term.

Overview

Many people believe that physical characteristics of various Homo sapiens (and, according to some, certain non-physical characteristics such as culture, geography, religion, language and nationality) justify the classification of humanity into various races. This belief emerged during the European Enlightenment and was at that time generally accepted by both the scientific and lay communities.

In the early-to-mid 20th century many biological and social scientists began questioning the accepted causal relationship between biological and cultural attributes, and some began questioning the taxonomic validity of race. In the decades immediately after the Second World War (in which racial theories were used as justification for enormous crimes), and gaining special momentum in the 1960s (in the context of the U.S. civil-rights struggle and global anti-colonial struggle), many came to reject the concept of race as a biological fact altogether, at least as it applies to humans. Nevertheless, the belief that human races exist is unquestionably real and, like any belief held by a large number of people, is significant in itself regardless of its scientific accuracy. Thus, the concept continues to impact people through its effect on social behaviour (see communal reinforcement).

In biology, a race was defined as a recognisable group forming all or part of a monotypic or polytypic species. A monotypic species has no races (this can also be expressed: "a monotypic species has only one race"). 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 but instead use vegetative methods like propagation from cuttings).
• The variation between individuals is noticeable and does follow a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines between separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. This is called clinal variation, and 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 comprise a monotypic species even when a fair degree of surface variation is obvious.

A polytypic species, thus, 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.

Humans clearly vary considerably. By far the greater part of human genetic variation, however, occurs within "racial" groups and the variation between racial groups accounts for less than 10% of the total. Nevertheless, although the difference between "races" is less than 10% of the difference within any particular "race", this does not in itself invalidate the suggestion that there might be different races of Homo sapiens sapiens. The rules of biological classification do not set any 'smallest allowable difference' between taxa: any distinct difference is sufficient.

However, a distinct difference is only one of the two conditions that must be satisfied before a different form can be classified as a race. The other is lack of significant gene flow between the populations. In the case of human "races", interbreeding is not only possible but widespread. Given the way that different human "races" fade gradually from one to another in many parts of the world, the overwhelming majority of the current generation of cultural anthropologists draw the conclusion that human "racial" variation is in fact clinal, and that the human species is monotypic. Of course, the delicacy of this definition has left the issue much in debate, especially among physical anthropologists, for if "clines" lead to large areas of separate near-homogeneity, as they seem to do in places like Kenya, Sweden and China, then the people in these areas seem marked off by delimeters resembling nothing so much as the traditional physiological touchstones of "race".

Historians, anthropologists and social scientists today are apt to describe the notion of race as a "social construct", using instead the concept of "population" to refer to communities distinguished by characteristic distributions of gene variants. The concept of biological race, however, has proved resilient and is still used in day-to-day speech even among those who, when questioned, reject the formal existence of race. This may be a matter of semantics, in that such scientists and laypeople use the word "race" to mean "population", or it may be an effect of the underlying cultural power of the concept of "race" in racist societies. Whether it be "race", "population" or some other appellation, a working concept of sub-specific clustering is crucial because a number of group differences, such as gene mutation profiles strongly linked to certain human subgroups (see Cystic fibrosis, Lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs Disease and Sickle cell anemia), are difficult to address without recourse to a category higher than "individual" and lower than "species".

History of the term

The historical definition of race, before the development of evolutionary biology, was that of common lineage, a vague concept interchangeable with species, breed, cultural origin, or national character ("The whole race of mankind." --Shakespeare; "Whence the long race of Alban fathers come" --Dryden).

The word race in this general sense of a group of people with common descent was introduced into English in about 1580.

This late origin is consistent with the thesis that the concept of "race" as defining a very small number of groups based on greatly separated lines of descent dates at least in the West from the time of Columbus. Older concepts that were also at least partly based on common descent, such as nation and tribe, entail a much larger number of groupings.

