PAPER -- 1 , CLASS --6
Ethnicity and Race
The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological and social-
cultural factors respectively. Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such
as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color etc. Ethnicity, however, refers to
cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language.
An example of race is brown, white, or black skin (all from various parts of the world),
while an example of ethnicity is German or Spanish ancestry (regardless of race) or
Han Chinese. Our race is determined by how we look while our ethnicity is
determined based on the social and cultural groups we belong to. We can have more
than one ethnicities but we are said to have one race, even if it's "mixed race".
Comparison chart
Ethnicity Race
Definition An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population The term race refers to the concept of
group whose members identify with each dividing people into populations or
other on the basis of common nationality or groups on the basis of various sets of
shared cultural traditions. physical characteristics (which
usually result from genetic ancestry).
Significance Ethnicity connotes shared cultural traits and Race presumes shared biological or
a shared group history. Some ethnic groups genetic traits, whether actual or
also share linguistic or religious traits, while asserted. In the early 19th century,
others share a common group history but not racial differences were ascribed
a common language or religion. significance in areas of intelligence,
health, and personality. There is no
evidence validating these ideas.
Genealogy Ethnicity is defined in terms of shared Racial categories result from a shared
genealogy, whether actual or presumed. genealogy due to geographical
Typically, if people believe they descend isolation. In the modern world this
from a particular group, and they want to be isolation has been broken down and
associated with that group, then they are in racial groups have mixed.
fact members of that group.
Distinguishing Ethnic groups distinguish themselves Races are assumed to be
Factors differently from one time period to another. distinguished by skin color, facial
They typically seek to define themselves but type, etc. However, the scientific
also are defined by the stereotypes of basis of racial distinctions is very
1
Ethnicity Race
dominant groups. weak. Scientific studies show that
racial genetic differences are weak
except in skin color.
Nationalism In 19th century, there was development of In 19th century, the concept of
the political ideology of ethnic nationalism -- nationalism was often used to justify
creating nations based on a presumed shared the domination of one race over
ethnic origins (e.g. Germany, Italy, another within a specific nation.
Sweden...)
Legal System In the last decades of the 20th century, in the In the last decades of the 20th
U.S. and in most nations, the legal system as century, the legal system as well as
well as the official ideology prohibited the official ideology emphasized
ethnic-based discrimination. racial equality.
Conflicts Often brutal conflicts between ethnic groups Racial prejudice remains a continuing
have existed throughout history and across problem throughout the world.
the world. But most ethnic groups in fact get However, there are fewer race-based
along peacefully within one another in most conflicts in the 21st century than in
nations most of the time. the past.
Examples of Conflict between Tamil and Conflict between white and African-
conflict Sinhalese populations in Sri Lanka, or the American people in the U.S.,
Hutu and Tutsi people in Rwanda. especially during the civil rights
movement.
Difference Between Race and Racism
Though race and racism appears to be similar, they are not, and there is a definite difference
between Race and Racism. Both race and racism can be seen in almost all the societies. Race is
a way of differentiating among human kind, based on the biological, cultural and social
relationships, etc. Racism can be defined as a way of treating others based on their race. Both
exist in social constructions and the attitudes of people decide the influence of these on the
total population of the country. Race has made a lot of different social groups all over the world
and because of that we can see racism among these groups.
What is the difference between Race and Racism?
2
When we consider about race and racism, there are a lot of similarities and differences
which we can identify.
• Each human being in the world belongs to a particular race but not all humans share
racism.
• Also, race is decided depending on the physical traits, color, culture and social
relationships, etc. whereas racism is a feeling that is upheld by individuals.
• On the other hand, race is biologically inherited and racism is developed later in life.
Individuals cannot change their race, but they can change their racial attitudes later in their
life.
• Also, racism is influenced by environmental and social factors as well.
However, race and racism can be seen all over the world and these have been used to
differentiate people into several groups.
Racism is an international issue
Racism is the belief that characteristics and abilities can be attributed to people simply on the
basis of their race and that some racial groups are superior to others. Racism and discrimination
have been used as powerful weapons encouraging fear or hatred of others in times of conflict and
war, and even during economic downturns.
