A Blast from the Past: Neanderthal News

As we embark on a new year (2014) let us take a moment to look back at our prehistoric past, specifically at Neanderthals.  Scholars have been expanding the overall pool of knowledge of our human origins, and as a result Neanderthals have been in the news quite a bit this past year, particularly over the past month. Here are some highlights of Neanderthal news stories:

• Definitive Proof of Neanderthal Culture!  The first inkling of evidence of Neanderthals practiced their own unique brand of culture (in the form of burials) was discovered in the early 1900s, but the evidence was highly controversial and many scholars believed it was accidental evidence or faked.  A series of excavations in France, however, have provided substantive evidence that demonstrates that Neanderthals buried their dead, which is evidence of them practicing culture!  Additional evidence also demonstrates that Neanderthals were meticulous about their domestic spaces, organizing their "homes" based on occupational and leisure space(s).  This, too, hints at cultural elements being present among Neanderthals in the past. 
• Neanderthals Got into Ancient Humans' Genes!  The Neanderthal genome has been completely mapped, and from this, there is evidence that Neanderthals and archaic humans interbred.  But this interspecies love was not without consequences: Scientists now believe that modern human diabetes incidences and genetic mutations are linked to Neanderthal DNA.  And if that was not salacious enough for you, this genetic evidence has also demonstrated that Neaderthals relationships were among close family relations, a whole new spin on the kissing cousins phenomenon. 
• Neanderthals Had the Ability to be Chatty Cathys!  New research has demonstrated that Neanderthal skeletal anatomy provided Neanderthals the ability to speak similarly to humans.  Evidence shows Neanderthals had a hyoid bone, which is associated with allowing human beings that ability to speak, although human communication is also associated with genetics and brain size.  Perhaps the research that comes out during 2014 will provide more insights into this area of research since so far the only evidence is anatomical but little has come out in regards to genetic and physiological evidence. 

Holiday Traditions: Yule/Winter Solstice

December is a popular time of year for holidays around the world, and today I want to turn everyone's attentions to one of those holidays: Yule or Winter Solstice. 

Yule, or Winter Solstice, is a holiday practiced by Pagans and Neopagans around the world.  The holiday falls between December 20-23, but it is usually celebrated on the same day as the Winter Solstice (December 21/22).  The holiday is meant to commemorate the rebirth of the Oak King (or similar variant, depending on denomination of Pagan), who is associated with giving life, as well as acknowledge the increase in sun exposure that will occur from that date on.  You may already know that the Winter Solstice is the day when there is the least about of sunlight in the day (or the longest night of the year, depending on your preference). 

There is a long but varied history concerning how this holiday was celebrated in the past, but today, many Pagans & Neopagans celebrate this holiday very similarly to Western (American & Canadian, in particular) Christmas traditions.  Some Pagans/Neopagans have either boughs of holly or a large pine tree that they decorate with traditional colors associated with the season.  Color appropriate candles (gold, silver, green, red, white) are also lit, and sometimes a "Yule log" is burned on the night of the Solstice.  Some individuals will opt to wake prior to sunrise in order to watch the sunrise and say a prayer to the Oak King or sun.  Promises of fulfilling goals or bettering oneself are often times made either at sunrise or sunset.  Presents are usually exchanged in the evening after a large dinner shared with close family and friends. 

http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/113242/How_to_Celebrate_Yule_With

 
And it is important to note that while there are similarities between Yule and Christmas in how both holidays are celebrated, the purpose behind each is somewhat different: Yule commemorates the rebirth of the Oak King, while Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ.  Both are times meant to be spent with family and friends, however, meaning they are both special holidays to both groups: Christians and Pagans/Neopagans.

The Legend of Good, Ol'e St. Nic(holas)

St. Nick is a popular nickname for the American/Western version of Santa Claus, but among many European and Middle Eastern culture, St. Nicholas (and his cultural variation) is the protector children who provides good children gifts and bad children switches.  Similar to Santa Claus, St. Nicholas Day is the holiday I grew up with as a child in Germany and remember fondly celebrating the holiday, which in Germany meant leaving my shoes out on the evening of December 7 to wake the next morning to goodies in them. 

