# Definitions of race and ethnicity



## badgrammar

As the subject came up in a recent thread and I think many foreros would very much like to discuss the matter, perhaps here would be a good place to do so.  

How do we define race?  Through genetic traits?  Through the geographical origins of our ancestors?  Through skin color and outward physical features? To what extent does race bring people together and/or pull them apart? Is "race" even a valid term, or is there only one human race?  If so, how do we (if we even should) categorize the many variations in skin tone, eye color, and other outward physical traits (fingerprints, hair, etc.), and even some traits we can't see (like bloodtype - yes, apparently not all "races" have all bloodtypes).

So then, how do we define ethnicity?  Is it better to speak of ethnicity than of race?  Are they the same thing?  Is ethnicity more about nationality and a social/political/religious affiliation, or are the two terms synonymous?  Can we be of X race and Y ethnicity?  Should we even consider ethnicity, much less race, when considering another human being? 

Three links to some very interesting sites.  The first one (thanks Outsider) is here (Can you tell someone's race by looking at them?).

And here are two links, the first to National Geographic's Genographic Project homepage, here and the second more specific one to the same project's page on genetic markers (the genetic markers that signal belonging to a particular group of ancestors) at: genetic markers.


----------



## Lugubert

I find the human race rather different from dog races. To distinguish subgroups of the human race for comparing susceptibility to diseases, reactions to pharmaceuticals, prevalence of heart disease and whatever, Ithink we should use other labels, like for example genotypes.

In any case, skin colour, to the extent that I have been able to judge, is a very poor measure. My (100%) Chinese friends do not strike me as having a skin colour very different than mine or that of other Swedes, and I'm as Swedish as they go (ancestors 100% Swedish, in some cases verified to the 16th century). Guessing from their skin only, I might have at the most proposed Mediterranean for my friends, and when in my best suntan, I don't stand out too much in southern India.

I'd say that ethnicity is for the individual to feel, not for others to label.


----------



## Outsider

Here's a page about the differences between ethnicity and race, as defined in anthropology: Ethnicity and Race. By the way, the U.S. Bureau of the Census officially treats "race" and "ethnicity" as separate things, too (scroll down).

I basically agree with what Lugubert wrote. But I'll add that, like most people, I once took human races for granted. Then I happened to come across some people who were discussing the issue on the Internet. I was skeptical at first, but I did a little reading here and there, and I think I understand now the basic argument against the _biological_ reality of race. For example:



badgrammar said:


> [...] and even some traits we can't see (like bloodtype - yes, apparently not all "races" have all bloodtypes).


I can't think of any race which would not have all blood types. All blood types exist in all races; it's their frequency which varies with geography. But suppose you ignored race for a moment, and classified people according to blood type alone. What do you think you'd get? At the bottom of this page, you'll find a map of the global distribution of type B blood. Its relation to traditional races?... Zero.


----------



## Kajjo

Let us first get the facts straight! Please everyone, just comment on the following point whether you agree or not.

1) Homo sapiens is a _species_ and not a _race_. The terms _mankind _and _human being_ are used to mean the species homo sapiens. All contemporary human beings belong to the same species.

2) There are physical, anatomic variations, e.g. bone structure, head shape, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases that are _hereditary_ and clearly based on _genetic information_. For very many variations the genes are known and can be tested.

3) In the history of mankind migration and distribution occured, going along with natural selection to produce the variations mentioned in 2) as consequence to environmental adaptation and/or due to geographic isolation and consequently independent evolution.

4) Taking a snapshot of the world distribution of the variations we still can assign certain geographical locations in which the variations mentioned in 2) are native, i.e. had naturally developed.

5) Coninciding with the native origin mentioned in 4) are cultural conditions, which do not influence the biological variations mentioned in 2).

6) We need a consise term to neutrally describe the biological variations mentioned in 2). 

7) Traditionally, the term _race_ was used to describe these variations. Due to misuse of this term in early history and the obvious possibility of mix-up with _animal races_, some people object to use the term _race_ to describe the obvious human variations mentioned in 2).

8) The term _ethnicity _is unclearly defined and usually involves cultural background as well as possible biological variations. Thus, it might already be blocked as term in the sense of 6).

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> Let us first get the facts straight! Please everyone, just comment on the following point whether you agree or not.
> 
> 1) Homo sapiens is a _species_ and not a _race_. The terms _mankind _and _human being_ are used to mean the species homo sapiens. All contemporary human beings belong to the same species.


I agree that _Homo sapiens_ is a species. I disagree that it is not a race. All contemporary human beings are of the same race, in the biological sense of the term "race".



Kajjo said:


> 2) There are physical, anatomic variations, e.g. bone structure, head shape, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases that are _hereditary_ and clearly based on _genetic information_. For very many variations the genes are known and can be tested.


There are physical traits which are hereditary, yes, but most are also affected by environmental factors (e.g. all those you mentioned).



Kajjo said:


> 3) In the history of mankind migration and distribution occured, going along with natural selection to produce the variations mentioned in 2) as consequence to environmental adaptation and/or due to geographic isolation and consequently independent evolution.


I disagree slightly, on a technical point. For some of the traits you mentioned in 2), it is not certain whether their observed geographical variations are due to natural selection. For example, some authors have argued that the differences in skin tone may be due to sexual selection instead (with different human populations finding different colours more attractive). I don't necessarily find this the most plausible explanation, but it has been proposed.



Kajjo said:


> 4) Taking a snapshot of the world distribution of the variations we still can assign certain geographical locations in which the variations mentioned in 2) are native, i.e. had naturally developed.


Can't answer. Don't understand what you mean.  



Kajjo said:


> 5) Coninciding with the native origin mentioned in 4) are cultural conditions, which do not influence the biological variations mentioned in 2).


See above. And see also my reply to 3).



Kajjo said:


> 6) We need a consise term to neutrally describe the biological variations mentioned in 2).


There already is one:  "cline".



Kajjo said:


> 7) Traditionally, the term _race_ was used to describe these variations. Due to misuse of this term in early history and the obvious possibility of mix-up with _animal races_, some people object to use the term _race_ to describe the obvious human variations mentioned in 2).


I disagree that the term was "misused" in early history. Words have whatever meaning speakers assign to them.
I also disagree that possible confusion with animal races is the main reason why people object to the use of "race" in reference to human beings. Modern biologists seldom use the word "race" for animals, anyway. They have synonyms for it which they prefer, such as "subspecies".



Kajjo said:


> 8) The term _ethnicity _is unclearly defined and usually involves cultural background as well as possible biological variations. Thus, it might already be blocked as term in the sense of 6).


Disagree. The term "ethnicity" is no more undefined than the term "race", in popular usage, and it has the advantage of not being as misleading. When people hear "race", they tend to imagine something which remains unchanged and geographically localized (absent migration or genocide) from one generation to the next. With "ethnicity", it's clear that that's not necessarily so.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> There are physical traits which are hereditary, yes, but most are also affected by environmental factors (e.g. all those you mentioned).


Of course the individual phenotype is influenced by the environment. However, if thousand black Massai born in Africa are raised in Northen Germany the general, average phenotype would not change drastically. The genes would not change anyway. The environmental influence on the first generations after migration is _very _small. The same applies e.g. to almond-shaped eyes. 

I figure it to be important that we clearly agree that _biological variations _according to 2) are existent and observable.



> I disagree slightly, on a technical point. For some of the traits you mentioned in 2), it is not certain whether their observed geographical variations are due to natural selection. For example, some authors have argued that the differences in skin tone may be due to sexual selection instead


Which is more or less the same -- natural selection is always a consequence of individual selection projected on the whole species. I agree that in case of human societies, social selections for whatever reasons might contribute to the natural selection. Eventually, what we observe is the predominance of certain traits, genetically encoded. I guess that we should agree on the outcome and not to deeply discuss the varying methods of selection.