From the institutionalized racism especially in colonial times, when racial beliefs — even
eugenics — were not considered something wrong, to recent times where the effects of neo-
Nazism is still felt, Europe is a complex area with many cultures in a relatively small area of land
that has seen many conflicts throughout history. (Many of these conflicts have had trade,
resources and commercial rivalry at their core, but national identities have often added fuel to
some of these conflicts.)
In various places throughout Western Europe, in 2002, as Amnesty International highlights, there
has been a rise in racist attacks and sentiments against both Arabs and Jews, in light of the
increasing hostilities in the Middle East.
Into 2010 and problems of racism in Italy continue. For example, a wave of violence against
African farm workers in southern Italy left some 70 people injured. This resulted in police
having to evacuate over 300 workers from the region. The workers were easy targets
being exploited as fruit pickers living in difficult conditions. They earn starvation
3
wages according to a BBC reporter, doing backbreaking work which Italians do not want in a
labor market controlled by the local mafia.
In 1997, Human Rights Watch noted that, The U.K. has one of the highest levels of racially-
motivated violence and harassment in Western Europe, and the problem is getting worse. In
April 1999, London saw two bombs explode in predominantly ethnic minority areas, in the space
of one week, where a Nazi group has claimed responsibility. The summer of 2001 saw many
race-related riots in various parts of northern England.
Australia has also had a very racist past in which apartheid has been practiced and where
indigenous Aboriginal people have lost almost all their land and suffered many prejudices. In the
past, the notorious policy that led to the Stolen Generation was practiced. This was the
institutionalized attempt to prevent Aboriginal children (and thus future generations) from being
socialized into Aboriginal culture. (This also occurred in various parts of the Americas too.)
In 2009 and 2010, there were increasing racist attacks against Indians with many Indians in
Melbourne fearing racist attacks and lynchings were increasing. It even led to the Indian
government issuing an advisory warning about the dangers of traveling to Melbourne.
In Zimbabwe, there has been increasing racism against the white farmers, due to poverty
and lack of land ownership by Africans.
South Africa until recently suffered from Apartheid, which legally segregated the African
population from the Europeans.
In a number of countries in the Middle East, discriminatory practice has been commonplace,
mostly against foreign workers who work in low wage conditions, such as domestic workers.
Reports of taking away foreign worker’s passports and treating them as second class citizens are
unfortunately commonplace.
In India, there has long been discrimination against what is considered the lowest class in
Hinduism, the Dalits, or untouchables, as well as sectarian and religious violence. Although it
has been outlawed by the Indian Constitution, the caste system was a way to structure inequality
into the system itself. And while outlawed, the social barriers it creates is still prevalent in rural
areas where most Indians live. It also features in the view of Hindu extremists and traditionalists.
At various times, there have also been tensions between different religious groups, such as
Hindus and Muslims with both sides having their fair share of extremists. While this is not
racism, technically — as people of all classes are of the same race — the prejudice that had come
with the caste system is quite similar to what is seen with racism.
A report from Survival International about the plight of the Innu people in Canada also reveals
how racism can be a factor. In the words of the authors, the report reveals how racist government
policies, under the guise of benevolent progress, have crippled the Innu of eastern Canada — a
once self-sufficient and independent people. (While this report is about the problems of an
4
indigenous people in Canada, it is a common story throughout history for many peoples and
cultures.)
A UN Global Conference to discuss racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance was held from 31st August to 7 September 2001.While it was brave enough for the
United Nations to attempt to hold such a meeting, it proved to be a heated challenge. While all
nations are good at being critical of others (and often very accurately, although often not!), when
it comes to one’s own criticisms, most would be uncomfortable to say the least. As an example:
United States and Europe were against effective discussions of slavery reparations (and
sent in only low-level delegates — a possible sign on how they really feel about this
conference, and what it is about)
Israel and United States were against discussing the possibility that Zionism is racist
against Palestinians, causing both to walk out of the conference altogether
India was against including discussions about caste-based discrimination
Some Arab nations were against discussions on oppression of Kurds or Arab slave trade
etc.
HUMAN PHYSIQUE AND SOMATOTYPE
Human Physique : Body physique refers to an individual’s body form, the configuration of the entire
body rather than its specific features. Physique has been related to a variety of behavioral, occupational,
disease, and performance variables, primarily in adults. The history of classification and analysis of
human physique can be traced back to the very ancient times when people with strong bodies who had
the ability to fight, hunt and organize achieved distinction and got noticed by the society.