Google Image Search: http://acelebrationofwomen.org

A google image search: http://whatmakeschrisclick.blogspot.com

But there are variations on this holiday since it is a holiday that is practiced among so many different cultures.  The holiday is celebrated anywhere between the end of November to the middle of December, something I learned when a Polish friend reminisced about the Polish version occurring on December 6 whereas the German holiday is the following day.  St. Nicholas is popularly depicted as a tall, slender man with a white beard and red coat who walks door to door to patronize children, but cultures with strong ties to Christian faiths associate St. Nicholas as a Saint.  In these depictions, he wears either a red or white robe, carries a staff, and rides a donkey or mule.  I recall during on celebration in southern Germany seeing St. Nicholas depicted in this same manner, much to the disdain of the donkey he rode who had to deal with about a hundred screaming children who were excited to see St. Nicholas in the flesh.

While the holiday is not regularly celebrated in the United States, it remains a popular holiday in Europe and the Middle East, and it remains a cherished holiday memory from my childhood.  However it is that you celebrate the holiday season, many you have a safe and happy holiday season! 

Spotlight on Students: Physical Anthropology

The following is a featured assignment by one of my Anth 102 students, Scott Bower.  

INTRODUCTION

In the below paragraphs I will discuss what defines us as “human”.  I will also provide information on the first species in fossil record that I would define as “human”.  This species is that of Homo habilis, which primarily inhabited southern and eastern Africa around 1.6-2 million years ago.  This species is a successor of Australopithecus and a predecessor to Homo erectus. Homo habilis appears to have broken many of the barriers that separated humans from apes and is the first chronological species in the genius Homo.

WHAT IS “HUMAN” AND WHOM WERE THE FIRST

I believe a variety of characteristics define the human being.  One of the most obvious is the human locomotion pattern of true erect bipedalism.  The first example of true bipedalism in the Homo fossil record is that of Homo habilis, which was discovered in 1960 at Olduvai Gorge by Jonathan Leaky.  The “Olduvai foot” was reconstructed in 1960 and demonstrated a stout basal bone of the big toe aligned with the other toes.[i]  This is in contrast to the large and divergent big toes of monkeys and apes and demonstrates strong evidence of true bipedalism.

            Another characteristic that defines us as humans is the ability to make tools and the use of vocalized language for communications between each other.  H. habilis, which literally means “handy man”, has been associated with 11 different kind of tools that are known as the “Olduvan industry”[ii]. These abilities are correlated, largely, with an enlarged braincase.  The braincase of H. habilis is, although small in comparison to modern-day humans, at around 674CC[iii] (Homo sapiens 1600CC), may have been large enough to provide the degree of intelligence required to manufacture crude stone tools and speak a basic form of language.  This is a monumental leap in evolutionary biology where primates evolved away from ape-like features into a more human form.

            A further important characteristic of humans is the formation of complex social structures.  The fact that H. habilis is associated with tool making in conjunction with an enlarged braincase, aiding in the possibility of H. habilis obtaining the ability to speak; the probability of some type of complex social structure is great.  The only reason why H. habilis  maintained the ability to construct a more complex assortment of tools would be to aid in a hunter gatherer society.  This formation of a “society” is key in understanding the evolution and origin of Homo sapiens.

            Also unique to H. habilis was their ability to construct and live in shelters, which also aided in the ability to form complex sociocultural structures.  In 1966, Henry de Lumley discovered a camp that was inhabited by H. habilis.  This camp located in Terra Amata, France contained evidence of large huts constructed of animal skins.  Also discovered at the site was further evidence of advanced stone tools and the ability of H. habilis to use fire.  This discovery was the first evidence of a primate being able to construct and live in artificial dwellings and is a monumental step in human evolution.  

            CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Homo habilis appears to be the first species in the fossil record that had the ability to form many of the fundamental characteristics that define “human”.  Although, Homo habilis had many divergent qualities in comparison to that of Homo sapiens, they were the first to develop the basic foundations of what makes us human.  In my opinion, Homo habilis is the first species in the fossil record that can be considered “archaic human”.  I believe they had too many human like qualities, running in conjunction, to not be considered the first true primitive form of human.

REFERENCES

[1] Graham Brown, Stephanie Fairfax, Nidhi Sarao, and S. Anonymous (2013). Human Evolution. Retrieved from http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=3710

[1] Graham Brown, Stephanie Fairfax, Nidhi Sarao, and S. Anonymous (2013). Human Evolution. Retrieved from http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=3710

[1] Philip L. Stein & Bruce M. Rowe (2014). Physical Anthropology 11^th Ed: Early Species of the Genus Homo. Pg. 325. Fig. 14.2

 

Holiday Gifts for the Anthropologist!

