3 Anthropology, Race, and Dismantling Racism

Written by Amanda Zunner-Keating. Special thanks to Student Researchers: Lucas Guerrero, Ian Ramos, Aaron Ebriani, and Elyssa Venerable. Research support from Alexandra Zysman and Phillip Te. 

Audio recording for Chapter 3 is available on Soundcloud.

3.1 The construction of race as colonial justification

The colonial effort was structured around the idea of European supremacy whereby European colonial powers systematically took control of lands, resources, and peoples across the world under the false guise of European superiority (Buck 31-67; Bejarano et al 17). In many parts of the world, clear racial delineations did not exist before the arrival of European colonial powers; these colonial governments designed and implemented rigid racial hierarchies in order to justify their own system of control (ibid). A standard colonial strategy followed the idea that, if people are separated into distinct groups, assigned limited roles in society, and then placed upon a hierarchical structure that prevents cooperation and resistance then they are easier to control and dominate (Willis 123).

3.2 Case study: The construction of race in Rwanda

The colonial construction of race can be understood through the case of Rwanda.

Before the colonization of the African continent, African communities lived and moved across the continent without the borders that exist today. Concepts of identity varied from place to place and were not discrete or rigid in most cases. In Central Africa, for example, groups called “Hutu” and “Tutsi” existed but were not strict racial identities and were – rather –were more of a loose grouping. A person could change which group they belonged to through marriage or by changing the type of work they engaged in (typically herdsman were Tutsis and Hutus were cultivators) (Kigali Genocide Memorial; Gibbs 406 – 440; Gourevitch). These identities were fluid and not ethnically or racially distinct (ibid).

When the German colonial government took initial control of the central African region that is now called Rwanda, they sought a grouping that could be amplified and codified in order to better assert local control. Using pseudo-scientific justification, the Germans decided that the group who called themselves the Tutsis were more “Caucasian” (or, looked more white) to them than the other major group called the Hutus. Due to this perceived Caucasian look, the German colonial government gave the Tutsis more administrative control and more power in that part of the world, which resulted in a forced lack of cooperation between the two groups who were both subjugated under colonial regime. When the Germans passed control of Rwanda the Belgian colonial government, they began issuing ID cards that cemented each Rwandan person’s identity in the newly unchangeable categories of “Hutu” or “Tutsi” with the Tutsis placed firmly at the top of a racial hierarchy that awarded them economic and political power (Gourevitch).

We can turn to the case of Rwanda to understand how race was constructed based on appearance and then used to offer opportunity to certain groups while denying opportunity others. This is how the construction of race was used against native communities across the colonial era and how it is still used today.

3.3 What is race?  

Race is a socially constructed identity. Race is not genetic (there is no genetic code that makes a person “white” or “black,” etc.). Rather than being written in our DNA, race is determined on a cultural level. Race is defined differently across various cultures and periods of time. While race is not biologically real, it is still culturally real because race and racism impact people’s lives in a very tangible and measurable way. Cultural anthropologists closely examine how communities determine and reinforce racial identities. Biological anthropologists examine genetic variation across all groups to better understand our vast diversity.

In your daily life, you likely determine a person’s race by looking at their suite of physical features including skin color, hair color and texture, face shape, body shape, eye color, etc. and then deciding which race you think they belong to. We also consider characteristics like behavior, name, clothing, career choice, language, etc., when we try to determine a person’s race. These determinations are, themselves, culturally-specific and the cultural elements surrounding them change over time and change from place to place. We then project our own idea of a person’s race upon them, it’s usually based upon the social constructs that our society has worked hard to teach us. While, in many cases, individuals may agree with the race that you assign then, it is certainly not always so clear cut. Ask yourself: have you ever been assigned a race that you don’t actually identify as? Or, have you ever been rejected from a racial or ethnic group that you actually do have a claim to? Or, has someone’s race surprised you in the past? All of these examples reflect the subjective and ever-changing nature of race.

Race is a complex identity that is not based in biology but that still carries a lot of cultural power. While race is not biologically real, it’s socially very real: people are treated differently based on their “race” and this impacts everyone’s lives in a very real, tangible, and measurable way.

3.4 What is racism?

Racism is the belief that human beings have certain characteristics, abilities, or different behavioral traits based on their assigned race.