In any case, the first published classification of humans into distinct "races" seems to have been 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"), which appeared in a Parisian journal in 1684. Bernier (1625-1688) distinguished four "races":

• Europeans, including South Asians, North Africans and native Americans, but excluding Lapps
• Far Easterners
• Sub-Saharan Africans
• Lapps

The 19th-century concept of race was based primarily on morphological and cosmetic characteristics such as skin color, facial type, cranial profile and amount, texture and color of hair. Though such characteristics have since been declared by many experts to have a minimal relationship with any other heritable characteristics, they retain some persuasive force because it is easy to immediately distinguish people based on physical appearance.

Because people of different races can interbreed, this method of classification is weak (compare with species). In other words, racial purity does not have a clear biological meaning. On the other hand, it is clear that for an extended period of time after Homo sapiens' first migrations from Africa (probably around 80,000 BC) and before the rise of wheeled and seagoing transportation (around 3000 BC), geographically isolated groups of people underwent some degree of divergent evolution. Whether that degree was high enough to merit strict taxa beneath the species level is the primary question that has roiled the generations of human biologists since the 1800s. It is a complicated issue full of semantic and emotional pitfalls, with much at stake on the consensus, for educators, physicians, political officeholders, judges, law enforcement officers and many others look upon scientific findings as the bedrock authority for their curricula, diagnostic methods, budget expenditures, case law and criminal suspect profiling.

Among the 19th-century naturalists who defined the field were Georges Cuvier, James Cowles Pritchard, Louis Agassiz, Charles Pickering (Races of Man and Their Geographical Distribution, 1848), and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Cuvier enumerated three races, Pritchard seven, Agassiz eight, and Pickering eleven. Blumenbach's classification was widely adopted:

1. the Caucasian, or white race, to which belong the greater part of the European nations and those of Western Asia
2. the Mongolian, or yellow race, occupying Tartary, China, Japan, etc.
3. the Ethiopian, or black race, occupying most of Africa (except the north), Australia, New Guinea and other Pacific Islands
4. the American, or red race, comprising the Indians of North and South America
5. the Malayanan, or brown race, which occupies the islands of the Indian Archipelago

Researchers in the decades following Blumenbach classified the Malay and American races as branches of the Mongolian, leaving only the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Ethiopian races. Further explication in the early and mid twentieth century, notably by American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon, arrived at three primary races (Negroid, Caucasoid, Sinoid) with a small number of less widespread races (especially "Australoid").

In Blumenbach's day, physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., went hand in hand with declarations of group character and aptitude. The "fairness" and relatively high brows of "caucasians" were held to be apt physical expressions of a loftier mentality and a more generous spirit. The epicanthic folds around the eyes of "mongolians" and their slightly sallow outer epidermal layer bespoke their supposedly crafty, literal-minded nature. The dark skin and relatively sloping craniums of "ethiopians" were taken as wholesale proof of a closer genetic proximity to the primates, despite the fact that the skin of chimpanzees and gorillas beneath the hair is whiter than the average "caucasian" skin and that orangutans and some monkey species have foreheads fully as vertical as the typical Englishman or German. By Coon's day, group physical characteristics were, for the most part, unhitched from assessments of group character and aptitude. Since Coon, those who merely maintain the reality of moderately distinct group physical traits are closely watched as likely carriers of the old malign racism.

Politics of race

The concept of race was applied at the time of Blumenbach by political theorists such as Johann Gottfried von Herder to nationalist theory to develop a militant ethnic nationalism. They posited the historical existence of "races" such as the German and French race, branching from basal races supposed to have existed for millennia, such as the "Aryan" race, and believed political boundaries should mirror these racial boundaries. Later, one of Hitler's favorite sayings was "Politics is applied biology". Hitler's pseudoscientific ideas of racial purity led to atrocities on an unprecedented scale, and "racial cleansing" or "ethnic cleansing" as a sociopolitical motivation or justification has reared its head several times since Hitler (particularly in Cambodia, the Balkans and East Africa). In one sense, such "cleansing" is merely another name for the tribal warfare and mass murder that has afflicted human society from time out of mind. But these crimes seem to gain an extra intensity and thoroughness when the perpetrators believe their acts are sanctioned on scientific grounds.