> Kajjo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking a snapshot of the world distribution of the variations we still can assign certain geographical locations in which the variations mentioned in 2) are native, i.e. had naturally developed.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't answer. Don't understand what you mean.
Click to expand...

We agree that some selection occured leading to various variations of homo sapiens. These selections occured in geographically well defined areas, or at least along well defined migration trajectories. Thus, it is usually possible to assign certain geographical areas with certain observed variations. There might be more then one variation present in a given area, though.



> There already is one:  "cline".


Never heard about that. Not in my dictionary either. It is a new term and might be feasible to use. I will try to find out more about this new term.



> I disagree that the term was "misused" in early history. Words have whatever meaning speakers assign to them.


For example, defining religious association as race without underlying biological variations, would be abuse in my point of view. Also, I call it abuse, when a term widely associated with animals is transferred to humans, particularly if the speaker implies different _values _of such races -- which both has been done in recent history. 



> I also disagree that possible confusion with animal races is the main reason why people object to the use of "race" in reference to human beings. Modern biologists seldom use the word "race" for animals, anyway. They have synonyms for it which they prefer, such as "subspecies".


That might be true for "modern biologists" but not for the average citizen who applies the term _race_ quite regularly to e.g. dogs, cats and horses.



> Disagree. The term "ethnicity" is no more undefined than the term "race", in popular usage, and it has the advantage of not being as misleading. When people hear "race", they tend to imagine something which remains unchanged and geographically localized (absent migration or genocide) from one generation to the next. With "ethnicity", it's clear that that's not necessarily so.


I do not understand what you mean here. Leaving long-term migration and contemporary moving aside, the biological variations mentioned in 2) are localised to a certain degree.

Please let me add another thought. It has been proposed by some of the website links provided above, that e.g. "dark color" is not a specific sign of a race, because several races have dark color. Such arguments are devoid of logic. Of course, some variations occur independently from each other in several places. This even supports the theory of evolutive properties and does not contradict it. Further, _one feature_ being identical does not mean two different variations cannot be clearly distinguished by _other features_. We have to observe the whole set of relevant features.

Kajjo


----------



## Joca

Lugubert said:


> ...
> 
> I'd say that ethnicity is for the individual to feel, not for others to label.



I am no expert on race issues, but living in Brazil, where a large percent of the population is racially mixed, has perhaps given me some insight into it. I think I agree with Lugubert in that race is often talked about as something subjective rather than objective, and that is perhaps the most important for most people. While your genes are primarily given by your parents, your race is to some degree your own choice. Of course that choice has its own limitations: if you are purely African, you can't pretend to be otherwise. But in a highly mixed country, such as this one, there are many chances you can afford to be of the race that better fits your mindset.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> I agree that _Homo sapiens_ is a species. I disagree that it is not a race. *All contemporary human beings are of the same race, in the biological sense of the term "race".*


emphasis added


What better reason could we find _not_ to use the word race to distinguish individuals or groups of humans?


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> What better reason could we find _not_ to use the word race to distinguish individuals or groups of humans?


Absolutely right. 

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:


> I agree that _Homo sapiens_ is a species. I disagree that it is not a race. All contemporary human beings are of the same race, in the biological sense of the term "race".


 
So if Homo Sapiens is a species and 'dog' is a sub-species of 'wolf' - what in animals would be considered to be the equivalent of a race?


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> Of course the individual phenotype is influenced by the environment. However, if thousand black Massai born in Africa are raised in Northen Germany the general, average phenotype would not change drastically. The genes would not change anyway. The environmental influence on the first generations after migration is _very _small. The same applies e.g. to almond-shaped eyes.


You should read Stephen J. Gould's book _The Mismeasure of Man_. The influence of the environment on physical traits is by no means negligible. In particular, variables which have at times been associated with race, such as height and skull size, are quite malleable to the environment in which a person grows up.



Kajjo said:


> Which is more or less the same -- natural selection is always a consequence of individual selection projected on the whole species. I agree that in case of human societies, social selections for whatever reasons might contribute to the natural selection. Eventually, what we observe is the predominance of certain traits, genetically encoded. I guess that we should agree on the outcome and not to deeply discuss the varying methods of selection.


But if the selection is done through social pressures, then it's hardly biological.



Kajjo said:


> We agree that some selection occured leading to various variations of homo sapiens. These selections occured in geographically well defined areas, or at least along well defined migration trajectories. Thus, it is usually possible to assign certain geographical areas with certain observed variations. There might be more then one variation present in a given area, though.
> 
> [...] Leaving long-term migration and contemporary moving aside, the biological variations mentioned in 2) are localised to a certain degree.


The areas are not well defined, because most human traits vary gradually around the globe (in _clines_). 
Furthermore, the areas you may define according to essentially _arbitrary_ cutoff values are typically different for different traits. They do not overlap. Which means that different traits are, more often than not, inherited independently from each other. They do not come in neat natural bundles.
See the map for the distribution of type B blood that I linked to above.



Kajjo said:


> For example, defining religious association as race without underlying biological variations, would be abuse in my point of view.


It's not a very common thing to do (though it has been done in the past), but then again there is no "standard" or "best" definition of race. It means whatever people mean by it.



Kajjo said:


> Also, I call it abuse, when a term widely associated with animals is transferred to humans, particularly if the speaker implies different _values _of such races -- which both has been done in recent history.
> 
> [...]
> 
> That might be true for "modern biologists" but not for the average citizen who applies the term _race_ quite regularly to e.g. dogs, cats and horses.


I don't think the word "race" was originally meant for animals only. In any case, human beings are animals, too.



Kajjo said:


> Please let me add another thought. It has been proposed by some of the website links provided above, that e.g. "dark color" is not a specific sign of a race, because several races have dark color. Such arguments are devoid of logic. Of course, some variations occur independently from each other in several places. This even supports the theory of evolutive properties and does not contradict it. Further, _one feature_ being identical does not mean two different variations cannot be clearly distinguished by _other features_. We have to observe the whole set of relevant features.


I agree. But when one looks at a large number of properties to classify human populations, what one gets is not what you're expecting. Let me try to explain the logic of the counterargument, which I don't think you've understood yet:

- People claim that races are natural, biological, genetic.
- Skin tone is one of the main physical traits used to differentiate races.

--> Therefore, if skin tone is so intimately tied to race, and there is a unique "black" race, there should be genes responsible for dark skin that exist only (or overwhelmingly) in that race, and not (or scarcely) in other human populations.

When you look at a globe and think about the actual distribution of skin tone, though, you are left wondering: how did those hypothetical "black genes" get from Africa to Southern India, and then to Southeast Asia and Australia, _leaving such little trace of them in between those regions_?

The answer is that dark skin was not transmitted from one of those populations to the others; it developed independently in each of them. Although they certainly share a similar skin tone, that is _all_ that they share, biologically. Their other physical traits and genes -- the vast majority! -- are no more similar than they are to the physical traits of random Northeast Asians or Europeans.

I hope this makes sense. I am not an expert in these matters. I'm just trying to explain what I got from the readings I've made concerning this topic.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> In particular, variables which have at times been associated with race, such as height and skull size, are quite malleable to the environment in which a person grows up.


Not quite right. Of course modern Western people are in average taller than previous generations because of better nutrition. However, even under comparable nutrition conditions there are taller and shorter ethnic groups, based on genotype.



> But if the selection is done through social pressures, then it's hardly biological.