“Race” and “racism” are two concepts that must be defined separately, but they are inextricably intertwined. Without the socially-constructed categories of race, systemic and cultural racism would not have a structure within which to function. Dominant narratives surrounding race and racism argue that both race and racism are natural parts of human nature, but, anthropologists with a complex understanding of human genetics and access to cultural and historical records know that race was actually invented to justify inequal power distribution. As author, Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, “Race is the child of racism, not the father.” In other words, race did not exist before racist worldviews emerged. Rather, the racist need to exert colonial control motivated the complex construction of racial categories.

3.5 The pseudo-scientific construction of race

The construction of racial categories – as we know them today – took place largely in the realm of pseudo-science whereby scientists – including anthropologists – utilized flimsy means of gathering and interpreting data in order to develop a justification for their governments’ policies of subjugation.

An example of this type of effort can be seen in the work of Johann Blumenbach (1752 – 1840) who worked to develop a racial hierarchy. Blumenbach measured human skulls in an attempt to demonstrate that each race had its own, distinct, skull shape.

Blumenbach claimed that they were five categories of race: Ethiopians, American Indians, Malayan, Caucasian, and Mongolian. He argued that he could determine someone’s race by looking at their facial shape, and then he categorized the skulls in order of intelligence and value to society. In fact, Blumenbach believed that human races were so different that we actually belonged to different sub-species that could not change or have offspring across groups.

Of course, we quite obviously know that members of different races can have children and that racial identity changes rapidly with each generation. However, these racial categories – as developed by Blumenbach – were widely accepted as scientific fact in such a way that they still impact our view of race today. 

3.6 Race and biology

Adapted from “LAVC Anthro 111Lab Manual for Human Biological Evolution” by Frank, Pierson, Stein, Feldmeier, Stifter, and Vigil.

Each cell in our body contains DNA. DNA is packaged as chromosomes, and these always come in pairs. These pairs are called homologous chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. A gene is a section of a chromosome that has a particular function, and the matching sections of paired chromosomes work together to carry out that function. Any particular gene can come in different varieties. Some genes come with two variations and some come with more than two variations. These variations are called alleles. The way a gene functions will depend on which alleles are present on the chromosomes at that gene. When an individual carries the same allele on their paired chromosomes, they are called homozygous for that gene. When an individual has different alleles for a gene, they are called heterozygous for that gene.

We use the term discrete trait to refer to a biological trait that can only be expressed in a few, clear, easily categorized ways. We use the term continuous trait to refer to a biological trait that exists somewhere on a spectrum.

Discrete traits are rare in human beings, some examples include:

• Blood Type: A person can either have type A, B, O, or AB blood
• Cleft chin: A person either has a cleft chin or does not
• Earlobe attachment: A person either has attached earlobes or detached earlobes

The vast majority of human traits are continuous because they are determined by a set of many alleles that combine to manifest in various ways. These include hair color, eye color, skin color, height, etc. Although we culturally consider human beings to only have a few eye colors (blue, green, hazel, or brown) these colors actually vary widely; for example, there are many shades of brown eyes and sometimes the difference between the eye colors isn’t clearly delineated.

Across cultures, the characteristics that are used to determine race are categorized in various ways. In order to better understand how widely these categories vary, consider these examples:

• In Brazil, race is based on skin tone. In this way, a person can actually be a different race than their own parents (Guest).
• In the United States, race is based largely on parentage. While physical characteristics are key in determining race, we typically assign a person’s race based on what races their parents are. The United States implemented the “rule of hypodescent” which categorized mixed-race people with any amount of African heritage as “Black” and not at all white. Initially, this rule was used to expand power over the enslaved population (Delgado and Stefancic 152).
• In South Africa, race is based on ancestry (African ancestry, European ancestry, etc.). In contested cases, the “pencil test” was used whereby people were asked to place a pencil in their hair and, if the pencil didn’t fall out, they were categorized as Black. Black people were then separated from society’s essential resources throughout the era of Apartheid.

