The debate around the concept of race has been going on for years between scientists, historians and anthropologists. One side of the debate, historically taken up by scientists and biologists, holds that race is biological and developed as a result of evolution. The other side of the debate, generally held by historians, social scientists, and anthropologists, holds that race is not genetic but a social and cultural construct. This historiography will discuss how arguments and the concept of race have developed over time in the field of history and science. Berlin, Wade, Lenkeit, Rosenberg, and Gravlee all examine the issue of race and how to define this concept, but each approaches this topic in different ways using different methods. First, this essay will compare the arguments of Rosenberg and Wade, both of whom lean toward the racial as well as the biological argument. Second, this essay will discuss the similarities and differences between Berlin's and Lenkeit's arguments. Third, this essay will compare Gravlee's arguments with those of the other authors, explaining how his article is both similar and different from the other articles. Finally, this historiography will discuss how the context of the period in which each writer argued their articles affected the way they viewed race as a concept. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay First, Rosenberg and Wade argue similar points, however, they use different methods to argue their points of view. Rosenberg and Wade broadly argue that race is the result of the evolutionary process and exists and is a biological construct. Rosenberg argues that human races do exist in a biological sense, not as a cultural construct, but as a result of evolution and natural selection. Wade also argues that human races do exist as a result of evolution and natural selection, but the manner in which he argues this point differs from that of Rosenberg. The difference between the methods Rosenberg and Wade use to argue their point of view lies in the stance they both take. Rosenberg, while asserting that race is biological and the result of natural selection, states that these differences in genetic makeup between races are not of much importance. However, Wade criticizes anthropologists for making the subject of race taboo, asserting that race is of great social, cultural, and scientific importance, also stating in his article that "a few biologists have begun to agree on the existence of human races, but they hasten to add. that this fact does not mean much. This is where the two authors differ in their methods of considering race as biological; Rosenberg argues that racial variation does not matter much, while Wade argues that race has a significant impact on society and culture. Wade wrote his article in order to publicize and discuss the subject of race, as he claims it is considered a taboo subject, which has social and cultural implications, while Rosenberg wrote his article as part of research human genetics. Another reason why Rosenberg and Wade's arguments are similar, but the methods differ, is the argument that race is due to natural selection and defined as distinct populations living geographically apart. Rosenberg maintains that there are raceshumans living in different regions, but this is becoming blurred due to increased migration. However, Wade argues that human races are defined as living in separate locations, he argues that evolution has not stopped, but that race, as biology, is continually adapting and forming. Ultimately, Wade and Rosenberg advocate similar concepts, that race is biological and not a social construct, and that races are the result of the evolutionary process, but their methods differ in their writing. Second, unlike Rosenberg and Wade, Berlin and Lenkeit both argue that race is not biological but is a social and cultural construct, emphasizing that races do not exist biologically. Lenkeit argues from an anthropological perspective, focusing on race as a construct through the lens of human development and the functioning of society. Lenkeit writes this book chapter in order to establish race as a social construct and distance the concept from its understanding and biological connections. However, Berlin goes further by using a different method in asserting that race is a social construct, asserting that race is not only a cultural construct, but also a historical construct. Berlin argues that by simply calling race a social construct, he won few practical battles and barely changed social behaviors. He argues that this is because race must be understood as a product of history and changing relationships over time, while focusing on the changing nature of the concept of race throughout slavery in North America. Lenkeit argues for race as a social construct through the lens of anthropology and human beings, while Berlin uses the method of looking at race through historical events as a whole and how societies and institutions have affected race as a concept throughout history. Furthermore, Berlin and Lenkeit argue that race has been shaped by people's experiences and narrow perceptions. For example, Lenkeit points out that in North America, white Americans often associated blacks with Africans, because black slaves were the only Africans with whom they had experience. Both authors argue that race as a concept is the result of perceived differences reinforced by social groups, which differs from Rosenberg and Wade's assertions that race is biological and not constructed by people's experiences. Furthermore, Berlin does not directly reject geneticists or scientists who claim that race is biological, but aims to draw on the idea that race is a social construct to argue for a historical understanding of race as a concept. In contrast, Lenkeit takes a more defensive approach, arguing that race is not biological but that variations among humans are the result of clinal variations and geographic location. Ultimately, Berlin and Lenkeit make similar arguments, namely that race is a social construct, but they differ in how they argue their arguments in the context of their social science research. Third, unlike the other four authors, Gravlee argues somewhere: in the middle of the racial debate. While Wade and Rosenberg argue that race is biological and results from evolution and natural selection, Gravlee argues that race is biological but not the result of evolution. Furthermore, contrary to the arguments made by Berlin and Lenkeit that race was a construct.