The result is the same: Genetic divergence, biological difference. I believe that in history of mankind properties like dark skin or sickle-cell anaemia developed not because of social preference but by natural selection. Emotional and subconscious preference of certain traits is nothing "non-biological" as long as it is not enforced on people, but a result of physiological processes. Birds prefer birds with a certain song or certain color -- whether this is programmed or active behaviour does not matter at all for the outcome.



> Which means that different traits are, more often than not, inherited independently from each other. They do not come in neat natural bundles.


There are a lot of independent features, but there are also a lot of bundled features. Every anatomist can detect e.g. African-Black bone structure, head shape or genetic information. You need to focus on common and not on distinguishing features. I am absolutely aware that there are a lot of factors that determine what and how an individual is that have nothing at all to do with race or ethnic origin.



> People claim that races are natural, biological, genetic. Skin tone is one of the main physical traits used to differentiate races. --> Therefore, if skin tone is so intimately tied to race, and there is a unique "black" race, there should be genes responsible for dark skin that exist only (or overwhelmingly) in that race, and not (or scarcely) in other human populations. When you look at a globe and think about the actual distribution of skin tone, though, you are left wondering: how did those hypothetical "black genes" get from Africa to Southern India, and then to Southeast Asia and Australia, _leaving such little trace of them in between those regions_?


You are right. But black skin color can be a feature of certain races and it is absent in several other races. Black skin color or short height, red hair or flat noses can develop independently in many regions. Of course, "black skin color" is not a unique racial feature common to all dark colored people. No one believes that, I suppose.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> Not quite right. Of course modern Western people are in average taller than previous generations because of better nutrition. However, even under comparable nutrition conditions there are taller and shorter ethnic groups, based on genotype.


Maybe. But here are some intriguing observations (from Gould's book, if I remember well):

- The shortest human populations in the world are black Africans. But so are the tallest ones. If height gives an indication of race, then black Africans should make at least two races.
- We're all familiar with the stereotype that East Asians are shorter on average than Europeans. In the early 20th century, when the US started to get significant immigration from East Asia, anthropological studies were carried out where immigrants from those areas were measured. Not surprisingly, they were found to be shorter on average than white Americans. Years later, when they went to look at the children of those immigrants, they found that, while they were still shorter on average than white Americans, they were taller than both their parents (we're talking about couples where both spouses were immigrants from the same part of the globe). And the grandchildren were taller than the children of the original immigrants. This trend has been observed in many different groups of immigrants, and for other variables, such as skull measurements.



Kajjo said:


> There are a lot of independent features, but there are also a lot of bundled features. Every anatomist can detect e.g. African-Black bone structure, head shape or genetic information. You need to focus on common and not on distinguishing features. I am absolutely aware that there are a lot of factors that determine what and how an individual is that have nothing at all to do with race or ethnic origin.


I've read a bit about forensic anthropology, and let's just say that I'm not convinced that what they're actually measuring is race as the word is commonly understood. But it's a delicate topic of which I do not know much, so I will say no more on that.



Kajjo said:


> You are right. But black skin color can be a feature of certain races and it is absent in several other races. Black skin color or short height, red hair or flat noses can develop independently in many regions.


Not only that, but they are inherited independently from one another. A man with dark skin and a flat nose and a woman with light skin and a thin nose can just as easily have a child with the same pair of features as one of their parents as they can have a child with one feature from each.*

*Honesty compels me to clarify that the actual genes that control most of these features are believed to be multiple, and have not been fully identified yet. Nevertheless, a lot is known about how they are transmitted. And of course the genes for skin colour have incomplete dominance; I had to simplify a little.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> The shortest human populations in the world are black Africans. But so are the tallest ones. If height gives an indication of race, then black Africans should make at least two races.


Yes, and I am sure there are more than two races in Africa.



> We're all familiar with the stereotype that East Asians are shorter on average than Europeans. In the early 20th century, when the US started to get significant immigration from East Asia, anthropological studies were carried out where immigrants from those areas were measured.


The same applies to German people. Children are taller than previous generations due to better nutrition and medical care. That has only little to do with races.



> I've read a bit about forensic anthropology, and let's just say that I'm not convinced that what they're actually measuring is race as the word is commonly understood.


Maybe so. But they are measuring what I understand the concept of race is about: Biological, physiological differences and variations of the species homo sapiens.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

This fourm is about words and their meanings, origins and translations etc.

Before this thread gets too much older, would someone please explain to me where, in the chain of science's taxonomy of all living things, "race" fits in in this sequential categorisation .....

*Life - Domain - Kingom - Phylum - Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species*

It would seem that WordRef has two pertinent definitions of the word...

================
4 race
people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock; "some biologists doubt that there are important genetic differences between races of human beings" 
Category Tree:
group; grouping
╚race
╚Slavic people; Slavic race
╚Indian race
╚Indian race; Amerindian race
╚Yellow race; Mongoloid race; Mongolian race
╚White race; White people; Caucasoid race; Caucasian race
╚Black race; Negroid race; Negro race
╚master race; Herrenvolk
╚color; colour; people of color; people of colour 


5 subspecies, race
(biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species 
================

Under the definition of 4, I would appear to have something ancestral in common with every other white person which I don't share with Black, Yellow or Indian people - is this literally true? How far back up the ancestral tree do I connect with say, Hakro and panjabigator?

Under the definition of 5, how do we account for interbreeding between the no-longer georgraphically isolated subspecies - is each 'tint' of degrees of interbreding between say the ultra-dark of Cape Town and light of Egypt to be termed a sub-species? How white am I here in north-west Europe compared to ireney in south-east Europe? Within a few generations back my ancestry contains several European countries-of-origin.


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> Before this thread gets too much older, would someone please explain to me where, in the chain of science's taxonomy of all living things, "race" fits in in this sequential categorisation ...
> 
> Organism - Domain - Kingom - Phylum - Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species - Subspecies





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In zoology, as in other branches of biology, *subspecies* is the rank immediately subordinate to a species. It is equivalent to "race" in the biological (i.e. not social) sense. Source: Wikipedia





maxiogee said:


> 5 subspecies, race:
> (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species


I go with definition 5, Maxiogee!



> Under the definition of 5, how do we account for interbreeding between the no-longer georgraphically isolated subspecies


As long as no stable subspecies develops, you can just call it interbreeding of several subspecies. Such phenomena occur frequently with animals. The resulting offspring is not counted as new subspecies.



> How white am I here in north-west Europe compared to ireney in south-east Europe? Within a few generations back my ancestry contains several European countries-of-origin.


Since a long history of interbreeding in Europe, it is difficult to impossible to define several European races, even if some observable, apparently somewhat stable variations still exist.

An interesting point might be that biologists define subspecies as variations that would _freely interbreed _if all natural barriers (e.g. geographical location) were removed. If only some interbreeding occurs, but mainly the subspecies remain constant over several generations they count the variations as species. Humans can and do interbreed freely from the biological point of view. The cultural dimension is unique to humans and thus cultural hinderance of interbreeding is a different issue here.

Considerung what slight color variations e.g. in birds or variations in body shape biologists use to describe new species and subspecies, it is scientifically easy to justify to call human races subspecies. Not doing so is purely based on political and social grounds and not on biological observations.

Anyway, we are _one species _and that fact is pushed into the background if we focus to much on subspecies variations -- neither denial nor emphasis of variations is a valid approach, I believe.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> Since a long history of interbreeding in Europe, it is difficult to impossible to define several European races, even if some observable, apparently somewhat stable variations still exist.