Of course, skin color is considered in all of these cases. Skin color is similarly not discrete as human skin tones exist with limitless diversity. Skin color is determined by the presence of melanin in our bodies combined with the impact of our environment. Historically, before mass migration, those closer to the equator where it was hotter would adapt to produce more melanin in order to protect themselves from the sun. Skin color is determined by ancestral proximity to the equator. Socially, we might work hard to place these various skin tones into a few categories, but these categories are inventions of the human mind and not an actual reflection of our gene makeup.

All the criteria we use to place people into a certain race are either continuous traits (which cannot be biologically categorized into distinct groups) or behavioral traits (that have no connection to biology at all). It’s important to note that, when racial groups are tested genetically, more genetic variation exists within groups than across groups (Rosenberg et al., from Walker Pacheco 357).

By looking at the continuous traits we know there is no DNA code that determines your race, there is not a gene in your DNA that says you will be a certain race. Your genes determine your suite of characteristics, and then society decides which race each person will be assigned. 

3.7 Anthropology and Race

So, why do anthropologists study race? Cultural anthropologists, for example, are interested in studying race because systemic racism makes privilege, generational wealth, health, and safety available to certain racial groups while denying the same to other groups. Research shows that income disparity, access to healthcare, access to education, access to political and financial power all correlate to racial categories. As both cultural and biological anthropologists know that “race” is not genetic and has no bearing over a person’s abilities, strengths, or weaknesses, we are therefore compelled to examine cultural attitudes toward race in order to better understand how cultural ideas of race (and cultural racism) cause various groups to have different lived experiences.

3.8 Allison Davis’s lends his research to impact Brown v Board of education

Written by Lucas Guerrero. Edited by Amanda Zunner-Keating, Marina Cunin Borer, and Erin Hayes.

Anthropologist Allison Davis studied the intersection of race and class in American culture and offered his findings to the courts considering Brown v.The Board of Education. Specifically, Davis’ research highlighted cultural and racial bias present in intelligence tests that were widely applied in American schools and advocated for the end of school segregation.

One of Allison Davis’ most prominent research findings was that of the “caste-and-class” framework. The “caste-and-class” framework categorized social class in reference to how varying racial groups were raised in different cultural settings. He drew parallels to caste systems to shine light on the fact that there was, and still is, a form of racial hierarchy in the United States. Davis found that even though a Black person can be in the upper class, they would still be culturally considered lower on the social ladder than a lower-class white American. He expands upon this framework of ideology in his book “Deep South”.

Deep South was a collaborative study written by four social anthropologists, Allison Davis, Elizabeth Davis, Burleigh B. Gardner and Mary R. Gardner. Allison Davis’ wife, Elizabeth Davis, also helped him in his other work, Children of Bondage. Their view in Deep South was “discerning the relationships between the biological and the cultural aspects of society is one of the anthropologist’s main problems” (Davis, Davis, et al, 1972, p. 8). With this in mind, Davis and his colleagues observed the “caste-and-class” framework that occurred during the Jim Crow era of the deep south by conducting a study within the rural town of Natchez, Mississippi to compare and contrast the facets of class and caste among Black and white people living there in Mississippi in which they developed a connection between a group’s race and their social status among Black and white people living in the town .

The authors stated that “the new system continues to place [Black people] in inferior positions and all whites in superior positions” (Davis, Davis et al 1972, p. 8). However, they also noted that this framework does have room for change and it was proposed that as time passed and social policies progressed, the shift in caste and class would continue down the path towards true social equality.

In addition to his notable accomplishment of Deep South, Allison Davis wrote other publications like Social-Class Influences Upon Learning, and Children of Bondage both of which expound upon his initial thoughts in Deep South and further contribute to the field of social anthropology in the areas of race, class, and education. Addressing such issues in social policy meant that his views often went against the grain of public opinion. One such example was his work in leading quantitative and empirical studies regarding the cultural biases of intelligence tests (Varel, Pittenger, 2015, P. 353). This work was integral because it helped change current testing practices and gave new opportunities for the lower class and minority groups (Varel, Pittenger 2015, P. 353).

