Search

Most biological anthropologists acknowledge that phenotypic human variation is distinct from human race. However, there is the potential for the research on human variation to be (mis)interpreted by the public as a reification of biological races. To explore this possible misuse, this study is a content analysis of articles (n = 1146) in the prominent race science journals Mankind Quarterly; The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies; and The Occidental Quarterly. The goal is to investigate how race science employs research in biological and forensic anthropology to justify arguments. Articles were evaluated according to country affiliation, discipline, data sets, racial/ethnic terminology, position on racial hierarchy, position on racial segregation and eugenics, focus of study, views of scientific community, and the average power index (PI). Additionally, specific examples of (mis)appropriation are highlighted. Though the primary discipline represented in these publications is psychology, biological anthropology maintains a presence. Skeletal and dental traits, genetics, and paleoanthropological data are used to argue for biological racial differences and taxonomic distinctions. The research of forensic ancestry estimation was regularly used to legitimize the concept of biological race. While the PIs of the articles are low, they are present on the internet and circulate within social media. The continued use of biological anthropology to reinforce racial essentialism should force practitioners to question the ethical implications of their research. Finally, we provide discussion regarding shifts in methodology and terminology to address how biological and forensic anthropologists can rectify the damage this research may directly and indirectly cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand the implications of the forensic anthropological practice of "ancestry" estimation, we explore terminology that has been employed in forensic anthropological research. The goal is to evaluate how such terms can often circulate within social contexts as a result, which may center forensic anthropologists as constituting "race" itself through analysis and categorization. This research evaluates terminology used in anthropological articles of the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 1972 and 2020 (n = 314). Terminology was placed into two categories: classifiers and descriptors. Classifiers were standardized into one of five options: "race," "ancestry," "population," "ethnic," or "other." Descriptors included terms used to describe individuals within these classificatory systems. We also compared these terms to those in the NamUs database and the U.S. census. Our results found that the terms "ancestry" and "race" are often conflated and "ancestry" largely supplanted "race" in the 1990s without a similar change in research approach. The NamUs and census terminology are not the same as that used in forensic anthropological research; illustrating a disconnect in the terms used to identify the missing, unidentified, and in social contexts with those used in anthropological research. We provide histories of all of these terms and conclude with suggestions for how to use terminology in the future. It is important for forensic anthropologists to be cognizant of the terms they use in medicolegal contexts, publications, and in public and/or professional spaces. The continued use of misrepresentative and improper language further marginalizes groups and perpetuates oppression rooted in systemic racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of race has a complex history in the field of biological anthropology. Despite increased recognition of the racist origins of the discipline, there remains little agreement about what the concept means, how it is used, or how it is discussed. This study presents the results of a survey of biological anthropologists to investigate the relationship of biological anthropologists with race and ancestry. The survey focuses on the areas of research, public engagement, and teaching as related to these concepts. Results indicate that a large majority of biological anthropologists agree that race (as a social not biological concept) is separate from ancestry. The majority of respondents agreed that ancestry categories should be based on geography (e.g. Asian, European, and African), and more anthropologists thought the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" were inappropriate ancestry categories. While most respondents felt that discussions of these terms were not matters of "political correctness," nearly a quarter of respondents suggested that concerns over the moral and ethical implications of research (e.g. photos, terminology, and ancestry) result in the silencing of anthropological research. Overwhelmingly, respondents felt that anthropologists have a responsibility to ensure the avoidance of misappropriation of their work by race science and by white nationalists/supremacists. Some differences in survey responses were found relating to respondents' subdiscipline, educational level, location, age, self-identified racial/ethnic categories, and gender. In regard to teaching, survey results indicate that these concepts are minimally covered in university classrooms. When taught, topics focus on the colonialist/racist history of anthropology, the presence of white privilege/supremacy, and racism. Based on the results of this survey, the authors argue for greater public engagement on these concepts, a standardized system of teaching race and ancestry, and a disciplinary conversation about practice and terminology. In this way, biological anthropologists can best place themselves to combat racism in a socially responsible way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]