It's that time of the year again where everyone is filled with holiday cheer and panicking about what to get that special someone.  If you know an anthropologist (or anyone interested in anthropology), then look no further because here are some awesome gifts that myself and several anthropologist friends recommend:

For the Physical Anthropologist:

Zazzle your favorite physical anthropologist with t-shirts, mugs, aprons, watches, and other useful gadgets.  The theme of the gifts covers the full gambit of the physical anthropology subfield, including paleoanthropology and forensic anthropology.  My recommendation is a play on the popular "I love Lucy" franchise:

 If your physical anthropologist is a baker, they probably have seen and been pining over these muffin pans that produce skulls and brains!  Available through Fab

 

 And for the globe traveling Physical Anthropologist, there are the Alexander McQueen luggage collection.  A favorite by many Physical Anthropologists, but be prepared to pay a pretty penny for this set:

 For the Cultural Anthropologist:

Chances are that if you know a cultural anthropologist, you know that they have some pretty strict moral codes in regards to ethical treatment of people.  This can make finding a gift at a mainstream store quite difficult, but never fear, there are several ethical options available.  One of my favorite places to frequent for such items is Etsy, which contains handmade items from many local artists world wide.  Here are a couple of options available via the website:

Available through https://www.etsy.com/listing/110676162/anthropology-journal-notebook-diary?ref=sr_gallery_11&ga_search_query=anthropology&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_ship_to=ZZ&ga_search_type=all&ga_facet=anthropology

https://www.etsy.com/listing/160392163/1935-melanesians-australians-peopling?ref=sr_gallery_14&ga_search_query=anthropology&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_ship_to=ZZ&ga_page=4&ga_search_type=all&ga_facet=anthropology

 You should also check out SERRV, "a nonprofit organization with a mission to eradicate poverty wherever it resides by providing opportunity and support to artisans and farmers worldwide."  They offer a variety of fair trade items for sale via their website, from home decor, clothing, kitchen items, food, and so much more!

For the Archaeologist:

Soap!  JUST KIDDING!  Although I wouldn't turn down soap.  If you do decide to give this as either a legitimate or gag gift, I highly recommend something nice, such as products by Batty's Bath, who produces environmentally conscious hand made items that are great for all types of skin, particularly those with sensitivities.

The Tresses to Toes soap is an all purpose soap that is fantastic for the traveler, which many archaeologist do-be it domestically or internationally!

Cafe Press has several great gifts for the archaeologists that you may know.  I highly recommend this t-shirt:

For the Linguistic Anthropologist:

Cafe Press saves the day again here!  Mugs, tshirts, aprons, and more!  Many of these gifts double as great gifts for English majors.

And for the grammar geek friend, here's several options available here: Gifts for Grammar Geeks!

Holiday Greetings!

Six of One Half, A Dozen of the Other : Critically Evaluating the Costs & Benefits of Pop Culture Depictions of Anthropology

When I was in high school, one of my favorite teachers went on a little rant one day during the class discussion.  His rant focused on a popular television series that was about teachers, and he was upset about how teachers were depicted in this show.  The show provided an inaccurate depiction of his beloved profession, and he feared the repercussions that he may deal with when confronted by new acquaintances who learned that he was, in fact, an educator.  He then mused that one of his favorite television shows was about the personal and professional lives of lawyers, and he suspected that real lawyers probably felt the same way about that show as he did in regards to the show he now loathed. 

I bring up this short anecdote because I feel that same dread whenever someone compares my professional and educational endeavors to a popular television series, Bones, which is a popular comparison for one of my friends in particular who swears that my personality (and my namesake) are identical to that of the main character of the show.  But my dread goes beyond that.  I am often times questioned about whether or not I can complete the same tasks in the exact same manner to that seen on the show, and when I explain that I cannot because of the show being unrealistic, I am met with blank stares and the popular questions, "Well, why can't you do that?  What's wrong with you?"

For better or worse, anthropological subject matter is everywhere in popular culture.  Some of the more recognizable anthropological examples include Bones, the Indiana Jones franchise, the Lara Croft: Tombraider franchise, Ross Gellar of Friends (he was a paleoanthropologist), King Kong, and many more, but there are also not so recognizable examples as well, such as in less mainstream board games and video games and subtle references in popular television shows (e.g. C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation and Law and Order).  To be fair, there are disadvantages and advantages to these depictions, which will be further explored briefly in this blog post.

