In this discussion, the general topic of discussion was talking about the elements that constitute what makes a race of people. And the takeaway message, revealed mainly in the questions and answer section, is that too much stock is often put into genetics when determining the race of people, and that often times genetics are treated like the “end all be all” when it comes to racial construction. When looking at the definition behind race, this idea becomes rather murky, due to the nebulous nature of the definition. Over the years there have been various definitions, some referring heavily to phylogenetics and DNA evidence, while others take an almost entirely social and anthropologic view, where DNA evidence is eschewed almost entirely. This is the central issue surrounding this topic, not that DNA evidence reigns supreme, it is the completely different use of definitions across disciplines.
For example, when looking on webster’s online dictionary, two different definitions of race appear. The first one reads: “a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics.” This is clearly the anthropological approach that emphasizes commonality of interests and social behaviors, while not referencing skin color, genetics, or any other visual evidence that typically biologists tend to use. The second definition reads: “an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group.” While this definition has its issues of its own, the general theme of it is to rely exclusively on phylogenetic evidence, as well as evidence of interbreeding. These two definitions listed right next to each other, defining the same word, represents a problem for biologists and anthropologists alike. While these two disciplines align on some issues, this is one that has yet to be solved in a meaningful way, and no real compromises have been made as far as marrying the two fields.
In conclusion, there really is no conclusion in many senses regarding this issue, and in the current climate surrounding race, this sort of debate could definitely ratchet up in the near future. The speaker today decided to take more of an anthropological perspective, based on the examples he used in the talk, and the responses that he gave in the question and answer section. His opinion, while not fully encompassing of both definitions, still cannot be considered right or wrong, because of the lack of progress associated with coming up with a concise and unifying definition of the term ‘race’.