 
This is crux of my query.
If it is impossible to define something, can it truly be said to exist as a distinct thing?
The interbreeding is not only European - is there not a long history of interbreeding within say every fifty to one hundred miles, all the way from the Bay of Biscay eastwards to the Sea of Japan?

As for bring 'culture' into it, that's only us setting up indeterminate barriers - what constitutes a particular culture and what demarks it from another neighbouring one? What is the 'culture' of Alsace-Lorriane for instance?


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> This is crux of my query. If it is impossible to define something, can it truly be said to exist as a distinct thing?


No, probably not. But there are many regions and groups still "isolated" from each other with regards to_ how many people of X an Y interbreed_? Even Africa-American and European-Americans used to interbreed very rarely and only the last dozens years interracial marriages became more frequently. 

And note that subspecies are defined as _potentially _freely interbreeding groups -- we have now the situation that former stable subspecies _actually do_ interbreed freely because many barriers have been removed and thus will merge into one subspecies. The differences inside Europe become smaller, but the difference to e.g. African Massai is still easily recognised.



> As for bring 'culture' into it, that's only us setting up indeterminate barriers - what constitutes a particular culture and what demarks it from another neighbouring one? What is the 'culture' of Alsace-Lorriane for instance?


No, sorry, I did not express myself well enough. I did not mean "culture" as a feature, but as an equivalent of natural barriers. Imagine how a waterfall can locally isolate two subspecies of frogs (Wikipedia example). Without the waterfall, the frogs would freely interbreed and this would result in a merged, mixed-featured subspecies, while with the waterfall they differentiate e.g. in white and black frogs. Culture can do exactly the same to human subspecies as a waterfall can do to frog subspecies. Culture might tell white people not to marry black people. Culture might have told Romans not to marry Germanic Barbarians. Culture quite often acts a barrier and stabilises subspecies.

Kajjo


----------



## danielfranco

I've always been confused as to the designation of "race" for humans... Maybe I misunderstand, but I believe that every single human being alive on this planet at the moment belongs to the ONLY hominid race (erm... sub-species?) left: Homo Sapiens *Sapiens*. The other races are gone, extinct, kaput. Apparently the only other recent race of humans to share the planet with the actual one was the Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis (and, although I may resemble the remark, nonetheless they are all gone, forever, apparently...)
As to the other relatively spanking brand new term "ethnicity" (first described in a dictionary in 1972?), I guess it might be used to define the extent of cohesiveness within a group of people with a common ancestry, but I wonder if in this age of great world-trotting travelers and inter-ethnic marriages it might not be misinterpreted as one of the motives of the schism between humans.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think that common ancestry is a requirement for common ethnicity.


----------



## lizzeymac

Kajjo said:


> No, probably not. But there are many regions and groups still "isolated" from each other with regards to_ how many people of X an Y interbreed_? Even Africa-American and European-Americans used to interbreed very rarely and only the last dozens years interracial marriages became more frequently.
> CLIP
> Kajjo




Justs to clarify - that particular example will not support your argument.  You are confusing _marriage_ with procreation.
European-Americans & Africa*n*-Americans have been "interbreeding" since the moment African slaves were brought to America, and to the Caribbean - not voluntarily. Many, many African-Americans whose ancestors were enslaved have some European ancestry as well, some as high as 50%.  The children of slaves & their masters were raised as slaves,  most of their descendants self-identify as "black" though some might look "white."  Until recently, segregationist laws defined them as  "black." Freed or escaped slaves also joined Native American tribes & to a lesser degree intermarried with immigrant Chinese laborers.  
Native American tribes have been more isolated than African Americans are but there has still been some formal & informal intermarriage with European-Americans.
I think America is one of the places where formal & informal "interbreeding" of races or ethnic groups et al. make a large percentage of the population scientifically "unclassifiable," thank heavens.  Culture, and perhaps ethnicity, are the more accurate identifying terms for most Americans.


----------



## Outsider

Regarding interracial marriage in the U.S., this is an interesting essay. A few highlights:



> The importance of [intermarriage] cannot be overstated. The family is the primary social unit in society, and as families mix, so do other institutions. In other words, intermarriage is the ultimate form of ethnic assimilation.





> As shown in the figure at left, the out-marriage rate of U.S. Blacks is 3.9 percent as of the 2000 census, and today’s rate is the historical maximum.
> 
> [...] the Black-White intermarriage rate has tripled since 1970. Despite appearances, this rate of change is numerically insignificant. Even if this rate of intermarriage increase were to continue unabated, Black exogamy would not approach the 50 percent rate typical of ethnic groups (Jews, Japanese-Americans, Hispanics) for another six centuries (2.5 percent in three decades equals 50 percent in sixty decades).


----------



## Macunaíma

Outsider said:


> I don't think that common ancestry is a requirement for common ethnicity.


 


lizzeymac said:


> Culture, and perhaps ethnicity, are the more accurate identifying terms for most Americans.


 
I am a Brazilian of German descent, therefore I am white. Having been born and bred in Brazil, I am, culturally, latin. I recently had to fill in an online form in which I was asked state my race/ ethnicity/ whatever and, what I found most strange, I had to choose between White and Latin, as if there were no whites in Latin America. I hesitated for a while, thinking that perhaps by Latino as apposed to White they meant Portuguese/Spanish descendants as opposed to Northern European descendants, but then I decided to mark the Latin option, because that's how I feel after all. I feel linked to a culture, not to a race. Culturally, I am identical to everybody else of the same social class as me in my country, no matter their race. Like me, I believe many Latin Americans must find themselves in this dilemma when filling out forms _ when they are submitted to this American classification of race, they have to find out what identifies them most, culture or biological race.

As for the biological race thing, I couldn't get into that debate because I don't have much knowledge in that area, and I just can't be bothered to learn. What it all comes down to to me is that, no matter what the technical term is, is doesn't change a thing. People are people _as simple as that. 

Macunaíma


----------



## Kajjo

lizzeymac said:


> Justs to clarify - that particular example will not support your argument.  You are confusing _marriage_ with procreation.


You are right. I do not know enough about the American situation anyway and I should have kept the argumentation on a biological basis. 

Anyway, subspecies are supposed to freely interbreed if no barriers are present, so logically the chain of arguments is intact. 

Thanks for pointing out this fact.

Kajjo


----------



## danielfranco

Outsider said:


> I don't think that common ancestry is a requirement for common ethnicity.



However, the invention of patrilocality and sedentary social models in human societies must have contributed a very great deal to an increase in the similarity of all offspring and the homogeneity of social practices, no?
Maybe...


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> I don't think that common ancestry is a requirement for common ethnicity.


Right, but it helps a lot to identify yourself with a group of people. The more you have got a common enemy, the more you share important goals, the more educated the people are, the more modern the society is, the more means of communication are available -- the less important is common ancestry. 

However, without a common enemy, without important goals, without much of education and so on, the more common ancestry and common body features will enhance group identity. Biologically, it makes sense that genetically closer individuals support each other more than distant relations.

I think you can hope for a modern world in which common goals and interests are more important than common ancestry. However, this was rarely the case in history of mankind.

"Blood is thicker than..."

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> "Blood is thicker than..."



Whiskey?


----------



## Mate

Kajjo said:


> I think you can hope for a modern world in which common goals and interests are more important than common ancestry. However, this was rarely the case in history of mankind.
> 
> "Blood is thicker than..."
> 
> Kajjo


As I´m sipping my whisky (an Argentine imitation of the real thing, regrettably) I find that Kajjo has a point here. 

If mankind cannot manage to agree on common goals and interest -that of course are not ancestry, ethnicity or race- we are doomed. 

My signature means more or less the same only that in Spanish. 


