Potential Chapters and Introduction

CHAPTER 1 - WHY THE QUESTION?
THE GROUPS IN QUESTION
DISCREET SCIENTIFIC MEASURES
CHAPTER 2 – THE HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION
CHAPTER 3 – OSTEOMETRICS TODAY
CHAPTER 4 – OSTEOMETRICS OF THE PAST
CHAPTER 5 – ALLELE DIFFERENCES
CHAPTER 6 – SO IS IT SOCIAL NORMS?
CHAPTER 7 – LET’S CLIMB THAT TREE
CHAPTER 8 – SO WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?
CHAPTER 9 – ARE WE SURE WE WANT TO GO THERE?
CHAPTER 10 – MAYBE A BETTER ANSWER

Introduction

The 20th Century saw a dramatic change in the way humanity viewed itself and the subtle differences between groups of the homo sapien classification. When we review the timing and facts of history, we see that the end of World War II ushered in the time of this change of understanding. No longer could we continue with the thought that different races were groups that had been divided in some far ancient past that would be forever unknown to researchers. No longer could the different races prove to be inextricably separated by an act of some divine being or through some migration of the bipedal hominid standing upright with voice and abstractions. Rather the fossil record was increasingly indicating that the link between the races was osteomorphologically closer to the same speciation record that biologist had long known.

Despite the information that was burgeoning from the rapidly growing fossil record, Adolf Hitler and his brown shirt Reichstag developed a national political force in Germany that attempted to show tremendous gradation between the races. This policy used surprisingly sophisticated science for the time in a process to advance its political desires. Although simple genetic traits such as sickle cell anemia were not recognized to be geneticly related disorders until the late 1920s and early 1930s already Hitler and Nazi Germany were using terms like eugenics. The political machine of the early Riechstag recognized that people were ready to understand that differences existed between the races. These differences were explained through a new concept of genetics, and policies were put in place to produce the perfect Aryan. Adopting Darwin's concepts on evolution through the survival of the fittest, the propaganda minster, Joseph Goebbels, set into motion what would in time be a counter response of humanity that is heard and seen in policies of today. These policies are adaptive to the science of anthropology, and likewise the science of anthropology is seemingly swayed by the practice of the governments that fund the research from which these policies are created.

Today race-based programs penetrate every facet of the American lifestyle. Government applications for employment ask for racial information. Government contracts require the racial makeup of the company ownership be provided. Laws provide for stiffer penalties when race serves as the impudence for the act. Although quota systems are not in place, point systems have been developed that provide certain races greater consideration for such things as contract awarding, college entrance and funding patterns. Numerous lawsuits have been tried and I am sure more will come testing if race can be considered for college entrance, job admission, and or improper termination. The question at this point is not whether these injustices exist. I think any cognizant individual is well aware that they do. In the cases where they do we note that they are truly a sad situation. However, the question really is what does it mean to be of a particular race. My daughter – 6 years old at the time – phrased it best at the dinner table. “Daddy, why do they call us white? I'm kind of a peachy brown if anything.” What makes us who we are? How can we, as members of the great American melting pot correctly fill out required documents asking our race? What does the question really mean? The answer on the surface may seem simple. Biologically and anthropologically the answer may be more complex than one might image. After 10 years of study, I would argue, there is no guideline. There is no precedent.

In 1925, a Biology teacher, John Scopes, was teaching from a Tennessee state approved text book called Hunter's Civic Biology. Scopes had assigned reading material associated with evolution. At the time, that act was in violation with Tennessee law. Dayton Tennessee became the center of what today is referred to the Monkey Trial. William Jennings Bryan attempted to prove that the only acceptable education regarding the development of man was centered on the Christian view of creationism. At the time 14 states were considering adopting the same form of anti-evolution laws. Clarence Darrow attempted to have the case moved to a higher federal court on the basis that the education of mans origins centered on Darwin's premise that man evolved from a lower order of animal and to stifle that teaching violated the freedom of speech. Scopes was found guilty in Dayton of violating the state code and was fined by the judge $100. However, this outcome achieved the desires of Darrow to get the trial heard in a Tennessee State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did overturn the $100 fine but only on the basis that it was technically the responsibility of the jury to dictate the fine and not the judge. Of the 14 states that were considering adopting the anti-evolutionary laws at the time only 2 did – Arkansas and Mississippi.

Some 43 years later Susan Epperson was met with a similar dilemma. As an Arkansas school teacher, Epperson was faced with the situation of a textbook that discussed mans origins as evolution from low order animals. At the same time the State of Arkansas maintained strict adherence to the anti-evolutionary dogma. The point in question was an assured dismissal from her position if she taught the prescribed material within the 10th grade Biology book provided by the State. In this case the United States Supreme Court ruled that no State may pass any statute that would impinge on the Right of Free Speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Thirty-six years later we are confronted with a similar situation. However, our problem is perhaps not as simple as that faced by Epperson and Scopes. Forms, practices and policies of our Government demand truth in reporting of our race. However, our Government provides no effective guidelines to determine our race. As our society becomes more open and more diverse the question only becomes more challenging. Set forth in this book is a discussion on the criteria of race and the ill advised ideology of any form of typation within the species of Homo Sapien Sapiens. Only a detailed look at the osteomorphology, genetic diversity , physical variation and arbitrary assignment of type will yield a successful definition of racial classification as required in the simpleton requests set forth by our historic ignorance.

Why am I black? Prove I am not. The chapters herein may not prove that I am or am not, however, it does at least ask what the criteria might be.