Customer Reviews

Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

As mentioned by many reviewers, this book has a lot of preaching about the invalidity of the concept of races.

What interests me to the book was the title "Mapping Human History". 10% of this book content is in this area, and if those content are condensed into a short paper, it'd make really good reading.

The whole book is a quick read. The key "mapping" can be summarized as follows:
1. "Out of Africa" hypothesis (sole source of modern homo sapiens is from Africa) is affirmed by genetic research.
2. First wave out of Africa (~65,000 years ago) is by sea along Arabian peninsula to Indian Ocean which has two streams afterwards, one earlier stream down Oceania and a later stream up East Asia.
3. "Mongoloid" characteristics are formed relatively late (~20,000 years ago? I don't recall anymore)
4. Second wave is through Sinai peninsula by land ~45,000 years ago and completely displaced Neaderthals in Middle East & Europe by around ~30,000 years ago
5. First wave and second wave met in (north) Central Asia from different directions
6. Primarily the East Asia stream entered the Americas ~15,000 years ago (but could be earlier), though some genes from the ME/Europe stream have also entered (because of 5.)
7. All these really happenned before the invention of agriculture (and culture). Agriculture (and potentially other key technologies such as use of iron) privileges the groups who are the first to under-go population explosion. A lot of racial mixing especially on the fringes afterwards. This is where Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" picked up.

If you're just interested in the mapping, you don't need to buy the book-- save it for something else.

This is an excellent book, which I would highly recommend using in parts (or the whole) for introductory level college classes. What is so helpful about it is the way that it brings together the last 50 years of research in paleoanthropology, paleobiology, genetics, and related fields to explain the convergence towards a very wide-spread consensus about the primordial history of our species. The book puts in clear context the snippets that many people have read about 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam.' Few laypeople realize that there is now such a strong consensus in the scientific community that all contemporary human beings are descended from the same small group of primordial human beings in central East Africa some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. But this finding, and the related explanations of superficial differences between the "races," is of enormous cultural and political importance. It is as important in anthropology as the discovery of the big bang was in cosmology. It ought to be taught in all our schools. Moreover, while the detailed examples added in the various chapters may be considered 'padding' by some scientific readers, they are very helpful in bringing the ideas alive for non-expert readers. The text is highly accessible and quite gripping -- perfectly usable for college or even high school audiences.

Using ever improving molecular techniques, population geneticists study the history of extended families that are inbred to some degree. In other words, they trace the genealogies of racial groups. It's an inherently fascinating subject, and science journalist Steve Olson introduces it adequately in his new book, Mapping Human History. Written in the breezy style of a National Geographic travel-log, Olson's book is a quick read, but a little too superficial to be intellectually satisfying. Still, it's not a bad overview of an important subject.

It would be better, though, without the recurrent political sermonizing. Unfortunately for population geneticists, their subject matter-race-is vastly unfashionable. So, the dean of the field, Stanford's great L.L. Cavalli-Sforza long ago developed the transparent subterfuge of defining the word "race" in the most ludicrous straw-man terms possible-as the classification of the human race into absolutely separate, never-overlapping, mutually exclusive categories. (Never specified is exactly who today believes such a thing: the Grand Kleagle's retarded brother, perhaps?) This straw-man definition allows him to deny that he's studying race, since by his definition "race" is impossible. Still, it allows Cavalli-Sforza to get back to work without being crucified for political incorrectness, so we shouldn't hold it against him.

Unfortunately, Olson never seems to grasp that this is just pro forma boilerplate. In his book, Olson stops every few pages to tell you that there are no races that have been absolutely isolated genetically since the beginning of time because-you will be shocked, shocked to learn this-humans have been known to outbreed. (The reality of course is that for any human racial group, the inbreeding glass is both part empty and part full.) This makes Mapping Human History rather like a geology book that repeatedly admonishes the reader that the Earth is not flat.

Another curious feature that Olson's book shares with many other contemporary writings about population genetics is the author's apparent longing for the abolition of his own subject matter via universal random interbreeding. Although animal and plant biodiversity is routinely celebrated as a supreme good, the conclusions of books on human biodiversity tend to treat it as a temporary evil that will soon be gone, and good riddance to it. It's as if that geology textbook ended with an ode to the blessed day when the Earth will plunge into the Sun, thus happily eliminating the need for a science of geology.

In his final chapter, "The End of Race," Olson cites Hawaii as exemplifying the future of the human race. Still, not even Hawaii has achieved racial nirvana. Despite interracial marriage blurring the ethnic boundaries, the Native Hawaiians are now campaigning hard to have themselves declared a sovereign nation like American Indian tribes.

On a vaster scale, Brazil exhibits the same tendency for class to correlate with color, and for the people at the bottom of the pile to agitate, not unreasonably, for race-based privileges for themselves. Currently, the government of Brazil is introducing racial quotas in response to black demands.