_You may say I´m a dreamer, but I´m not the only one_ (J.L.)​ 

Note: It´s John Lennon, not Johnie Walker or Justerini-Brooks.


----------



## vince

lizzeymac said:


> Justs to clarify - that particular example will not support your argument.  You are confusing _marriage_ with procreation.
> European-Americans & Africa*n*-Americans have been "interbreeding" since the moment African slaves were brought to America, and to the Caribbean - not voluntarily. Many, many African-Americans whose ancestors were enslaved have some European ancestry as well, some as high as 50%.  The children of slaves & their masters were raised as slaves,  most of their descendants self-identify as "black" though some might look "white."  Until recently, segregationist laws defined them as  "black." Freed or escaped slaves also joined Native American tribes & to a lesser degree intermarried with immigrant Chinese laborers.
> Native American tribes have been more isolated than African Americans are but there has still been some formal & informal intermarriage with European-Americans.
> I think America is one of the places where formal & informal "interbreeding" of races or ethnic groups et al. make a large percentage of the population scientifically "unclassifiable," thank heavens.  Culture, and perhaps ethnicity, are the more accurate identifying terms for most Americans.



Unfortunately, in America there is something called the "one-drop rule"
. There is a famous quote: "America is the only country where a White woman can have a black child but a Black woman cannot have a White child". IMO, this is the primary reason why Black-White racism will exist for a long time in the U.S. For, no matter how much Black-White interracial marriage there is, the children of these marriages will always be African-American, and never simply "American", until her/his skin and appearance becomes White enough ("no discernible drop of Negro blood" as the saying went when the one-drop rule was in the legal system). The history of segregation and inability of intermarriage to promote a common American culture admissible to those of African-American descent has led to ethnogenesis: the creation of the African-American ethnicity complete with a socially-associated culture (values, music, cuisine, language, arts). Once an ethnic group based in one's home country has been created, it is very difficult to eliminate through assimilation, unlike with immigrant groups where the physical separation eventually cuts ties with the home country and everyone becomes simply 'American'.

The day when African-American culture and general American culture blend into a single rich culture admissible to members of any race will only come when the one-drop rule becomes history. But the legacy of the one-drop rule has led to the creation of a distinct ethnic group indigenous to America. Therefore in the context of the U.S., the concept of the Blacks as separate from the Whites will remain strongly entrenched for decades to come.

(All of the above definitions of ethnicity and race arise from the perception of these terms from an American perspective, and, like all interpretations of ethnicity and race, are inherently unscientific and logically inconsistent when applied to places outside the particular culture they were defined in, which is why the entire concept of ethnicity and race ought to be abandoned. But as long as racism exists, and people continue to think of others primarily in the terms of their race, these terms are a necessary evil to document the sociology)


----------



## lizzeymac

vince said:


> Unfortunately, in America there is something called the "one-drop rule". There is a famous quote: "America is the only country where a White woman can have a black child but a Black woman cannot have a White child". IMO, this is the primary reason why Black-White racism will exist for a long time in the U.S. For, no matter how much Black-White interracial marriage there is, the children of these marriages will always be African-American, and never simply "American", until her/his skin and appearance becomes White enough ("no discernible drop of Negro blood" as the saying went when the one-drop rule was in the legal system). The history of segregation and inability of intermarriage to promote a common American culture admissible to those of African-American descent has led to ethnogenesis: the creation of the African-American ethnicity complete with a socially-associated culture (values, music, cuisine, language, arts). Once an ethnic group based in one's home country has been created, it is very difficult to eliminate through assimilation, unlike with immigrant groups where the physical separation eventually cuts ties with the home country and everyone becomes simply 'American'.
> 
> The day when African-American culture and general American culture blend into a single rich culture admissible to members of any race will only come when the one-drop rule becomes history. But the legacy of the one-drop rule has led to the creation of a distinct ethnic group indigenous to America. Therefore in the context of the U.S., the concept of the Blacks as separate from the Whites will remain strongly entrenched for decades to come.
> 
> (All of the above definitions of ethnicity and race arise from the perception of these terms from an American perspective, and, like all interpretations of ethnicity and race, are inherently unscientific and logically inconsistent when applied to places outside the particular culture they were defined in, which is why the entire concept of ethnicity and race ought to be abandoned. But as long as racism exists, and people continue to think  of others primarily in the terms of their race, these terms are a necessary evil to document the sociology)



Vince -
You have some very decided opinions about how to fix American culture for a person who is Canadian. When did you live in America?  You are talking about legal concepts that are at least 30 years old (except for Alabama) & some that are quite a few decades older as though they were current.  While God knows we still have plenty of bigots here, I have to tell you that the "one drop rule" hasn't been talked about much since Strom Thurmond passed away & David Duke dropped out of politics (members of the Ku Klux Klan). Happily, our best bigots are dying off at an encouraging rate. 
I was referring to what is somewhat vulgarly being called "breeding" only because a Forer@ had an inaccurate perception of how "mixed" most Americans really are as compared to The Old World.  I was using terms like African-Americans & Irish-Americans & Chinese-Americans & Native Americans to explain certain facts of Am. history to people who are not Americans. A hyphenated American is not less of an American.
 Culture is not race - and yes, that is a useless word/concept _especially_ in the USA, Central America & South America.  My family comes from the Irish- & French-American cultures of New England - these cultures are different from the Irish-American culture of Appalachia or the Cajun (French-American) culture of Louisiana.  Race is not the problem, culture is not the problem, & I don't think homogeneity is the solution.  Fearful hateful ignorant bigots are the problem - they come in every color & culture. 

I think I must be misunderstanding you - or do you think homogeneous monoculture is good idea?  That African-American culture exists only as a negative response to racism & has no positive energy, that it should be abandoned & African-Americans & all the rest of our cultures should be "assimilated" into some slurry of collective beigeness? That all of our ethnic cultures are problematic?
?


----------



## JGreco

But remember in the states their are still a lot of Caucasians that do have that remnant of racial identity that identifies that anybody who looks slightly ethnic with darker olive skin and almond shaped eyes (describing myself and no I'm not Asian) as not white or not like themselves. I mean frankly speaking country music is a uniquely dominant with a Caucasian fan  base. Sadly I even like some country music but I would never say that because since I do look "ethnic" it might seem weird to a person to hear me say I like bluegrass music. I have always found it weird that when you fill out a U.S census, renew a license, or re apply for your financial aid in college that under race I was basically having to put Caucasian under that category even though most people don't see me as that which I feel the same way preferring to Identify myself as "Latino" or Panamanian-Brazilian American to make sure I'm not denying any part of me. But of course living in the U.S with these made up racial categories I have to live with these perceptions  here.


----------



## lizzeymac

JGreco said:


> But remember in the states their are still a lot of Caucasians that do have that remnant of racial identity that identifies that anybody who looks slightly ethnic with darker olive skin and almond shaped eyes (describing myself and no I'm not Asian) as not white or not like themselves. I mean frankly speaking country music is a uniquely dominant with a Caucasian fan  base. Sadly I even like some country music but I would never say that because since I do look "ethnic" it might seem weird to a person to hear me say I like bluegrass music. I have always found it weird that when you fill out a U.S census, renew a license, or re apply for your financial aid in college that under race I was basically having to put Caucasian under that category even though most people don't see me as that which I feel the same way preferring to Identify myself as "Latino" or Panamanian-Brazilian American to make sure I'm not denying any part of me. But of course living in the U.S with these made up racial categories I have to live with these perceptions  here.



What census did you fill out that did not have the category Latino or Hispanic - mine did.   I am surprised to hear Latino or Hispanic is not on your financial aid forms - my cousins were filling theirs out last month & theirs did. State universities need to prove the diversity of their student body for funding - I guess private universities don't?