Racial inequality has been a concern of United States politicians and legislators since the country's founding. In the 19th century most "white" Americans (including abolitionists) explained racial inequality as an inevitable consequence of biological differences. In the second half of the 20th century, political and civic leaders as well as scientists debated whether racial inequality is biological or cultural in origin. On one end of the political spectrum, some argued that current inequalities between blacks and whites are primarily cultural and historical, the result of such historical wrongs as slavery and segregation, and could be redressed through such programs as "affirmative action" and "Head Start." On the other end of the spectrum, a movement to redirect tax money away from remedial programs for minority phenotypes was based on interpretations of aptitude test data which, according to advocates, showed that race-linked differences in basic ability are biological in origin and cannot be leveled even by intensive educational efforts. In electoral politics, many more members of racial and ethnic minorities have won important offices in western nations compared to earlier times, although the very highest offices tend to remain in the hands of racial/ethnic majorities.

Religious leaders active in the United States began to decry segregation and discrimination based on race in the latter half of the 20th century. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King famously requested people to form a society where people were judged "on the content of their character, not the color of their skin." The Rev. Sun Myung Moon said, "With respect to races, inferiority or superiority doesn't exist. Color counts for nothing."

Anthropological and genetic studies of race

In the 19th century many natural scientists made three claims about race: first, that races are objective, naturally occurring things; second, that there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as social behavior 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. In the 20th century, mainstream anthropologists and others rejected each of these claims, while continuing to study between-group genotypic and phenotypic variations. By the end of the 20th century, most social and many natural scientists turned to the "population" concept to talk about these variations, arguing that accounts of "race" (within both the popular and scientific literatures) are socially constructed. Some social and natural scientists, however, argue that new studies in molecular genetics support a nomenclature strongly reminiscent of traditional racial and ethnic terminology.

Since human beings are the most complex entities we know of, the empirical study of man is in many ways the most difficult of all, making problems in fields like physics and chemistry look elementary in comparison. It is no surprise that fields like anthropology, human genetics and psychology are in flux, and the state of these fields may change radically during this century as advances in the more elementary sciences are synthesized into increasingly objective definitions of "human nature". Recognition of sub-specific group traits may find a place in these definitions, probably without, however, the valuations of overall superiority and inferiority formerly attached to them.

The rejection of 19th century assumptions was most effectively initiated by Franz Boas, the founder of American academic anthropology. In the first decades of the 20th century he studied the relationship between race and height in New York City, discovering that the children of immigrants were taller than their parents. Although height is clearly primarily a biological phenomenon, he concluded that an individual's height was determined not only by inheritance but by environment as well (in this case, better pre- and neo-natal care, especially nutrition). Since height, even after accounting for environmental factors, is still at least 80% heritable, and since human subgroup height averages irreducibly differ according to that hard genetic determinant, many of Boas's students accepted the existence of race as a biological fact. But they concluded that there was no relationship between biological race and other human phenomena (such as social behavior, culture, intelligence and morality).

By the 1950s anthropologists had come to question the very existence of race as a biological phenomenon. This rejection was based on three facts. First, they pointed out that the preponderance of evidence suggests that all human beings are descended from a common ancestor (although this fact alone has little bearing on the subsequent formation or non-formation of new subgroups). Second, they observed that there are many biological differences between people that are not taken into account by race (for example, blood type). Finally, they pointed out that oftentimes the genetic differences between members of the same race are greater than the average genetic difference between races. For example, the variation in blood types within specific groups is 85%, but the total variation between groups is only 15% (see the American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race [1]). Those who continue to believe in the real existence of biological race, or in genetic clusters similar to race, point out that in determining overall relatedness the entire genetic cohorts of groups must be compared. When this is done, a grouping pattern emerges that closely follows traditional race groupings. For example, it is true that the so-called "Negroid" race contains more in-group variation than the other major races. Great differences in height, for instance, can be found within a small geographical area (the "pygmies" are the shortest people in the world on average, while their neighbors, formerly known as "the Watusi", are the tallest). These two "negroid" subgroups vary more from each other in height than either does with the averages for height in the other two major races. However, if total genetic cohorts are used rather than limited sets of traits like height and blood type in an effort to find true overall relatedness, it is seen that any two "negroids" will share a much higher net genetic affinity with one another than either will with any individual of the other two major races. The same is true for any two caucasoids and any two sinoids (see conclusions of the Human Population Genetics Laboratory headed by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza at [1]).