Further, the mixing of races often leads to new races rather than to no races, such as the Angles and Saxons became the Anglo-Saxons.

This notion that the entire world will soon consist of one beige race is both highly popular and highly dubious. I see little statistical evidence to suggest that there will be significantly greater racial admixture in either Asia or Africa anytime in the 21st Century ... and that's where most humans will live.

For example, the UN's best guess is that China will have 1,462 million people in 2050. The Chinese government shows no intention of ever admitting many immigrants, so the racial admixture level in China will not change perceptibly. The UN also projects that in 2050, India will have a population of 1,572 million. Almost all of these people will be racially descended from current Indians. Why? Well, who would want to move to India? It's a country that's more than full now, even before it adds another half billion Indians.

Other populous countries that-trust me-won't be attracting huge numbers of immigrants from other continents include Pakistan (344 million in 2050), Indonesia (311 million), Nigeria (279 million), Bangladesh (265 million), the Congo (204 million), and Yemen and Uganda (102 million each). In other words, the absolute numbers of racially distinct East Asians, blacks, and non-European Caucasians will be larger in 2050 than today.

Most of the growth in racial mixing will be restricted to regions where intermarriage has been a long tradition (primarily Latin America and some remote islands) or are immigrant magnets (presumably North America, Australia, and Western Europe).

In essence, what is so enthusiastically anticipated is the admixture of people of European descent. Evidently, there is something uniquely, even superhumanly potent and evil about European DNA that means it must be diluted. Strikingly, the greatest enthusiasts for this view tend to be highly European themselves. (Olson, for example, is blonde.) This reflects that weird combination of racial self-loathing and racial egotism found in so many white intellectuals.

Finally, I doubt that the beigeification of Europeans will proceed all that quickly. I don't think it's at all inevitable that Eastern Europe will open its borders to non-Europeans. Prudent statesmen in the ex-Communist countries will be wary of reproducing Western Europe's travails with hostile immigrant minorities, although the European Union will no doubt try to bully them into it.

So, the odds are that-on a global scale-the current races will remain at the end of this century almost as distinct as they are today. Then, beyond 2100, DNA engineering and, perhaps, interstellar colonization will likely radically increase genetic differences among humans.

So, while a better book than this one could certainly be written about race, you can feel confident that if you do invest the modest amount of time required to read Olson's effort, you don't have to worry that its subject matter will suddenly evaporate.

This book presents a very good overview of an interesting subject. For those who understand only basic genetics, like me, the author presents the subject matter in a manner that is easy to understand. Maybe a little too easy. I found myself wanting to gain a deeper understanding of the topic than is provided here. The author argues convincingly that the term "race" really has no real meaning any more, but he sermonizes on this topic far too much. He also drifts into related topics, like linguistics, for which he seems to have little expertise. And some of the later chapters, particularly the one on Hawaii, seems to have little to do with the subject matter except to provide a forum for more sermonizing. Aside from these distractions, I enjoyed most of the book, particularly the early chapters, and the knowledge I learned from the book has provided me with a different perspective on human history, and a better understanding of where we came from.

Mr Olson's book starts out extremely well, but sags after a few chapters. The initial segments on mitonchondrial DNA and our genetics is probably the most readable and understandable treatment that I have seen. About halfway through the book, however, Olson stops trying to trace human migration and development. His emphasis becomes avoiding rascism. At this point, the history and science dwindles away and the emphasis becomes how intermixed our gene pools are. It was almost as if his underlying motivation was a desire to use science to prove a political position. It became rather pedantic at this point. I was very disappointed after the strong start that the book made.

Steve Olson's Mapping Human History is an excellent introduction to historical genetics, and indeed it has been called by the New Scientist as "the most balanced, accessible and up-to-date survey of the field currently available." It is written by a renowned science journalist, not a scientist, who quotes and discusses the leaders in the field in a quite readable and entertaining fashion. The book has apparently offended some people by discounting ancestry (and racist offshoots) in light of the overwhelming evidence against the concept. However its scientific credentials are impeccable.

Olson's "Mapping Human History" is written in a clear, easy to understand style that makes mitochondira, haplotypes and other archana of modern genetics fairly understandable to the lay reader.

Olson explains why most geneticists believe that modern humans, no matter how different they may seem, are biologically very similar. There is no room in this book for theories about how one "race" is somehow better than another--or even for the idea that the term "race" has any meaning at all. Our cultures may have divided us, but our DNA betrays the fact that we are all descended from a small group of modern humans who lived in eastern Africa about 100,000 years ago. There simply hasn't been enough time to make us dramatically different from each other, despite what racists would have us believe.