Showing a passion for equality within education, Davis also played an important role in the school desegregation process which came to a head in the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board (Varel, Pittenger, 2015, p. 353). Three areas of his research went on to make cases against segregation, the first being his analysis of racial caste in Deep South. He went on to showcase his ideas of “culture-and-personality thought” in his work Children of Bondage which showed that racial caste and the segregation that followed set hard limits on the lives of Black youth which formed a second case in Brown v. Board (Pitenger, Sutter, 2015, p. 405). Finally, Davis’ explanation of how segregation halted lower class and minority children from being able to learn the dominant American middle-class culture and that it also affected more privileged Americans by stopping them from engaging and learning cultures and associated skills from other social circles (Varel, Pittnger, 2015, p. 405). All of this encompassed his prominence in the anthropological community.

3.7 Vera Mae Green pushed for a more accurate representation of diversity within communities

Written by Ian Ramos and Amanda Zunner-Keating. Edited by Travis DuBry, Lisa Valdez, Lara Braff, and Amanda Zunner-Keating.

Anthropologists know that no racial or cultural group is truly homozygous. When we conduct fieldwork, it’s essential to seek out diverse members of any given community in order to ensure that we are examining the cultural experience from all possible angles and circumstances. Anthropologist Vera Mae Green identified research shortcomings in anthropology by highlighting the fact that the vast diversity within the African Diaspora was not fully recognized in anthropological research. Ultimately, she argued, anthropology’s biases were present in the way that Black people were both researched and represented.

Green’s article titled, “The Confrontation of Diversity within the Black Community” (1970), argues that contemporary scholars focus on the lower economic classes and apply these findings universally rather than acknowledge the diversity within the Black population. In her research, sociologists and anthropologists were shown to choose to only research slums and ghettos as the only type of Black community. This lack of diverse representation limited the social scientist’s ability to gain holistic or realistic understanding of the diverse realities faced by the African diaspora.

According to Green, social science lacked attention to varied types of Black families. It was groundbreaking work as one of the first articles to demand acknowledgement of the heterogeneity of Black communities. Articles like this, combined with Green’s other highly regarded contributions such as her book Migrants in Aruba (1974), where she critiques the prevalent methods of studying Black and Caribbean communities, are what truly make up Green’s lasting legacy that should be studied and remembered for generations.

Vera Mae Green’s work similarly critique anthropology’s historical inability to study the African diaspora in a way that recognizes and embraces diversity among African people (Jackson 2018). Throughout her career, Green argued that the failure to recognize diversity throughout the African Diaspora leads to poor governmental policy that adversely affects the lives of Black people (Jackson 2018). At the time, her perspective changed the way that anthropologists thought about race and cultural research by pushing social scientists to seek diversity of experience rather than constructing a homogeneous representation of each group.

Green’s work is considered to be applied anthropology or anthropology with a practical application. Green’s applied anthropology influenced her students and peers as they recognized the potential policy implications of anthropological research.

3.9 Charles Preston Warren developed new methodologies to better understand racial diversity

Written by Aaron Ebriani. Edited by Brian Pierson, Roxanne Mayoral, and Amanda Zunner-Keating.

Forensic and physical anthropologist, Charles Preston Warren, approached anthropological research with a unique commitment to practical application. Throughout his career, Warren established a technique to identify fallen soldiers on the battlefield, he holistically studied phenotypes, cultural variation, and archeological sites of communities across Southeast Asia, and he mentored upcoming generations of anthropologists.

Before establishing himself as a pioneer in theoretical and applied forensic anthropology, Charles Preston Warren’s education was interrupted by World War II where he served as a staff sergeant in the United States Army Air Corps (Chicago Tribune). Throughout his service, Warren witnessed countless tragedies first-hand including the inability to identify the bodies of loved ones who lost their lives fighting for their country. As the longest-serving military forensic anthropologist, Warren helped identify fallen American soldiers from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War (Baldwin-Jones, 33). In June of 1975, Warren received a Meritorious Civilian Service Award for his work in Thailand, identifying soldiers from the Vietnam War (Chicago Tribune). Warren published and presented his research findings from the war at various academic conferences (Baldwin-Jones, 33).