There are several disadvantages to these shows, aside from the personal grief felt by professional anthropologists who are annoyed (or worse) by questions from the lay public.  There are some very real and academically identified consequences, such as the CSI Effect, which demonstrates that such shows such as CSI and Bones misinform the public about the criminal justice system and the limits and realities of forensic sciences (anthropology included).  Several viable court cases were lost due to this misrepresentation because jurors were misinformed about the realities of evidence, and they expected more or mistakenly thought the evidence was flawed because it was "missing" key pieces of information that, in reality, could not be collected.  In addition, many people mistakenly believe common myths perpetuated by these pop culture depictions, such as dinosaurs and humans coexisted (there is no credible, scientific evidence that supports this assertion at this time), humans evolved from apes (please see second blog post for more information), and much much more.  Bad science and bad interpretations of good science does not serve anyone well.

But what about the advantages?  Do they exist?

Actually, yes, as much as some days I hate to admit it.  Many current anthropologists (in all disciplines) were drawn to the discipline because of something they saw or experienced in their pop culture experiences.  I am one of those individuals.  I used to watch documentaries with my father when I was a child, and it was the one on ancient Egyptian mummies that captured my imagination and interest in the discipline of anthropology.  That and the misinformation about dinosaurs: that digging up dinosaurs meant studying anthropology (see the first blog post), and that there were no dinosaur fossils left to excavate (both false statements.  Paleontology is alive and well!)  And several other anthropologists that I have met tell similar stories, be it about Indiana Jones or other similar pop culture icons. 

But it is not just anthropologists whose interests were captured.  Many students in anthropology classes were put there because someone (be it themselves, a parent, or adviser) was influenced by popular culture depictions of anthropology.  So these depictions help fill seats in classes, and from there, anthropology educators can educate students about the realities of the discipline, making up for the misinformation perpetuated by these depictions.  So in a way, without pop culture, anthropology may not be as popular a topic as it is today. 

So there you have it, the good, the bad, and the ugly, albeit no where near exhaustive review of popular culture depictions of anthropological subject matter.  While I will probably be forever annoyed by the questions and comparisons I deal with, there are still some that I am quite fond of.  Ultimately, I have pop culture to thank for leading me to a discipline and career I absolutely love, and I have pop culture allowing me to continue to do what I love, educating students who may or may not completely understand anthropology. 

Reigniting an Tried and True Debate on Human Origins...

Today’s post is in part inspired by my Anth 102/110L students who must undertake an assignment on human evolution, specifically focusing on the origins of our species (Homo. sapiens), as well as the recent discovery in Georgia of a potentially new specimen of Homo. erectus.

There are many philosophical questions that plague us as we grow up and gain a better understanding of ourselves: What is the meaning of life?  Why is there something rather than nothing?  Is there life after death?  Does this outfit make me look fat?  But one of the most profound is:

Where do we (humans) come from?

This is a question that has baffled paleoanthropologists for many decades, and one that has yielded several answers but never the truth.  Despite years of research, endless man hours dedicated to answering this question, countless articles and undergraduate, masters, & doctoral theses written on this topic, paleoanthropologists are still unable to answer this question.  But it is one that is still popular among paleoanthropologists, particularly today given the recent find of the Dmanisi skull. 

Failure to find the truth has led to several hypotheses being brought forth as a means of trying to understand our origins.  These hypotheses are the subject of today’s blog post, and each of the three has an opposing but plausible explanation regarding the origins of Homo. sapiens.  These three hypotheses include the Multiregional Evolution (MRE) model, the Out of Africa or Recent African Origin (RAO) model, and the Mostly-Out-of-Africa model.

The Multiregional Evolution (MRE) model was spearheaded by anthropologists Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari.  According to the MRE model, anatomically modern Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, but these species arose 2 million years ago (MYA), not 200,000 years ago with the departure of Homo ergaster from Africa and who then spread across the Old World, evolving genetic and phenotypic regional differences in response to their various environments and the factors of evolution (e.g. gene flow, founder’s effect, genetic drift, etc.)  These various populations remained in some contact and exchanged genetic information (through interbreeding), which maintained the production of a single species over a wide geographic distribution.  Specific traits that were adaptively beneficial for one population were spread to other populations as these individuals survived long enough to pass along their genetically advantageous traits.  In addition, ideas, cultural adaptations, and technologies were passed along through these various populations.

