There is a consensus among the relevant scientists,
|Shomarka O.Y. Keita, 1993. "The Subspecies
Concept in Zoology and
Anthropology. A brief Historical Review and Test of a Classification
Scheme," _Journal of Black Studies_, 23 (#3): 416 445.This is an
Afrocentric journal edited by Molefi Asante. Keita is a distinguished
physical anthropologist teaching at Howard University.
Joseph L. Graves, 1993. "Evolutionary Biology and Human Variation.
biological Determinism and the Mythology of Race," _Sage Race Relations
Abstracts_ 18 (#3): 4-34. Graves is one of 4 African American molecular
biologists and teaches at Arizona State University West.
|C. Loring Brace, 1995. "Region Does
not Mean "Race"--Reality Versus
Convention in Forensic Anthropology," _ Journal of Forensic Sciences_ 40
(#2): 29-33. Brace is one of the foremost physical anthropologists in the
world and teaches at the University of Michigan. He and his students have a
chapter in the _Revisiting Black Athena_ book.
Frank b. Livingstone, 1964. "On the Nonexistence of Human Races," in A.
Montague, ed., _The Concept of Race_ Free Press, pp 46-60. Reprinted by the
feminist post-modern philosopher Sandra Harding in _The Racial Economy of
Science_ Indiana Univ. Press 1993. Livingstone was (is?) a physical
anthropologist but it is interesting because it predates much of the DNA
evidence now available.
Jared Diamond, 1994. "Race Without Color" _Discover_ November: 83 89.
Diamond is a physiologist who teaches at UCLA. This issue if Discover is
entirely devoted to race and worthwhile perusing.
i'm going to include your text into the race man's home companion, but i think it is more of a sidebar. the reason is of course that matters of racial purity in fact or in fiction can be obviated by a universal declaration and defense of rights.
to load down the proofs in the terminology of racialists, even morally neutral racialists, puts the ultimate burden of rights on matters of blood. in other words, if you posit that some truth of human value worth considering lies in the genetics, then you must dedicate your law and custom on some scientific finding. in the meantime, what do you do? and what do you do later?
let's say that the best science of 2002 says that there are exactly 8 races, and that there is a test which can absolutely place any individual on earth into one of those eight buckets. should people be identified? what is the purpose? should a strict definition of those 8 races be maintained at the national bureau of standards? what happens when new findings show that there are 10 after all? what if people don't accept the 8 or the 10? what if they misattribute qualities?
today, we know that a person with type A- blood who recieves a transfusion of B+ will die within minutes. why isn't *this* race?