American Negroes were explicitly defined as hybrids of European, African, and in some cases Native American (then known as “Indian”) ancestry.Posted in Excerpts/Quotes on 2016-07-31 21:05Z by Steven |
American Negroes were explicitly defined as hybrids of European, African, and in some cases Native American (then known as “Indian”) ancestry. As a result, among other things, skeletal and living Negro populations served as a historical record of social and sexual liaisons between blacks and whites in the United States. This particular biocultural interface was an integral part of framing studies that examined differences in skeletal morphology and phenotype between racial groups. At the same time, Negroes were also considered to be a biologically discrete racial group unto themselves. This “fact” justified the population being situated as an anatomical landmark of sorts for mapping and identifying distinct racial characters. This simultaneous construction of the American Negro as both a hybrid and racially distinct suggests that multiple definitions of race and understandings of racial difference were at work in constructing the American Negro as a research subject. This is not surprising when we consider that scholars involved in this work represented a variety of perspectives on human biological diversity. As such, this research can be considered a matter of “boundary work” in the midst of methodologies and subjects that cannot be easily or distinctly categorized (Lipphardt 2010). This also suggests that these studies must be considered within the larger context of bioanthropological interest in studying mixed-race populations to identify the source of biological change in humans. Scientists inside and outside of the United States engaged in research to determine whether or not this change occurred within populations by way of selection or solely by interbreeding with different groups.
Rachel J. Watkins, “Biohistorical Narratives of Racial Difference in the American Negro: Notes toward a Nuanced History of American Physical Anthropology,” Current Anthropology, Volume 53, Number S5, April 1, 2012. S197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/662416.