Following his military career, Warren conducted research across parts of Southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands with a specific focus on darker-skinned communities in that region. These groups were erroneously considered by anthropologists to be one, discrete race and they were named by a racial slur in the dominating scientific literature of the time. Warren was able to establish the fact that these groups actually had great biological diversity (in skin color and hair type), that their cultural and linguistic variations were diverse, and he studied archeological sites in order to track the cultural evolution and migration of these groups (Baldwin-Jones 2018). At the time of his publications on this matter, Warren was the only anthropologist to holistically study the phenotypes, culture, and artifacts of these people (ibid). Warren aptly commented that physical anthropologists had every reason to push back against his conclusions because anthropology, itself, had “locked itself into a racist methodology” that limited the field’s ability to approach an unbiased study of race (ibid).

Unfortunately, throughout his esteemed career, others were known to use Warren’s research without credit to his contributions, essentially stealing his work (Baldwin-Jones, 35–6). Today, Warren is known for a great deal including his work training individuals in identifying America’s dead and developing new methodologies for identification (Baldwin-Jones, 33).

3.10 Ivan Van Sertima researched pre-colonial technologies to combat the myth of African inferiority

Written by: Elyssa Venerable. Edited by Ciarán Brewster, Lisa Matthies-Barnes, and Amanda Zunner-Keating.

Due to colonization, genocide, slavery, and other destructive forces, the general public has a limited knowledge of what life was like in many pre-colonial countries. In African history, for example, many people can only recall as far as the arrival of Europeans. Meaning that various African lifestyles before the 15th century have been neglected in academia. If such information were to be recovered, it could relieve public ignorance of the African people and the African diaspora. Anthropologists concerned with cultural conservation may take great interest in re-writing history as accurately as possible.

Anthropologist Ivan Van Sertima sought to deconstruct the “myths about [Black] fundamental inferiority” through his research and publications on the African presence in the Americas prior to the arrival of Christopher Columbus (Cush, 2009). He taught African Studies at Rutgers University, as well as delivered over 100 lectures at universities across North America, South America, and Europe where he offered support for his theses. In 1987, he was called on to present this research and his thesis in front of a Congressional Committee. By founding The Journal of African Civilizations (1979) as a primary editor, as well as having published numerous anthologies, Van Sertima brought a deeper insight of Black history to Anthropology and was awarded the Clarence L. Hotle Prize for “excellence in Literature and Humanities” in 1981.

Throughout his time of research in the sixties to mid-eighties, his ideas were regarded to be outside of the mainstream. Though, Van Sertima continued to share his work through his publications and teachings. He argued that early Africans possessed intellectual technological capabilities that were seldomly represented by western academia. In addition to his most popular argument regarding Africans in the New World, Van Sertima also asserted that early Africans also had substantial influence in Asia and Europe. His research finds that in some “historical periods”, early Africans were found in both continents as “creators, masters, teachers, invaders and traders” not “as servants” (Miller, 1987).

Van Sertima’s work provides the Black diasporic community the comfort of an elaborated origin. By challenging academia professionals from Samuel A. Cartwright to Thomas Jefferson who promoted Black inferiority, Van Sertima dedicated his life work to reporting on the untold events in Black history. He told the African story through the African lens, rather than a European lens. In doing so, he platformed the voices of other Black academics in his The Journal of African Civilizations (1979), to share the voyages, scientific contributions and behavior of Africans and the African diaspora with the public.

Van Sertima was determined to curate and compare intricate evidence from various historians of various decades. His articles and books emphasize the fact that the ancient African peoples were voyagers, and that these advancements were not inferior to those of white counterparts. With so much missing history, Ivan Van Sertima’s work paves the way for the next generation of Black and Brown anthropologists to re-discover their heritage’s pre-colonial history.