For the MRE model to be correct one expects to find no clear-cut evidence of a separation between anatomically modern and archaic Homo sapiens & hominids-be it morphologically or genetically speaking.  Transitional forms of the species should be found in various parts of the Old World with an admixture of traits among all the species.  As well, there should be regional continuity of traits with groups residing in Asia looking more similar than groups residing in Africa but there should never be so many differences so as to denote a separation of the species.    

Supporters of the MRE model claim that the differences seen among Homo. neanderthalensis and Homo. heidlbergensis and modern Homo sapiens are not differences in the sense of warranting a different species categorization but instead are variations within the same species.  These variations eventually gave rise to the modern human appearance we have today.   In fact, we see some features among specific modern groups, e.g. the continuous brow ridge of the Neanderthals is also present among Australian Aborigines (and according to several students and lay people, ex-significant others).  As well, there are no consistency among men or women regarding the degree they exhibit these features, so men and women will either demonstrate a strong or weak incidence of specific traits.  This sliding scale of the exhibition of traits is further evidence of possible links between humans and our hominid ancestors, supported by an independent study conducted by supporters of the MRE model.

The Out of Africa or Recent African Origin (RAO) model was spearheaded by Christopher Stringer and Ian Tattersall.  This model recognizes several different species in Homo genus, but that modern Homo sapiens branched off from other archaic Homo sapiens and hominid species around 200,000 to 150,000 years ago.  Anatomically modern Homo sapiens spread across the Old World and replaced other archaic and hominid species (e.g. Neanderthals).  This model is also known as the replacement model.

If model is correct there is an expectation of distinctive features between modern species and archaic Homo sapiens and hominid species, demonstrating a separation in species.  In other words, every single human on the planet must share specific traits that are not found in archaic Homo sapiens & hominids, and traits among archaic Homo sapiens and hominid species must not be found in modern humans.  Genetic differences should also be present.

Transitional fossils of both species should be found in one area of the world-the place of where modern Homo sapiens began, coupled with evidence of archaic and anatomically modern Homo sapiens existing in the same areas.  Eventually, archaic Homo sapiens & hominid species would have been replaced by anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

According to the supporters of the RAO model, transitional humanoid forms between hominid ancestors, Homo. neanderthalensis and Homo. heidelbergensis, and modern humans are only found in Africa.  They cite that anatomically modern humans first appear in Africa, as well, and subsequent evidence of said humans outside of Africa happens after their initial appearance in Africa.  Both human species and the hominid species exist at similar times.

With all this conflict and inability to settle on either of MRE or RAO models, John Relethford coined the Mostly-Out-of-Africa model.  The basic idea of this model is that most of our ancestors came from Africa but not all of them did.  It agrees with the MRE model in that our species began 2 MYA and gene flow among various geographically distant populations is the reason why we (humans) look so similar today, but it acknowledges the evidence cited by RAO model supporters that demonstrates that Africa was the origin of human based on fossil evidence.  

Supporters of the Mostly-out-of-African Model claim that there were two expansions out of Africa.  The first occurred with Homo ergaster leaving Africa and going to Asia (becoming the species we call Homo erectus).  Subsequent expansions may not have been African species physically leaving Africa but instead was the result of genes being passed through populations.  Specific traits that define us as human today may have started in Africa and spread across the globe through gene flow, so it was not an all out replacement of other species but a blending of them that created who we are today.     

As this post demonstrates, there remains a lot of unanswered questions concerning the origins of Homo. sapiens.  While the discovery of new hominid species, such as the Dmanisi skull, are meant to be a means to settle this debate, they have only added more fuel to the fire of this debate.  Hopefully as interest in the discipline grows and new methods realized, a resolution to this debate will be reached.  Until then, the mystery continues.

