This statement refers to one of the touchiest subjects in human evolution. Race commonly refers to certain physical similarities, such as skin color or eye shape, that are shared by a group of people and are used to mark or separate them from others as stated in by Koester and Lustig in Intercultural Competence. But is race primarily a biological term ? If not, is it then the basis for prejudicial communication by forming a major obstacle to intercultural communication ?
Homo sapiens sapiens race is currently the biological race in our species. However, that does not mean that what we call “races” don’t exist. Indeed societies, like the USA, construct racial classifications, not as units of biology, but as ways to lump together groups of people with varying historical, linguistic, ethnic, religious, or other background. These categories are not static, they change over time as societies grow and diversify and alter their social, political and historical make-ups. For example, in the USA the Irish were not always “white,” and despite their government’s legal definition, most Hispanics/Latinos are not seen as white today by themselves or by others. Thus, one’s “race” would be better understood as a social and legal construction than a biological one.
Because the thing is, there is no genetic sequence unique to blacks or whites or Asians. In fact, these categories don’t reflect biological groupings at all. There is more genetic variation in the diverse populations from the continent of Africa than exists in all populations from outside of Africa combined, as once said there is a much greater difference within a race than between two races. There are no specific racial genes. There is no inherently biological reason that most Olympics’ winners runners are black or most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are