Lewontin's article addresses the misconceptions surrounding human races, emphasizing that 'race' should be seen as a biological concept rather than a social construct. He argues that significant genetic variations exist among individuals, and that racial categories often misrepresent these genetic differences. The document highlights the need for clarity on the intersection of race and genetics, while questioning the implications of these classifications for social relations and medical practices.

1. Ch 1-5 25Ch 1-5 26Ch 1-5 27Ch 1-5 28Ch 1-5 29Ch 1-5 30Ch
1-5 31Ch 1-5 32Ch 1-5 33Ch 1-5 34Ch 1-5 35Ch 1-5 36Ch 1-5
37
Reading Response
By R.C. Lewontin, Confusions about Human Races,Published,

2. Jun 07, 2006, http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/
The author used the prose form of writing, in which the article
has paragraphs only, but no sections. While there is a flow of
ideas, this essay is not easy to read because of the extensive
writing, which makes the reader feel overloaded with
information. In addition to that, the document does not have any
chronology of events, and the author does not state how he
intends to write his ideas.
The central claim of this article is the fact that many people
confuse human races. He holds that “race” is a biological aspect
of variations in the human species, but the world takes it for a
social construct of classifying people.
Lewontin holds that “As a biological construct rather than a
social one, people cease to see “race” as a significant reality
that characterizes the species of humans.”
Keywords – race, genetics, human, biological, and variations
New Vocabulary: Australian Aborigines, Negritos, Inuit, Tay-
Sachs disease, Ashkenazi Jew.
Summary: Lewontin’s Confusions about Human Races is a
reminder to the people about the concept of human race. Widely
touted as a social construct, “race” is a biological concept that
outlines the realities that characterize the human species.
Lewontin argues that researchers and scholars produce many
objective natural divisions confirming that racial categories are
representations of genetic differences and not social or
historical factors. He uses Leroi Armand Marie’s essay in the
Op-Ed section of The New York Times - March 14, 2005, as
evidence for his argument. Lewontin adds that Leroi’s work
points out the confusion about the factors of racial
categorization as well as the recent erroneous deductions about
the relevance of such identifications of the race for medical
practice.
The author holds the four facts about the variation of humans
upon which the world seems to agree are the ultimate evidence
for the understanding of race as a biological concept. First, the
species of human have immense variations of genetics from one

3. individual to another. Second, the largest chunk of human
variation (nearly 85 percent) is a representation of people
within local linguistic or national populations. Examples
include the French, Mexican, and Japanese. Third, some genetic
traits such as skin color, the form of hair, shape of the nose, and
some blood proteins like the Rhesus, vary together such that
people with dark skin color are also likely to have dark, curled
hair, broad noses, and a high likelihood of Rh blood type.
Fourth, the genetic differences break down due to rampant
migration and intergroup mating; although, it existed in the
past, it is now widespread at a high rate.
Questions: Despite being informative, this article poses a few
questions in a reader’s mind. What is the solution to the
confusion about race? Does it mean that race is only biological
and has no relationship to the social ties?