Pergi ke kandungan

Kaum

Daripada Wikipedia, ensiklopedia bebas.
Rencana ini mengenai kaum sebagai kaedah konseptual untuk mengkategorikan populasi manusia. Untuk terma "kaum" dalam Biologi, sila lihat Kaum (biologi).

Kaum atau ras ialah sekelompok manusia berdasarkan kualiti fizikal atau sosial yang dikongsi ke dalam kategori yang umumnya dilihat berbeza oleh masyarakat.[1] Istilah ini pertama kali digunakan untuk merujuk kepada penutur bahasa umum dan kemudian untuk menunjukkan hubungan nasional. Menjelang abad ke-17 istilah ini mula merujuk kepada sifat fizikal (fenotipikal). Ilmu pengetahuan moden menganggap kaum sebagai konstruk sosial, identiti yang diberikan berdasarkan peraturan yang dibuat oleh masyarakat.[2] Walaupun sebahagiannya berdasarkan kesamaan fizikal dalam kumpulan, kaum tidak mempunyai makna fizikal atau biologi yang wujud.[1][3][4]

Konsep sosial dan kumpulan kaum berbeza-beza dari masa ke masa, sering melibatkan taksonomi rakyat yang menentukan jenis individu yang penting berdasarkan sifat yang dirasakan.[5] Hari ini, para saintis menganggap esensialisme biologi seperti itu kuno,[6] dan secara amnya tidak menggalakkan penjelasan perkauman untuk pembezaan kolektif dalam sifat fizikal dan tingkah laku.[7][8][9][10][11]

Walaupun terdapat kesepakatan ilmiah yang luas bahawa konsep kaum oleh enssensialisme dan tipologi tidak dapat dipertahankan,[12][13][14][15][16][17] para saintis di seluruh dunia terus berkonsepkan kaum dengan cara yang berbeza-beza.[18] Walaupun sebilangan penyelidik terus menggunakan konsep kaum untuk membuat perbezaan antara set kabur bagi tingkah laku atau perbezaan tingkah laku yang dapat dilihat, komuniti saintifik yang lain menunjukkan bahawa idea kaum secara semula jadi naif[7] atau terlalu mudah.[19] Masih ada yang berpendapat bahawa, di antara manusia, kaum tidak mempunyai makna taksonomi kerana semua manusia hidup tergolong dalam subspesies yang sama, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21]

Sejak separuh kedua abad ke-20, perkaitan kaum dengan teori perkauman saintifik yang tidak bertanggungjawab telah menyumbang kepada istilah kaum menjadi semakin dilihat sebahagian besarnya sebagai sistem pengkelasan pseudosaintifik. Walaupun masih digunakan dalam konteks umum, kaum sering digantikan oleh istilah yang kurang samar-samar: populasi, orang, kumpulan etnik, atau komuniti, bergantung pada konteks.[22][23]

Rujukan

[sunting | sunting sumber]
  1. ^ a b Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama Barnshaw
  2. ^ Gannon, Megan (5 February 2016). "Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue". Scientific American (dalam bahasa Inggeris). Dicapai pada 2020-09-08.
  3. ^ Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama Britannica
  4. ^ Yudell, M.; Roberts, D.; DeSalle, R.; Tishkoff, S. (2016-02-05). "Taking race out of human genetics". Science (dalam bahasa Inggeris). 351 (6273): 564–565. Bibcode:2016Sci...351..564Y. doi:10.1126/science.aac4951. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 26912690. S2CID 206639306.
  5. ^ See:
  6. ^ Sober, Elliott (2000). Philosophy of biology (ed. 2nd). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. m/s. 148–151. ISBN 978-0813391267.
  7. ^ a b Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama Lee, Mountain; et al. 2008
  8. ^ Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama aaa
  9. ^ Keita, S O Y; Kittles, R A; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term.
  10. ^ Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (...) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity.
  11. ^ Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press. The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings.
  12. ^ Race Is Real, but not in the way Many People Think, Agustín Fuentes, Psychology Today.com, 9 April 2012
  13. ^ The Royal Institution - panel discussion - What Science Tells us about Race and Racism. 16 March 2016.
  14. ^ "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'". Nature. Dicapai pada 18 November 2014. Ancestry, then, is a more subtle and complex description of an individual's genetic makeup than is race. This is in part a consequence of the continual mixing and migration of human populations throughout history. Because of this complex and interwoven history, many loci must be examined to derive even an approximate portrayal of individual ancestry.
  15. ^ Michael White. "Why Your Race Isn't Genetic". Pacific Standard. Dicapai pada 13 December 2014. [O]ngoing contacts, plus the fact that we were a small, genetically homogeneous species to begin with, has resulted in relatively close genetic relationships, despite our worldwide presence. The DNA differences between humans increase with geographical distance, but boundaries between populations are, as geneticists Kenneth Weiss and Jeffrey Long put it, "multilayered, porous, ephemeral, and difficult to identify." Pure, geographically separated ancestral populations are an abstraction: "There is no reason to think that there ever were isolated, homogeneous parental populations at any time in our human past."
  16. ^ "The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States" (PDF). The American Journal of Human Genetics. Dicapai pada 22 December 2014. The relationship between self-reported identity and genetic African ancestry, as well as the low numbers of self-reported African Americans with minor levels of African ancestry, provide insight into the complexity of genetic and social consequences of racial categorization, assortative mating, and the impact of notions of "race" on patterns of mating and self-identity in the US. Our results provide empirical support that, over recent centuries, many individuals with partial African and Native American ancestry have "passed" into the white community, with multiple lines of evidence establishing African and Native American ancestry in self-reported European Americans.
  17. ^ Carl Zimmer. "White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier". The New York Times. Dicapai pada 24 December 2014. On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans. Latinos, on the other hand, had genes that were on average 65.1 percent European, 18 percent Native American, and 6.2 percent African. The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American. These broad estimates masked wide variation among individuals.
  18. ^ Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama nih10
  19. ^ Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama Graves 2001
  20. ^ Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama Keita2004
  21. ^ Ralat petik: Tag <ref> tidak sah; tiada teks disediakan bagi rujukan yang bernama AAPA
  22. ^ "Race2". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Diarkibkan daripada yang asal pada 2012-07-11. Dicapai pada 5 October 2012. 1. Each of the major division of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics [example elided]. 1.1. mass noun The fact or condition of belonging to a racial division or group; the qualities or characteristics associated with this. 1.2. A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group [example elided]. Provides 8 definitions, from biological to literary; only the most pertinent have been quoted.
  23. ^ Keita, S O Y; Kittles, R A; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Many terms requiring definition for use describe demographic population groups better than the term 'race' because they invite examination of the criteria for classification.

Lihat juga

[sunting | sunting sumber]
Diambil daripada "https://ms.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaum&oldid=5664988"