(Stick with me, because I'm actually going to connect this longish and semi-OT post to Rachel Dolezal, lol!)
Very interesting, the discussion about race and anthropology. My point in posting the article in post #15 is that there are (at least) two common and valid approaches to the use of anthropometric measurements in determinants of race. The first is a historical examination of the entire human race over thousands of yearsphysical anthropology, that examines bones that may be thousands of years old.
A second use of anthropometric measurements is in modern forensic anthropologythe identification of a biological profile from an unknown deceased individual for the purpose of attempting to identify a missing person. It is essential to establish age, gender, and race as a basis for attempting to match the skeletal remains to a person who is missing. They can also determine height, and other issues such as uneven wearing of joints that might indicate the person had a limp or mobility difficulty, for example. Or that the person suffered from a genetic condition that affected the shape of the bones, such as Marfans Syndrome or Neurofibromatosis.
Forensic anthropology is not concerned with racism or oppression, or social justice, or socioeconomic class, or the finer points of the DNA genome in population migrationsforensic anthropology uses skeletal variations that are well-described in databases of thousands upon thousands of individuals, for the purpose of identifying a missing person. One of the parts of the identification process is race. A forensic anthropologist will know where a skeleton was found, and under what circumstanceswhich add to the early profile of who the unknown person may be.
Its a denial of science to insist that there are no morphological differences among us that allow race and ethnicity to be determined. The bigger issue is what is the scientific or social purpose of measuring and using these morphological differences (as Donjeta and gitana1 noted). Forensic anthropology isn't using race to "exclude" someone from some social gain, right, or entitlement. And using anthropometric measurements as an objective measure of the race of a missing person who has become skeletonized, for the purpose of identification of the unknown person, is a worthy pursuit, indeed.
Also, establishing the race/ ethnicity of individuals, for example, found in mass graves, can lead to understanding of the social and political situation that may have lead to mass killings.
So simply establishing the race/ ethnicity of human beings is not in and of itself, an evil thing that is calculated to further divide us as a human species.
To tie all this back to the topic of the thread, Rachel Dolezal (lol-- see? I promised!), she is unquestionably a Caucasian person, and her anthropometric measurements would almost certainly cause a forensic anthropologist/ pathologist to identify her skeleton as such. Thats the really interesting and sad thing hereif Rachel Dolezal were to have gone missing, she might have been variously listed as a missing black woman, or a missing mixed race woman, because of her deception/ fraud. That could affect the biological profile that would be assumed for her in a missing person investigation. She has living biological relatives who could be used to establish a DNA link if she were to go missing, but something like a report of a missing black woman could certainly skew an investigation in the wrong direction, and cause confusion in the early stages of identification.
Imagine the confusion in an Amber Alert situation, alsois the public looking for a Caucasian 5 year old girl, or a black 8 year old boy, or a 2 year old Asian toddler, or a bi-racial 4 year old girl with light skin and very curly hair? Objective descriptions of peoples unique and personal characteristics are essential in a lot of circumstances, and I find it hard to understand why that is mildly offensive or irritating to some folks when those personal characteristics are categorized as race.
Perhaps in another couple of thousand years, as people of all different races/ ethnicities reproduce across ethnic categories, our skeletal characteristics will become more blurred and indefinable as to race and ethnicity. It is likely that all humans will eventually be persons of color in a few thousand more years. Interesting to contemplate! But will the concept of race and ethnicity ever disappear from the human story? None of us know, but my bet is that there will always be social and academic/ scientific efforts to sort and identify humans into groups based on their natural appearanceskin color, eye color, hair color and texture, etc. JMO.