And yes, I have noticed that some people notice differences more than similarities & get nervous around "strange & different" people. As I said before - we do have bigots, I am fairly sure we are not the only place in the world that has bigots, at least according to the BBC World News.  We're working on it.

I would like to remind you that being prejudiced is not the sole province of Caucasians.  There is a fair amount of "minority" vs. "minority" prejudice, at least there is here in NYC.

As far as liking Bluegrass goes, you're editing your actions based on what other people _might_ think.  With respect, if you are too sensitive to stand a look of surprise on someone's face you are going to be very uncomfortable in America. I do understand what you are saying though, I have seen a look of absolute shock on someone's face when I say that like Bluegrass & Gospel music. They are surprised because I'm from Godless & rap-loving New York City. People are always going to be "surprised" by something, you can't let it get in your way. They'll get over it or they won't but you shouldn't change you actions to suit them.  We will all have to drag our unenlightened brothers & sisters kicking & screaming into the 21st century, as soon as we finish dragging them out of the 19th century.


----------



## Ricardo Tavares

Outsider said:


> Cada país (cada cultura) tem as suas manias. Já pensou que eles devem achar a classificação brasileira igualmente bizarra?


Não sei se este seria o espaço adequado para mergulharmos nessa discussão, mas se seguirmos este raciocínio, então não nos será mais possível realizar nenhuma crítica.... Se cada um tem sua cultura, também se poderia, por analogia, pensar que cada um tem o seu jeito, tem a sua mania, seus vícios, etc. Aí, meu amigo, tudo será permitido, o que considero muito perigoso à sociedade, tal como a concebemos.

Voltando ao assunto das raças, como pode não se fazer crítica para um sistema que mistura raça com geografia e também com idioma ? Se desejam ser tão abrangentes, por que não permitir classificar, então, por exemplo, os brasileiros, nem tão pardos, assim como a citada minha amiga e o próprio nosso amigo Dom Casmurro? 

Creio que deveria haver uma classificação geral, com apenas 4 grupos grandes de raças *ou *então entrar no detalhe de cada uma existente no planeta.

Cumprimentos.


----------



## Dom Casmurro

Vamos ser claros: o que estamos discutindo é a relação entre classificação de raças e racismo. Não preciso lembrar o elo fortíssimo que existe entre as duas coisas, a ponto de podermos afirmar que o racismo não existiria caso não houvesse um esforço consistente de classificar as raças, desde Gobineau até o nazismo. 

O sistema americano é, nesse sentido, ainda mais discriminatório, ao não admitir que, digamos, um brasileiro nascido em Santa Catarina, branco, louro, filho de pais de descendência alemã, seja considerado um "caucasiano" - "título" esse que estará sempre ao alcance de um americano nascido em New Jersey e filho de pais de descendência siciliana. Na acepção americana, o mencionado brasileiro nascido em Santa Catarina será, pasmem, um "hispânico"! mesmo sem entender uma palavra de espanhol. Ou seja, não terá direito a uma classificação concebida para uso (e proveito) exclusivo dos próprios americanos brancos e dos nascidos na Europa. Por outro lado, resta a pergunta: um negro brasileiro será considerado, junto ao US immigration service, um "hispânico" ou um "afro-descendente"? Não sei a resposta, mas seria muito interessante averiguar esse ponto...

Enfim, como se observa, o sistema americano, ao assumir escancaradamente a sua esquizofrenia conceitual, já não se contenta em apenas classificar raças. Classifica, também - e sempre com o propósito de discriminar - os idiomas e as procedências geográficas. E não duvido que, se o Barack Obama nada fizer para impedir, acabarão por fazer classificações com base em cálculos antropométricos, como se fazia no Terceiro Reich.

Quanto ao sistema brasileiro de classificação, eu só enxergaria mérito nele caso fosse usado para a promoção da "discriminação positiva" - conceito que tem estado muito em voga ultimamente.


----------



## Outsider

Não me preocupa reformar as categorias raciais, porque estou convencido de que todas as formas de classificação racial são absurdas.  Percebemos logo isto quando olhamos para as categorias raciais de culturas bastante diferentes da nossa, como a dos E.U.A., mas a verdade é que as noções raciais das nossas próprias culturas tão-pouco resistem a uma inspecção crítica mais atenta.

Por mera curiosidade, noto que o U.S. Bureau of the Census, nas suas definições oficiais, considera que _Hispanic/Latino_ é uma "etnia" (e não raça). Penso que se pode defender a recolha de dados estatísticos sobre a raça (e a etnia) nos censos, se for para efeitos de monitorização da discriminação racial no país ou de discriminação positiva, como diz o Dom Casmurro, mas não estou certo de que seja a maneira certa de combater esses problemas. Alguns americanos também duvidam. Segundo sei, tem havido pressões para retirar as perguntas raciais do censo. O que acontece é que, como nós portugueses e brasileiros bem entendemos, por vezes a burocracia dos governos tem uma inércia própria que não é fácil ultrapassar. Mas sempre se conseguiu um compromisso: nas últimas versões do censo, já era aceitável escolher mais que uma raça. Se eu fosse americano nos tempos que correm, acho que escolhia a opção _some other race_. A minha raça é a humana.


----------



## Carfer

Estava a conter-me de dizer isto, mas, como a discussão tem avançado livremente, não quero deixar de acrescentar que, para além dos argumentos que outros foreiros já avançaram nos seus posts, designadamente o precedente de Outsider, eu acho que um Estado se desqualifica quando determina a inclusão de perguntas destas não apenas nos censos, que até nem afectam directamente a vida de ninguém, mas em formulários de imigração ou de pedido de asilo. E aproveito para dizer também que não acredito na boa-fé com que supostamente são feitas nem que tenham qualquer utilidade para determinar políticas sociais ou de integração. Quando alguém pede asilo ou uma autorização de residência quem decide se lha dá ou não não é a mesma entidade que vai integrar ou apoiar socialmente essa pessoa, nem os respectivos processos circulam entre os diferentes organismos. De forma que elas estão lá apenas para uma coisa: para discriminar. Que quem o faça sejam estados do 'primeiro' mundo (ninguém vai pedir asilo em África, ou pelo menos à grande maioria dos seus Estados) diz muito da hipocrisia que ainda reina entre nós.


----------



## Outsider

Carfer, historicamente não há questão: estas perguntas tiveram origens racistas. Mas, embora a sabedoria popular diga que o que nasce torto tarde ou nunca se endireita, eu penso que é possível pegar num instrumento concebido para maus fins e pô-lo ao serviço de algo de positivo.

Sobre a hipocrisia dos países do primeiro mundo em questões de imigração muito haveria a dizer. Por exemplo, na Europa, onde não perguntamos às pessoas a raça nos censos, está na moda uma corrente política que defende que devemos fechar as fronteiras e combater a imigração ilegal, deixando entrar só os imigrantes de que "precisamos".

Adivinhe a cor da pele típica do imigrante que mais vai ser prejudicado por tais políticas.


----------



## alexacohen

> *race *
> Function: _noun_
> b*:* a class or kind of people unified by shared interests.


I took this from the Merriam-Webster. There is a whole bunch of meanings, but this one is the only one that makes sense to me.

I do not know nothing of evolution, of genetics, of traits. I am a Spaniard because I share many interests with my countryfellows. Not because we are linked by our blood, but because we are linked by our culture.

If I ever have to fill a form stating my race, I'll write "mongrel".