The scientific community's rejection of race as a biological phenomenon had important consequences. For example, scientists developed the notion of "population" to take the place of race. This substitution is not simply a matter of exchanging one word for another. Populations are, in a sense, simply statistical clusters that emerge from the choice of variables of interest; there is no preferred set of variables.

The "populationist" view does not deny that there are physical differences among people; it simply claims that the historical conceptions of "race" are not particularly useful in analyzing these differences scientifically. In particular, populationists claim that:

1. knowing someone's "race" does not provide very good predictive information about biological characteristics other than those that have been selected to define the racial categories, e.g. knowing a person's skin color, which is generally acknowledged to be one of the markers of race (or taken as a defining characteristic of race), does not allow good predictions of a person's blood type to be made;
2. in general, the natural distribution of human phenotypes exhibits gradual trends of difference across geographic zones, not the categorical differences of race; in particular, there are many peoples (like the San of S. W. Africa, or the people of northern India) who have phenotypes that do not neatly fit into the standard race categories.
3. focusing on race has historically led not only to seemingly insoluble disputes about classification (e.g. are the Japanese a distinct race, a mixture of races, or part of the East Asian race? and what about the Ainu?) but has also exposed disagreement about the criteria for making decisions— the selection of phenotypic traits seemed arbitrary.

Since the 1960s, most anthropologists and teachers of anthropology have re-conceived "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way some people have of talking about themselves and others. As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: history and social relationships will. A smaller number of anthropologists and human geneticists argue that race is indeed a valid and valuable concept and that those holding the majority view allow their social consciences (laudable per se) to confuse and delay accurate interpretations and applications of empirical data. They are not convinced by the substitution of the term "population" for the term "race", because it leads to a potentially harmful imprecision in communication (for example, when one could simply say "caucasian" one is instead compelled to say something like "an individual of the western Eurasian population", and when that individual doesn't happen to currently reside in western Eurasia one must say "an individual whose ancestors were of the western Eurasian population"). This position recently received a boost from genetic studies at the molecular level which show characteristic allele signatures for the groups traditionally identified as the three major races, resulting in maps that clearly delineate genetic clines (in which the clinal zones are a small part of the total) summarized quite well by longstanding racial and ethnic appellations. Precision and commonality in terminological communication is especially important in fields like medical research and diagnosis because a rapidly growing list of genetic disorders and predispositions are strongly linked to race and ethnicity (not to geographical "populations"). If "races" is too freighted a term for these clines then, according to these authorities, new, convenient, non-academic terminology free of spurious valuations of superiority and inferiority should be developed whether social sensitivities are ruffled or not.

Two examples, one from the United States and one from Brazil, further illustrate the majority view.

Example: United States

In the United States in the 19th century, African-Americans, Native Americans, and European-Americans were each classified as different races. But the criteria for membership in these races were radically different. The government considered anyone with "one drop" of Black blood to be Black. In contrast, Indians were defined by a certain percentage of "Indian blood". And to be White one had to have "pure" White ancestry. These differing criteria for membership in particular races has little to do with biology and much to do with political relations between Blacks and Indians on the one hand, and Whites on the other. By these criteria, it was very easy for a child to be categorized as Black. This likely reflects the requirements of the slave-economy of the U.S. South, for the vast majority of slaves were classified as Black. Even the child of an enslaved African woman and a White master was considered Black, or "of African descent." More importantly, such a child would be a slave. In comparison, it was harder for a child to be classified as Indian. After a few generations of inter-racial marriages, a child might not be considered Indian at all. This likely reflects the requirements of the U.S. economy during the period of westward expansion, although the greater outward similarity of "Whites" and "Indians" surely came into it. Indians had treaty rights to land, but if an individual with one Indian great-grandparent was no longer classified as Indian, they would lose special rights to land. At a time when Whites ruled both Blacks and Indians, it is no coincidence that the hardest race to prove membership in was White.