Spotlight on Students: Stereotypes in America

The following piece was written by Anthropology student, Devin Scherbak, and is the result of an assignment given to my Anth/Soc 205 students in which they were to discuss modern stereotypes of an American minority group.  The purpose of the assignment was to determine the historical and modern significance of those stereotypes as a means of dispelling them and discovering the truth behind the lies that many Americans believe.  This is her work:

African American and black complected individuals are the second largest minority group in the United States, with 13.5% of the population in the US falling into the racial category of “Black” (O’Connor 2013).  Aside from making up a large proportion of the United States, this group was among the first to colonize the United States and made major contributions to the development of its culture through their labor, intellectual expressions, and artistic creations. However, due to the overpowering presence of racism in the dominant American culture, African Americans are mistreated and misrepresented (Brown, 171). Due to the negative views and actions inflicted on African American culture, stereotypes have been created and are used to categorize and alienate this group of people from the “White only” aspects of American society. With a lack of education and understanding, these stereotypes become the only “fact” that the dominant American culture knows, and as a result, the majority mistreats African American citizens through the means of institutional discrimination, popular media portrayals, and everyday forms of prejudice and hate.

            It is popularly believed that the majority of African American men are delinquents, and that they are more likely, by nature, to commit acts of crime and violence.  This is due to the statistic that African American men make up 1 million out of the 2.3 million inmate population in the Untied States (www.NAACP.org). With the amount of media coverage on minority arrests and incarcerations, it is no surprise that the majority of the nation believes this particular stereotype. However, upon closer examination, it is clear that a majority of the arrests made are due to racial profiling by the arresters themselves. There are many different examples of racial profiling in police work, but the one referred to the most is the crack cocaine possession laws and how it has affected the rate of incarceration among African American men. According to the NAACP statistic fact sheet, African Americans made up 80% of the sentenced individuals under the federal crack cocaine laws in 2002, but served longer terms than white individuals incarcerated for either the same or greater offences. However, the percentage of black users is so high because white cocaine users are not sentenced as often as black users. It is clear that white offenders of this law are being released sooner than their fellow black inmates and are suffering fewer consequences for their drug use and possession. Because of the amount of freed white crack users, they make up 2/3s of the actual possession and user population of crack cocaine. Regardless of the statistics however, black men still make up the largest part of the arrest population because police rarely pick up white cocaine users. Unfortunately, because of the existing stereotype, black men become the focus of most criminal activity, and as a result, make up the largest portion of the prison population and are seen as a danger.

            Another popular belief is that African American families are more dysfunctional and incomplete when compared to white households. This is an idea that has been circulated for as long as the division of whites and blacks has existed. During the years of slave ownership, it was very common for African Americans to be a part of single parent households. However, this was due to the fact that the husband component of the family would die young due to physical stress and over working. Thus, the stereotype of paternal absence and divorce in African American homes was born. Today, it is commonly believed that black marriages fail more frequently and that women are the sole guardians of their children. Although the statistic supports high divorce rates among black families, it is merely 5% above the white household average of divorce (US Census Bureau). This makes the divorce rate far too similar to the white rate and thus dismisses the notion that black families have a much higher tendency to fail. As a matter of fact, African Americans have a huge focus on family connections and bonds. African American families tend to place more focus on extended family relations and place a completely different form of importance on the extended family as apposed to other ethnic groups (Brown, 199). This type of family unit was created from Black culture during the slave-owning eras. Because of the single parent households that were developed, single mothers had to rely on grandparent type figures to help raise the family. The same still is true today as many African American families form tight bonds and support groups among their communities and relatives. So in reality, African American families are quite strong and tight knit, with support that extends outside of the home. The myth of dysfunction in the family unit is still present though, due to popular media depictions and the misuse of statistics. Upon closer inspection, it is clear that African Americans have very strong family ties.  

            Due to the overwhelming amount of racism in the United States, there are many inaccurate and negative views placed on the African American community. Regardless of the statistical evidence supporting that there is little difference between white and black drug addicts or white and black families, the majority of people still believe that black men and women are inherently different in mentality and behavior. But in reality, the only difference that exists between these demographics is skin color and culture.

Works Cited:

Brown, Susan L. "African Americans." Race and Ethnicity: The United States and The World. Second ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2012. 171. Print.

"Criminal Justice Fact Sheet." www.NAACP.org. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

O'Connor, Liz, Gus Lubin, and Dina Spector. "The Largest Ancestry Groups In The United States." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc., 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.

"How Divorce Rates Vary by Race and Ethnicity in the US." Divorcescience.org. n.p., 29 June 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. * [I did not use any of the written materials. Because the US government is not active at the moment, I was unable to access the actual US Census Bureau’s website. I interpreted the line graph that was posted by the article author that was taken from the actual Census Bureau’s site.]