----------



## divina

Joca said:


> I am no expert on race issues, but living in Brazil, where a large percent of the population is racially mixed, has perhaps given me some insight into it. I think I agree with Lugubert in that race is often talked about as something subjective rather than objective, and that is perhaps the most important for most people. While your genes are primarily given by your parents, your race is to some degree your own choice. Of course that choice has its own limitations: if you are purely African, you can't pretend to be otherwise. But in a highly mixed country, such as this one, there are many chances you can afford to be of the race that better fits your mindset.



It's the same way in the Dominican Republic, to some extent. Most Dominicans have varying traces of African ancestry mixed with other races, so you could have, say, almond-shaped eyes and textured hair: straighten the hair with an iron and pass for Asian.


----------



## alexacohen

divina said:


> It's the same way in the Dominican Republic, to some extent. Most Dominicans have varying traces of African ancestry mixed with other races, so you could have, say, almond-shaped eyes and textured hair: straighten the hair with an iron and pass for Asian.


 I think you've missed the point of what my friend Joca said. If you read Macunaíma's post (number 23), what they're saying is that Brazilians identify themselves because of their culture, not because of their physical traits, which are meaningless.


----------



## sokol

I would like to add to the discussion a very important point: the term 'race' is differently defined in different cultures. Especially in English 'race' may (and many times is!) be used for 'ethnicity' which is complete and utter nonsense as far as biology and genetics is concerned - but this meaning of 'race' in English nevertheless continues to be used: it is a linguistic fact.

Also in French, according to my dictionary, it is possible for 'race' to mean both the biological race as well as a group of people not defined through biological differencies but through relationship (an aristocratic family, for example) or culture or common interests. I guess the French and English use of the term 'race' are related.

In German, and I guess in many other languages, 'race' however mostly is used for the biological race, that is for (usually) subspecies - for variation between individual beings of a species (be it plant, animal or human) which is on the subspecies level.
(There are possible uses of German 'Rasse' which don't mean the biological thing, but they aren't nearly as widespread as in the English speaking world, further in Europe usually there isn't such a strict 'racial' categorisation like in the US where _everyone _is 'of' a race - even if mixed of origin. You are either Caucasian or Black or Asian or American-Indian or whatever in the USA; you aren't categorised like that in Europe. Or only by prejudice, but not by the authorities.)

I guess the importance of 'race' in the USA is at least partly due to this strict categorisation (of course the real reasons are historical, but the point is that e. g. Blacks in the US 'feel' as a 'race' if they are 'Black' according to their passport - the race _is_ in the passport, isn't it? or is this a modern myth of Europe? - even if they look white and only have one black grand-parent).


Ethnicity in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with race - ethnicity even in ancient times was only:
- a group united through culture and/or common political structure and/or common interest
- but _not necessarily_ united through common language
- and certainly _not necessarily_ united through similar racial features

An *ethnic community* always was and is a group that thinks of itself as an ethnic community. This is a *mental concept *- not at all a biological one. Over time of course it is likely that an ethnic community will become more homogenuous concerning language (because they communicate with each other on a permanent basis) and probably even race (because supposedly there's intermarriage and a common genetic pool which over time will level out), but one has to take caste systems like the one in India into account (and milder versions of the same principle which ruled in medieval Europe).

A *race *really should be discussed here as the *biological concept, *in my opinion. Or if we discuss the other meanings of 'race' this would be purely a linguistic discussion over different meanings of the word 'race' in different languages; it would *not *be a discussion about the relationship between race and ethnicity - it wouldn't even be close to that.

I think if we don't do that this discussion will revolve about misunderstandings and misconceptions; we shouldn't forget that the people discussing here are from very different regions of the world.


----------



## gillyfr

Thanks sokol for making the important point that the term _race_ is defined differently in different cultures.

However, what is understood in English as _race_ or _ethnicity_ (even if ethnicity is in fact a misnomer and only a PC term for race, because the latter smacks too much of _racism_), represents a concept that exists in very many cultures, if I cannot categorically say all. This concept may not be defined by the same word, in fact it may not really have a name at all, but it definitely exists.

Please excuse what might appear to be a digression, but this information is necessary to explain the concept I’m referring to.

‘Racism’ is defined by those that study it as ‘privilege + power’. ‘Privilege’ means, in this case, _having a sense of entitlement and never being questioned about that entitlement + being able to define others by your benchmark + never having to justify yourself or your actions_. In other words, being part of the majority, of the de facto ‘ruling classes’.

We all have some type of privilege: as able-bodied people, we don’t ever think about where we can and can’t go (whether there are stairs, whether the door is wide enough, whether we will be let in), and we never think about whether our society is inclusive of those who do have these considerations. As right-handed people, we take for granted that tools and utensils fit naturally in our hands and can be used easily, and we never consider that this may not be the case for others – we may even lay the table with the knife at the right, even if we know that one of the diners is left-handed.

‘Power’ is involved when society does not extend that privilege to everyone – is not inclusive.

The social casting of ‘others’ as inferior, those who do not share the same characteristics as those who have privilege and power, results in such systemic discrimination as the anti-miscegenation laws of the past; the social taboos regarding marrying outside one’s social class; the tendency to not accommodate, and in some cultures, to shut away, the disabled; the refusal to ‘allow’ homosexuals to marry. But it also results in an under-representation, in the media and in what we formally pass on to our young (education), of ‘under-privileged’ people and lifestyles. And it also results in such phenomena as the ‘glass ceiling’ (the unseen barrier that prevents women from getting top jobs proportionate to the number who are capable of doing them), and the ‘bamboo ceiling’ (same barrier for Asian people living in white-dominated societies), and what is termed the ‘poverty cycle’.

Nineteenth century racial theory and the eugenics movement have hugely influenced how we consider ‘race’ today, even if we are unaware of it. While we, as a society or collection of societies, may refute the idea of a hierarchy of races, we still hold to the idea that ‘race’ exists. As sentient beings, we need to understand why things are the way they are, and because we are, as a species, mostly visual, we sort and group according to physical resemblance and difference.

When we combine the effects of privilege and power with this need to sort, we obtain what is often referred to as a majority/minority situation. This also is something of a misnomer – men are in the minority in the world, but women are the ‘under-privileged’.

Take for example yesterday’s release of population projections by the US Census bureau. By 2050, the white majority will have fallen from 65% of the total population to 46%. The next nearest racial category, Hispanics, will represent 30%. Compare the figures, the Caucasian ‘race’ is still the majority race. And yet the media screamed that whites would be “in the minority”, would “lose their majority status”.

Why? Because what is really defined by the group which holds the privilege and power in society is ‘us’ and ‘them’. But as ‘them’ don’t all speak with one voice, they get lumped together in little sub-groups which often have no bearing on anything much – there are, as one poster pointed out, ‘Latinos/Hispanics’ of all colours; ‘Asian’ encompasses peoples as far apart as Japan, India and Saudi Arabia; ‘Black’ can be mixed race like Barack Obama, African-American like his wife Michelle, Jamaican, Ethiopian, Australian Aborigine etc. 

So, to answer the original question, “How do we define race?”, ‘we’ (society) tend to define it as ‘us’ and ‘them’. Sometimes it is genetic traits that make ‘them’ not like us, sometimes it is geographical origin, sometimes it is skin colour, sometimes it is religion. Because of all these 'sometimes', we create little sub-groups for better sorting, but they are only sub-groups of the bigger group, ‘them’.


----------



## sokol

gillyfr said:


> However, what is understood in English as _race_ or _ethnicity_ (...) represents a concept that exists in very many cultures, if I cannot categorically say all. This concept may not be defined by the same word, in fact it may not really have a name at all, but it definitely exists.