Example: Brazil

Compared to 19th century United States, 20th century Brazil was characterized by a relative absence of sharply defined racial groups. This pattern reflects a different history and different social relations. Basically, race in Brazil was biologized, but in a way that recognized the difference between ancestry (which determines genotype) and phenotypic differences. There, racial identity was not governed by a rigid descent rule. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only two categories to chose from. Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in conformity with the combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum and no one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. That is, race referred to appearance, not heredity.

One of the most striking consequences of the Brazilian system of racial identification was that parents and children and even brothers and sisters were frequently accepted as representatives of opposite racial types. In a fishing village in the state of Bahia an investigator showed 100 people pictures of three sisters and were asked to identify the races of each. In only six responses were the sisters identified by the same racial term. Fourteen responses used a different term for each sister. In another experiment nine portraits were shown to a hundred people. Forty different racial types were elicited. It was found, in addition, that a given Brazilian might be called by as many as thirteen different terms by other members of the community. These terms are spread out across practically the entire spectrum of theoretical racial types. A further consequence of the absence of a descent rule was that Brazilians apparently not only disagreed about the racial identity of specific individuals, but they also seemed to be in disagreement about the abstract meaning of the racial terms as defined by words and phrases. For example, 40% of a sample ranked moreno claro as a lighter type than mulato claro, while 60% reversed this order. A further note of confusion is that one person might employ different racial terms for another person over a short time. The use of term varies with the personal relationship and mood. Consequently, people change their racial identity over their lifetimes. This is not the same as "passing" in the USA. It does not require secrecy and the agonizing withdrawal from friends and family that are necessary in this country and among Indians of highland Latin America. In Brazil passing from one race to another occurs with changes in education and economic status. A light skinned person of low status is considered darker than a dark skinned person of high status.

So although the identification of a person by race is far more fluid and flexible in Brazil than in the USA, there are racial stereotypes and prejudices. African features were considered less desirable; Blacks were considered inferior, and Whites superior. These stereotypes are obvious relics of the slave-based plantation system, and say more about history than actual behavior. But the complexity of racial classification in Brazil bears testimony not only to the amount of intermarriage in the post-slavery period, but also to the possibilities of upward mobility. A Brazilian is never merely black or white or some other race; he is rich, well-educated, or poor and uneducated. It makes more sense to say that it is one's class and not one's appearance that determines who will be admitted to hotels, restaurants, and social clubs; who will get preferential treatment in stores, churches, and hotels; and who will have the best chance among a group of marriage suitors – and color is one of the criteria of class identity, but it is not the only one. (This case is taken from Marvin Harris' excellent short study, Patterns of Race in the Americas)

Race and intelligence

Lately people have tried to associate race and intelligence. This is not new. But most contemporary experts argue that it has always been wrong. It is wrong not because all people are created equal – perhaps we should all have equal rights – but all people are created different, with different abilities and talents. It is wrong because these differences have nothing to do with race (they probably do have something to do with genetics, but the relationship between genotype, phenotype, and environment is too complex to be reduced to the notion of race; see Biology as Ideology by Richard C. Lewontin). This is so not only because race is a cultural and not biological category. It is so because intelligence is also a cultural category. See the American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race and Intelligence [1]. The strongest dissent to this opinion can be found in the works of Arthur Jensen, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. Jensen's extensive primary research in the field has, he claims, found a high heritability of "the intelligence factor" with statistically significant genotype-based variation between populations.