In 5 th century BC, Hippocrates (a great Greek Philosopher and Physician) described two different
types of people as follows: Habitus phthisicus: People with thin and lean body with long extremities.
These individuals had a greater susceptibility to tuberculosis. Habitus apoplecticus: People with short,
thick and massive bodies who were very much prone to the diseases of the cardiovascular system.
Somatotype refers to a quantified expression and description of the
present morphological conformation or physique of a person and the
process of appraising and defining it is known as somatotyping.
Somatotyping is an outstanding tool to explore the spatial temporal variations and observe the changes
occurring as a result of physical exercise on human physique. Moreover it combines an appraisal of
relative adiposity, musculoskeletal robustness and linearity into a three scale rating. The development of
anthropometry added new dimensions to the study of morphology. Somatotype distribution in various
ethnic groups are markedly more restricted and dominated by extreme somatotype than the nationality
samples. Studies reveal that Eskimos (Alaska) are primarily endo-mesomorphic, Manus (Papua New-
Guinea) and Caingang (Brazil) presents conspicuously mesomorphic somatotypes with extremes towards
5
mesomorphy. Strikingly, extreme ectomorphic somatotype is shown by Nilotes of the Nile valley in
Africa and many population groups living in hot environments of the tropics.
METHODS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF PHYSIQUE
As mentioned, there are different conventions which have described human forms and nearly all
categorize physiques into three categories corresponding to lateral, musculature and linear types.
Viola’s Method (1921)
Viola, an Italian physician proposed a classification of biotype (physique) based on a comprehensive
system of anthropometric measurements. For general purposes, he took ten measurements:
a) Sternum length
b) Upper abdominal height
c) Lower abdominal height
d) Length of the arm
e) Length of the leg
f) Transverse thoracic diameter
g) Antero-posterior thoracic diameter
h) Transverehypochondric diameter
i) Antero- posterior hypochondric diameter
j) Bi-iliac or transverse pelvic diameter
Three compound measurements namely stature, trunk height and total abdominal height were also
considered. By manipulating these measurements he derived a measure of trunk volume and four
morphological indices namely thoracic index, upper abdominal index, lower abdominal index and total
abdominal index. He differentiated three morphological types:
1) Longytype: The longytype had long limbs relative to their trunk volume, large thorax relative to
their abdomen, a large transverse diameter relative to anterior posterior diameter.
2) Brachitype: The brachitype was characterised by massiveness and robustness of body, the reverse
of longytype. They had short limb relative to trunk, short transverse diameter relative to the
antero-posterior diameter, short thorax relative to the abdomen.
3) Normatype: The normatypes were in between longitype and brachytype characterised by normally
proportional limbs versus trunk, thorax versus abdomen, transverse versus antero-posterior widths.
6
4) Mixed: Mixed type shows disproportion in human body. It lacks uniformity in the physique.
The four indices failed to agree amongst themselves, one placing the individual in one category and
another else where. It is obvious that Viola’s biotypology based on anthropometric measurements
is morphological in orientation.
Kretschmer’s Method
Kretschmer was a German psychiatrist. His system of classification relied entirely on anthroposcopic
inspection. He illustrated four physical and psychic types derived from his clinical observations and
minimum measurements:
1) Pyknic: The pyknic was broad, round and fat, sturdy and stocky.
2) Athletic: The athletic was heavily muscled with large thorax and shoulders and narrow hips.
3) Asthenic: The asthenic was long, thin and linear.
4) Dysplastic : It denoted the incompatible mixture of different types in different parts of the body.
Later he substituted the word leptosome for asthenic.
Criticism
This system is now entirely outdated.
a) It supposed that it was possible to classify people into separate discrete types. This assumption was
widespread up to about the 1930’s. The later practitioners had to admit that most people fell in
between the established and obviously fairly extreme types.
b) It had also been criticized of limited sampling, scanty measurements, lack of indices, subjective
estimates, and failure to classify data according to age, sex and social status.