Chapter 3 Bibliography

• “Anthropology for the 21st Century.” Essentials of Cultural Anthropology: a Toolkit for a Global Age, by Kenneth J. Guest, W. W. Norton and Company, 2020, pp. 9–69.
• Baldwin-Jones, Alice. “Charles Preston Warren II.” The Second Generation of African American Pioneers in Anthropology, 15 Nov. 2018, pp. 33–41., doi:10.5406/j.ctv9b2vtr.5.
• Baker, Lee D. From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of Race, 1896-1954. University of California Press, 2007.
• Buck, Pem Davidson. In/Equality: An Alternative Anthropology. CAT Pub., 2016.
• Bejarano, Alonso Carolina. Decolonizing Ethnography: Undocumented Immigrants and New Directions in Social Science. Duke University Press, 2019.
• “CHARLES P. WARREN, 66, ANTHROPOLOGY PROFESSOR.” Chicago Tribune, 28 Dec. 1987, webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JWdLeAimc6MJ:https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-12-28-8704060463-story.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
• “Charles Preston Warren (1921–1987).” Association of Black Anthropologists, aba.americananthro.org/charles-preston-warren-1921–1987/.
• Cole, Johnnetta B. “Vera Mae Green, 1928-1982.” American Anthropologist, vol. 84, no. 3, [American Anthropological Association, Wiley], 1982, pp. 633–35, http://www.jstor.org/stable/677338.
• Cush, I. K. (2009). Adieu, Ivan Sertima. New African, 486, 92.
• David A. Varel Visiting Assistant Professor of History. “Allison Davis: Forgotten Black Scholar Studied – and FACED – Structural Racism in 1940s America.” The Conversation, 29 Jan. 2021, theconversation.com/allison-davis-forgotten-black-scholar-studied-and-faced-structural-racism-in-1940s-america-71933.
• David Varel, and Mark Pittenger. “Race, Class, And Socialization: Allison Davis and Twentieth-Century American Social Thought.” 2015
• Davis, Allison, Davis, Elizabeth et al. Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class. 1972.
• Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. University Press, 2001.
• “Dr. Vera Mae Green.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Jan. 1982, https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/18/obituaries/dr-vera-mae-green.html.
• Frank, Rebecca, et al. “Exercise 3: Genetics.” LAVC Anthro 111 Lab Manual for Human Biological Evolution, edited by Brian Pierson, 7th ed., 2019.
• Gibbs “peoples of Africa”
• Gourevitch, Philip. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda. Picador/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2004.
• GREEN, VERA M. “The Confrontation of Diversity within the Black Community.” Human Organization, vol. 29, no. 4, Society for Applied Anthropology, 1970, pp. 267–72, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44125052.
• Haslip‐Viera, G., De Montellano, B., & Barbour, W. (1997). Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima’s Afrocentricity and the Olmecs. Current Anthropology, 38(3), 419-441.
• “Ivan Van Sertima.” The Journal of Pan African studies 3.1 (2009): 237–240.
• Jackson, Antoinette. “Vera Mae Green: Quacker Roots and Applied Anthropology.” The Second Generation of African American Pioneers in Anthropology, 15 Nov. 2018, pp. 33–41., doi:10.5406/j.ctv9b2vtr.5.
• “Kigali Genocide Memorial.” 22 Dec. 2017.
• Khanna, N., and C. A. Harris. “Teaching Race as a Social Construction: Two Interactive Class Exercises.” Teaching Sociology 37.4 (2009): 369-78. Web.
• Kittles, Rick. “The Biology of Race in the Absence of Biological Races.” TEDx Talks. Northwestern University. 23 Jan. 2011. Speech.
• Mascia-Lees, Frances E. Gender and Difference in a Globalizing World: Twenty-First-Century Anthropology. Waveland Press Inc, 2010.
• Miller, C. (1987). The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 20(2), 346-348.
• Rosenberg, Noah A., et al. “Genetic Structure of Human Populations.” Science, vol. 298, no. 5602, 2002, pp. 2381–2385., https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078311.
• Solheim, Wilhelm G. II. “Charles Preston Warren 1921–1987.” Asian Perspectives, vol. 27, 1990.
• Van Sertima, I. (1983). Blacks in science: Ancient and modern. Transaction Publishers.
• Van Sertima, Ivan. They Came before Columbus. 1st ed. New York: Random House, 1976. Print.
• Van Sertima, I. (1984). Black women in antiquity. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Books.
• Van Sertima, I. (1992). African science before the birth of the `new’ world. Black Collegian, 22(3), 69.
• Van Sertima, I. (1997). African presence in early Europe. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
• Walker-Pacheco, Suzanne E. “Race: Biologically Real? .” Exploring Physical Anthropology: A Lab Manual and Workbook, Morton Pub. Co., Englewood, CO, 2010.
• Willis , William S. “Skeletons in the Anthropological Closet .” Reinventing Anthropology, edited by Dell Hymes, Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 2002.
• Zuberi, Tukufu, et al. “Making Sense of Race and Racial Classification.” White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2008.