The theory that modern humans originated in Africa fairly recently and then spread throughout the world is still, of course, hotly debated. A number of reputable scientists favor the multiregional hypothesis, which claims that modern humans evolved in various places around the world from archaic populations already living in those regions. The mutliregional hypothesis implies that the differences between modern groups are deeply rooted in the very distant past. Olson clearly disagrees with that view, and he does a good job of presenting the genetic evidence that points to a more recent African origin (sometimes called the "Out of Africa II" hypothesis).

In the course of doing so, Olson touches on many interesting points. A few of the more striking were these:

First, Olson describes recent DNA research indicating that Neanderthals were in fact a different species from our own. This is another hotly debated proprosition, and I suspect that experts could criticize the DNA analysis that Olson describes on the grounds that it's pretty hard to make sense of 35,000 year old DNA. Still, Olson makes a good case that the new results are compelling and consistent with other evidence.

Second, Olson describes the Jewish tradition that the male descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses, will be the high priests of the Israelites. Genetic research among the kohanim (priests), who often have a surname like Cohen, Cohn, or Kahn, suggests that many of these persons are in fact descended from a common male ancestor, who may indeed have been Aaron.

Finally, Olson explains why everyone on the planet at this point probably has some genetic material contributed by Julius Caesar and Confucius, among others. It's a small world after all, at least as far as our DNA is concerned.

The only part of the book that I didn't enjoy were the last couple of chapters, which shift from the topic at hand (i.e., "mapping human history") to questions of ethics. While these issues are important, they are too complex to be explored well in the fifty or so pages that Olson alots to them, and the discussion tends to detract from the fascinating "deep history" that is the focus of the rest of the book.

I enjoyed reading this book; it provided a good insight into human history from the point of view of a geneticist. Specifically, what the impact was of studying mitochondria and Y chromosomes on the study of the history of humans. However, the book's preachiness got tiring. While I am nothing but sympathetic to the idea that humans around the world are more or less the same, I would have preferred it if this work was less ideological.

This book is a fascinating overview of the work of the many scientists engaged in a truly scientific treatment of heritage (which would complement both our origins both mythical and religious). It's their hope that one day in the future there will be an accurate map of human history which will trace the migration of modern humans from northeast Africa to the Middle East and their subsequent diffusion throughout the world.

But this book also contains several concise arguments against the concept of human "races," a construct that does not hold up to scientific scrutiny at all (but which has been used for the past three hundred years to justify the worst crimes against humanity). The main points are that 1) while there are averages to the features of ethnic groups, these do not hold when taking individuals individually, that is, the variations between individuals of a given "race" are greater than average variations between the races themselves; 2) the vast majority of humans have "mixed" ancestry beyond about four generations; 3) every human being alive today is descended from the groups which left Africa some 65,000 years ago. Racism should really be called "contingencism", that is, when one discriminates against a group of persons based upon the wholly accidental adaptations of their ancestors to local geographical/climatic conditions.

Steve Olson's "Mapping Human History" spews non-stop ideas and concepts that are politically fashionable in today's society, but have no basis in fact.

I generally enjoy reading almost anything. Whether it inspires me to change or reaffirm my opinion on an issue, look at something in a new way. or just come up with good discussion material with my friends, it's generally a rewarding experience. But this book is on a very short list of non-fiction that I couldn't bring myself to finish reading.

From the very first page of the preface, he starts making unsupported claims that racism of some form is the source for all the human-induced suffering in the world, and that it is unfounded. He cites examples of racially diverse areas of the world, such as slavery-era America, the Balkan peninsula, and most of the middle east to show the violence and hate that can spread when people indulge in racially motivated activity. He conveniently overlooks the fact that the same pattern of behavior has emerged from more racially homogenous areas as well. How does he explain the behavior of certain areas of northern Europe, pre-Columbian America, and China without the convenient excuse of racism?

Yes, Steve, genetically speaking I'm 99% identical to people from every continent and racial group. But the same quantity my DNA is identical to that of a chimpanzee, and nearly as much to a rat, horse, or any other mammal. What's your point? In those other racially homogenous areas, people still tended to separate themselves into tribes, clans, or other social structures in order to take advantage of the benefits of a close-knit society. This social splintering happened even without any mentionable racial differences. Why don't you investigate this instead of spouting pseudo-science?

When I read other non-fiction books about the origin of humanity, I turn to the back cover after finishing the book to read more about the author, see where he studied for his masters and Ph.D, what work he (or she) has done, and what other books they've written that I might like to read. Instead of listing schools and research projects he has worked on, Olsen's page explains himself as a science _journalist_. His lack of academic credentials is obvious from the over-politicizing way that he presents his allegations without supporting them with any rigor.

If you are interested in a macroscopic view of human history, let me instead suggest Robert Wright's book "Nonzero". Whether you agree with Wright's premises or not, you will still find it a much more thought-provoking and enjoyable book.