Sheldon’s Method
William Herbert Sheldon (1898-1977) was an American psychologist and physician. He introduced the
concept and word ‘somatotype’ in ‘The Varieties of Human Physique’ (1940). He defined somatotype as
‘quantification of three primary components determining the morphological structure of an individual
expressed as a series of three numerals, the first referring to endomorphy, the second to mesomorphy,
and the third to ectomorphy’. The conceptual approach is based on the premise that continuous
variation occurs in the distribution of physique and thus the variation is related to differential
contributions of three specific components, named on the basis of three embryonic germ layers:
v Endomorphy: It is characterised by the predominance of the digestive organs and softness and
roundness of contours throughout the body. In other words, with increased fat storage, a wide
waist and a large bone structure. Endomorphs are referred to as fat.
v Mesomorphy: It is characterised by the predominance of muscle and bone, skin is made thick by
heavy connective tissue. The physique is normally heavy, hard and rectangular in outline. In other
7
words, with medium bones and solid torso, low fat levels, wide shoulders with a narrow waist.
Mesomorphs are referred to as muscular.
v Ectomorphy: It is characterised by linearity and fragility of build; with limited muscular
development and predominance of surface area over body mass in other words, with long and thin
muscles or limbs or low fat storage. Ectomorphs are referred to as slim.
The contribution of the three components defines an individual’s somatotype.
Method
Sheldon’s method of estimating somatotype utilises height and weight and three standardised
photograph of front, side and rear views of the nude subjects i.e., 4000 college men standing before a
calibrated grid. He summarized his photoscopic (he called it anthroposcopic) somatotype method as
follows:
Front Rear Back
view view view
a) Calculation of height/³ √weight ratio (HWR) or reciprocal ponderal index
b) Calculation of ratios of 17 transverse measurements/diameters (taken from photographic
negatives) to stature.
1) Four on head and neck
2) Three on the thoracic trunk
3) Three on the arms
4) Three on the abdominal trunk
5) Four on the legs
8
c) Inspection of the somatotype photograph, referring to a table of known somatotypes distributed
against the criterion of HWR, comparing the photograph with a file of correctly somatotyped
photographs, and recording the estimated somatotype.
d) Comparison of the 17 transverse measurements ratios with the range of scores for each ratio, to
give final score
Each component of physique is assessed individually. Rating are based on a 7point scale, with 1
representing the least expression, 4 representing moderate expression and 7 representing the fullest
expression of that particular component being assessed. The rating of each component determines the
somatotype which is expressed by three numerals to sum of no less than 9 and no more than 12. The
first number refers to endomorphy, second to mesomorphy and third to ectomorphy. Sheldon identified
76 different somatotype and most common are 3-4-4, 4-3-3 and 3-5-2.
The extreme somatotypes are:
1) Endomorphy
a) Various parts of the body are soft and round
b) Head is round
c) Abdomen is flat
d) Arms and legs are weak and fatty
e) Upper arms and thighs are fatty
f) Wrist and ankles are splendidly built
g) Less linearity and less muscularity
h) More fat deposition
i) Somatotype rating is 7-1-1
2) Mesomorphy
a) Bony and Muscular
b) Heavy, coarse physique with rectangular contour
c) Their head is massive and cubical
d) Shoulder and chest broad
e) Less fat and less linearity
f) Somatotype rating is 1-7-1
9
3) Ectomorphy
a) Typical characteristic is linearity
b) Face is thin
c) Forehead is high
d) Chin is receding
e) Chest and abdomen is thin and narrow
f) Less fat and less muscularity
g) Somatotype rating is 1-1-7
Criticism
v The somatotype changes: Sheldon stated that the somatotype is a trajectory along which an
individual under average nutritional condition and absence of major illness is destined to travel. He
used the word ‘morphophenotype’ to refer to the present physique and ‘morphogenetic’ to refer
to genetically determined physique. He maintained that somatotype do not change throughout
because it does not change significantly for any measurements except where the fat is deposited.
Somatotype is not objective: Sheldon claimed that making measurements on photographs has
raised the subjective technique to strictly scientific and objective level. He developed his own
anthropometric method which depends upon soft part outline in the photograph more than
osseous landmark. There are two, not three primary components, for endomorphy and
ectomorphy are essentially the inverse of each other. Somatotyping omits the factor of size: In
original method somatotype measured only body shape independent of body size. The method
of somatotyping was developed on adult males. Criteria for defining somatotype components in
children or females were not published.
HEATH-CARTER METHOD OF SOMATOTYPING
Heath (1963) described certain limitations in Sheldon’s method and suggested
the following modifications to overcome them:
* Opening the component rating scales to accommodate a broader range of variation by
replacing the arbitrary 7-point scale with a rating scale of equal appearing intervals. Beginning
theoretically with zero (in practical beginning with one half) and having no arbitrary end point.