In his book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist better known for his popularizing articles in Natural History Magazine (which have been collected in a variety of mass-marketed books) makes three criticisms of Jensen's work. The first criticism is also the criticism most commonly leveled against Jensen by other anthropologists and biologists: that Jensen misunderstands the concept of "heritability." Heritability measures the percentage of variation of a trait due to inheritance, within a population. Jensen, however, has used the concept of heritability to measure differences in inheritance between populations (Gould 1981: 127; 156-156). The second criticism is relatively minor: Gould disagrees with Jensen's support of the attempts of others to calculate the IQ of dead people (such as the famous Polish astronomer and Prussian monetary theorist Copernicus) (1981: 153-154). The third criticism is significant: Gould disagrees with Jensen's belief that IQ tests measure a real variable called g or "general intelligence," which can be measured along a unilinear scale. This is a claim most closely identified with Cyril Burt and Charles Spearman. According to Gould, Jensen misunderstood the research of L. L. Thurstone to ultimately support this claim; Gould however argues that Thurstone's factoral analysis of intelligence revealed g to be an illusion (1981: 159; 13-314). Jensen made a strong reply to Gould in the summer 1982 issue of Contemporary Education Review (see [1]), where he states "Gould claims that I have defended a g, or general intelligence, which is 'reified as a measurable object'. Yet in the same chapter from which Gould is supposedly paraphrasing my views (Jensen, 1980a), I stated unequivocally that 'Intelligence is not an entity, but a theoretical construct.... The g factor may also be termed a theoretical construct, which is intended to explain an observable phenomenon, namely, the positive intercorrelation among all mental tests, regardless of their apparently great variety'".

Phylogenetic representations

Recent genetic analyses have enabled the concept of race to be represented in somewhat cladistic terms. These studies have indicated that, as already known, Africa was the ancestral source of all people. Australian aborigines were found to be an early out-group that remained isolated. All other groups, including Caucasians, 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 more or less the equivalents of Caucasian and Sinoid groups, although, of course, recognizing that there are many intermediates. Here the problem arises of distinguishing black Africans as a racial group; it doesn't work because it is a paraphyletic classification -- that is, to take black Africans as a racial group, the group by definition includes every living person on Earth because everyone is descended from this group. And, of course, it has long been known that groups such as the Khoi-San are as different from other sub-Saharan groups as are Caucasians and Asians.

Related concepts

master race, race and intelligence, racism, race relations, racial equality, racial purity, racial discrimination, racial superiority, multiracial.

Because individual geography, culture, religion, political association and, above all, heredity can change, racial purity, the concept that wholly distinct racial groupings exist, has little meaning from the perspective of evolutionary biology.

Ethnicity is the concept of race decoupled from national affiliation. For example, ethnic Germans are people who are not citizens of the nation of Germany but who may be considered racially German.

See also:

• anthropology
• taxonomy
• population genetics
• racism
• ethnicity
• race baiting
• Race Theory

External links

• 1913 dictionary entry
• Scientific American article: "Does Race Exist?"
• For further information on Boas's own understanding of race see this speech of his.

  Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Race."

Top     

Racing

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

A race is a competition of speed. The competitors in any race try to complete a given task in the shortest amount of time. Typically, this involves traversing some distance most quickly, but can be just about any other task.

A race to cover a certain distance may be almost any length, and using any means stipulated by the rules of the race. Running a certain distance is the template of racing, but races are often conducted in vehicles, such as boats and carss.

Early records of races are evidient on ancient Greek pottery, where running men are depicted vying for first place. There is a chariot race in the Iliad.

A race and its name are often associated with the place of origin, the means of transport and the distance of the race. As a couple of examples, see the Paris-Dakar rally or the Athens marathon.

Types of Racing

Here is a list of some common and not so common forms of racing.