* Eliminated the unjustified restrictions of sums of components to between 9 to 12.
*Construct a table that preserves a logical linear relationship between somatotype rating and
HWRs.
10
*Adopt a single table of HWRs (Height-Weight Ratios) and somatotype suitable for both sexes
at all ages.
Heath and Carter combined both photoscopic and anthropometric procedures to estimate
somatotype. Somatotype is defined as representing the individual’s “present morphological
conformation; expressed in a three numeral rating of primary components of physique that
identify individual features of morphology and body composition”. In practice, the Heath-Carter
method of somatotyping is primarily in its anthropometric form. Anthropometry is more
objective and obtaining standardised somatotype photographs is difficult and costly.
The somatotype components and the dimensions used in the Heath-Carter anthropometric
protocol to derive each component are as follows:
1) Endomorphy (1/2-16th scale): The first component, endomorphy, is described from the
sum of three skinfolds namely the triceps, subscapular, and suprailiac. It refers to
relative fatness of a physique.
2) Mesomorphy (up to 17th scale): The second component, mesomorphy, refers to relative
musculoskeletal development adjusted for stature. It is described as expressing fat-free mass
relative to stature. Mesomorphy is derived from biepicondylar breadths of the humerus and
femur, flexed-arm circumference corrected for the thickness of triceps skinfold and calf
circumference corrected for the thickness of the medial calf skinfold corrected of the thickness
of medial calf skinfold. Correcting the circumferences is simply a matter of subtracting the
skinfold thickness from circumference. These four measurements are then adjusted for stature.
3) Ectomorphy (up to 9th scale): The third component, ectomorphy, is the relative linearity of
build. It is based on the reciprocal ponderal index. There are three methods for obtaining a
Heath- Carter somatotype. They are as follows: 1) The photoscopic somatotype 2) The
anthropometric somatotype 3) The anthropometric plus photoscopic somatotype The
anthropometric somatotype can be calculated from the 10 anthropometric dimensions viz.
height, weight and skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, supraspinale, and medial calf), two girths
(flexed upper arm and calf) and biepicondylar breadths (humerus and femur).The algorithms for
estimating a somatotype with the Heath-Carter anthropometric protocol are as follows:
a) Endomorphy = -0.7182+0.1451 (X)-0.00068(X²)+0.0000014(X³)
Where, X = ∑3 skinfolds viz. triceps, subscapular and supraspinale skinfolds;
and adjustment for stature is made where X is multiplied by 170.18/height
(cm).
b) Mesomorphy = (0.858 × humerus breadth + 0.601 × femur breadth + 0.188
× corrected arm girth +0.161 × corrected calf girth)-( 0.131× stature)+4.50
Where, corrected arm girth = Arm girth – triceps skinfold in cm and corrected
calf girth = calf girth – medial calf skinfold in cm.
c) Ectomorphy = 0.732× HWR -28.58 (If HWR>40.75)
11
= HWR × 0.463-17.63 (If HWR>38.25 but <40.75)
= 0.1 (If HWR=39.25)
Where HWR = stature/ ³ weight (kg).
The advantages of anthropometric somatotype are it provides
1) an objective method of somatotyping.
2) the best estimate of a criterion somatotype in the absence of a photograph
Limitations
1) The first component endomorphy represents the fat free mass and second mesomorphy components
reflect the fat mass. The body components present specific body composition concepts, which means it
partitions body weight into its lean and fat components. Sheldon’s original somatotype concept
however refers only to body shape and not to body composition. Although, both methods use
the term somatotype, but it has different meaning in each.
2) Endomorphy has been found to correlate moderately well in terms of body fat, though fat
free mass correlates rather poorly with mesomorphy. Moreover, the association of
mesomorphy and limb muscularity is generally low in athletes .
3) The variation in the reproducibility of somatotype components in the Heath-Carter
anthropometric protocol is guided by intra-observer and inter-observer measurement. An error
of 0.5 somatotype units is there when the body dimensions are measured by experienced
technicians.
4) The validity of this method for children 6 years and below has not been established. This
could be one of the factors attributed to studies projecting high ratings of mesomorphy in
young children
12