Using only the Human body's own muscles

• Marathon
• Racewalking
• Track running in Athletics
• Swimming

With Bicycles, is known as Cycling

• Track cycling such as a Points race
• Road cycling such as the Tour de France
• Offroad cycling or Mountain bicycling

With Skis on Snow

• Alpine skiing such as Slalom skiing or Downhill skiing
• Cross-country skiing

With Animals

• Camel racing
• Chariot racing
• Greyhound racing
• Equestrian sports
• Horse-racing, see also United Kingdom horse-racing
  • Flat racing
  • Thoroughbred horse races, such as Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing or a Derby.
  • Trotting
  • Steeplechase

• Pigeon racing
• Pig racing

Using Machines powered by motors, on Land

• Auto racing (also known as automobile racing, motor racing or autosport)
  • Formula One, Formula Ford, Formula 3000
  • Production Car Racing
  • Rally racing
  • Drag racing
  • Sports car racing
  • Stock car racing, NASCAR, Indy Cars - Champ Cars
  • dirt speedway racing
  • Offroad racing
  • Touring car racing
  • Truck racing

• Kart racing

• Motorcycle racing such as the Isle of Man TT
  • Motocross Racing
  • Grand Prix motorcycle racing
  • Pocketbike Racing
  • Production Bike Racing
  • Superbike racing

Using Boats On Water

• Dragon Boat Racing
• Jet sprint boat racing
• Offshore powerboat racing
• Rowing
• Sailing or Yacht racing also Match race such as America's Cup races or Team Racing.

and in Virtual reality or on a Videogame

• Chocobo Racing

Also see: Sport, Gambling, Totalisator, Pacemaker, Nuclear arms race, Space Race, Race Game, Surf lifesaving

Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Racing."

Top     

Top     

Top     

Modern Usage: RACES

Top     

Commercial Usage: RACES

Top     

Image Slideshow: RACES

Photos: RACES More pictures...

Illustrations: RACES More pictures...

Computer Images: RACES More pictures...

Top     

Photo Album: RACES

Thumbnail	Description & Credit	Thumbnail	Description & Credit
	"Indian Canoe Races, Anacortes". In: "Puget Sound and Western Washington Cities-Towns Scenery", by Robert A. Reid, Robert A. Reid Publisher, Seattle, 1912. P. 108. Credit: America's Coastlines.		ARS plant pathologist Scott Abney (left) and research assistant Tom Richards check the growth of soybeans inoculated with field isolates of Phytophthora sojae. Disease reactions involving specific genes help identify the 45 races of P. sojae that have been reported in the United States. P. Credit: USDA ARS News; photo by Scott Bauer..
	Political race course - Union Track - fall races 1836. Credit: Library of Congress.		The three mares/mayors, New York course, spring races, 1838. Credit: Library of Congress.
	Ernst Udet, head-and-shoulders portrait, seated in cockpit of plane, facing front, in aviator's clothes at the National Air Races, Cleveland, Ohio. Credit: Library of Congress.		Watching the boat races, Palm Beach, Fla. Credit: Library of Congress.
	Pathfinder, judge's boat in Canada's Cup races, 1901. Credit: Library of Congress.		Perfection, Associated Press boat, Canada's Cup Races, 1901. Credit: Library of Congress.
	General Custer saluting Confederate General Ramseur at the Woodstock races, Oct. 9, 1864. Credit: Library of Congress.		Spectators at auto races. Iowa State Fair, Des Moines, Iowa. Credit: Library of Congress.
Source: pictures compiled by the editor from various references; see picture credits.

Top     

Digital Photo Gallery: RACES
 

"Chris races" by Paul C Commentary: "The Poughkeepsie Criterium, New York State, nice close up of the action on a tough uphill climb."	"At the Races" by Christie Ortiz Commentary: "A view of the horses as they near the finish line."
Source: photographs selected by the editor, with permission from the photographers.

Top     

Familiar Quotations: RACES

Top     

Historic Usage: RACES

Top     

Use in Literature: RACES

Top     

Non-Fiction Usage: RACES

Top     

Spoken Usage: RACES

Top     

Speeches: RACES

Top     

Usage Frequency: RACES

Source: compiled by the editor from several corpora; see credits.

Top     

Expression: RACES

Top     

Frequency of Internet Keywords: RACES

Top     

Modern Translation: RACES

Top     

Derivations & Misspellings: RACES

Top     

Rhyming with "RACES"

Top     

Anagrams: RACES

Top