It does of course.
But we here in Europe (at least in German speaking nations) usually refer to this concept of 'race' as 'nation' or 'nationality'. In German 'Rasse' isn't used in this context, most likely for historical reasons (the Naz era, of course).



gillyfr said:


> When we combine the effects of privilege and power with this need to sort, we obtain what is often referred to as a majority/minority situation. (...)
> Take for example yesterday’s release of population projections by the US Census bureau. By 2050, the white majority will have fallen from 65% of the total population to 46%. The next nearest racial category, Hispanics, will represent 30%.


Your use of the term 'race' makes perfectly clear what I did put emphasis on in my post: you use 'race' first and foremost for an ethnic group (because Hispanics too would be 'Caucasian' ...). Blacks are not defined as being 'predominate negroid'*) but as having 'negroid ancestor(s)', even if it were only one and the racial features mainly were 'caucasoid' or even if all visible features were 'caucasoid'. Same for Hispanic, it doesn't even matter if there are any indianid (mongolid) features at all, and in the US it does not matter too from which of the Hispanic nations they come, what matters is only the mother tongue which defines the 'Hispanic race'.

*) 'Negroid' indeed is the scientific name for the Black race and certainly not meant negative though very problematic concerning PC (and critisised or probably even 'socially' banned in the US?), but for lack of a better term (for the genetic features!) I'll use it here.



gillyfr said:


> (...) Why? Because what is really defined by the group which holds the privilege and power in society is ‘us’ and ‘them’.


The nail on the head: yes exactly, that's the point.
What you have described is the *social group* - that is, you have described ethnicity. The thread's question was 'definitions of race and ethnicity'. In this case, if we take your definition, the question is a tautology - the question is a non-question.
Would be like asking 'definitions of race and race' or 'definitions of ethnicity and ethnicity'.

But what the thread opener meant was, I think, the relationship between 'biological race' and 'sociological race', to say it in other words - which, in my opinion, and your opinion too it seems, is a NON-relation: this is not about biology or genetics, but about social groups. About a *mental concept* which is very familiar to most if not all of us - and which has no need of any physiological features at all (even though they may be used to define - or try to define, see Blacks in America - a social group).



gillyfr said:


> So, to answer the original question, “How do we define race?”, ‘we’ (society) tend to define it as ‘us’ and ‘them’.


Quite to the point, yes. For 'race' in English, especially in America (would be interesting to hear if in England this is similar - my guess would be that this isn't quite the case).


----------



## gillyfr

sokol said:


> Quite to the point, yes. For 'race' in English, especially in America (would be interesting to hear if in England this is similar - my guess would be that this isn't quite the case).



Actually, I am British, and although the Brits tend not to use the word _race _as freely as it's used in the US, (though of course we talk about _race relations_), my definition still holds true. Here's something from the UK's Economic and Social Research Council:

"For some people the term ‘ethnic minority' is ambiguous as it encompasses both cultural and racial characteristics. There are several alternatives currently used to describe ethnic diversity.


'Ethnic group' refers to people of the same race or nationality with a long shared history and a distinct culture.
'Ethnicity' refers to the intangible quality, or sense of being, derived from that shared racial or cultural affiliation.
'Black and minority ethnic' (BME) is a term commonly used by the Home Office. Other agencies use the term 'Minority Ethnic Group'.
There is also some debate as to which groups should be considered 'ethnic minorities' according to the classifications above. Sometimes the term is taken to mean *all groups except the categories of White people*, and sometimes it is understood as *all groups except those in the ‘White - British’ category*. The former is more common, and is the one used in this fact sheet."

I rest my case.


----------



## sokol

gillyfr said:


> Actually, I am British, and although the Brits tend not to use the word _race _as freely as it's used in the US, (though of course we talk about _race relations_), my definition still holds true. Here's something from the UK's Economic and Social Research Council: (...)



Nevertheless you've confirmed what I have suspected: that especially in the US this use of 'race' is very common, and that it isn't used quite as freely in Britain.
I guess the situation in the US (also historically) is quite different from the one in Britain.


----------



## gillyfr

sokol said:


> I guess the situation in the US (also historically) is quite different from the one in Britain.



Yes, historically there are differences. The legacy of slavery in the US is palpable. But Britain and other ex-colonising countries have a different legacy.

Nevertheless, I can see there are underlying similarities in all conceptions of so-called race. I believe these are universal. What is different is how societies are dealing with 'diversity' in their populations.

You should check out some blogs on race and racism (Google will bring up a ton) for more insight into these questions, if you're interested.


----------



## almufadado

*"Interbreeding" *when talking of humans puts me like this  !

The is no such thing as interbreeding within the human race :

-> composed by biped animals with two distinctive gender (male/female) that occupy most of the regions of the planet Earth. 

"Interbreeding" is by it's significant core a racist view of the human population as a whole. This assumes there are humans from different races *that interbreed and not in-breed*. So the main preposition for this is utterly wrong, for there aren't differences between Humans other than their place of origin, skin and eye color, height, normal obesity, and so on.

"Interbreeding" in nature often result in :

hybrid offsprings -> ex. the horse and the african donkey  -> that in term are neither race nor can they perpetuate the new .

In Humans when an African male/female and a European male/female breed their offspring are not hybrid. (or asian, or Australasian (PT->Oceania)) 

The result is a sharing of traits of both members of the human couple.
Lighter skin, dark skin with blue/green/grey eye, cranial shape, body figure, etc.

This is called *miscegenation (PT ->Miscigenação /FR->Miscégénation /DE->Rassenmischung ** )  
(spanish** -> mestizaje** is almost the same thing !)*

So people of *different ethnic groups *meet, copulate and their offspring share some of the physiologic, physiognomy (features), and even traits.
*This offspring are not hybrids *they can go on spreading their human genes.

This is not news ! This started  millenniums ago with migration of humans through out their original continents and to, when possible to other continents.

Our present state of miscegenation in a large scale is a recent thing. It has started slowly and evolved in the last 1000 centuries, with a big leap with the first "globalisation" started by the Portuguese all over the world, the Spanish in the Americas, the large scale migration to the Americas. 

Words play a major part id this discussion, because they enforced some practices over the last centuries. 

To cast this the wording must also change. In English "Mongrel" was the name called of "a person of no race" ... the offspring were even denied an cultura, social identity. 
The Portuguese invented (by in-breeding, by copulation  ) the word "mulato" which most languages adopted. Now there is the word "mulatto" in English.  

*Conclusion : Interbreeding in humans can only result from a human copulating with another primate or another species, which to date I think the female eggs can't even be fertilized !

In-breeding is a fact !*

PS: As species is also wrong to call different dogs types "a race", including wolfs. These are different breeds that in-breed not interbreed.  
No hybrids result from in-breeding between dogs and wolfs, yet result from  dogs with hyenas.  

Thank you for your time !


----------



## almufadado

The word "race" .

 The word "race" has been used historically in two main situation :



segregation by ethnic and sub-ethnic groups from different origins. A biased view, full of prejudice, a means to justify the "superiority" of the white man".
_(quote) Kant offered the first systematic_ justification for the use of the word race in connection with the description of man. *(end quote) and others followed him, the worst of them from within the Christian churchs (go figure !) the ones proclaim a God that created the Earth and Men as all equals to his eyes .*
*The history of the race idea: from Ray to Carus*
​
 Race as part of the biological ancestry tree of the Human species. This as a concept is a non-prejudging view of the difference there are between humans.

The first English record of the _use of the word "race_" was in 1508. In that year, William Dunbar in a poem spoke :



> Son of kings, who deserve not satire, in whom were manliness and dignity; men untamed, noble, hearty, who were open-handed and generous.
> 
> A race the best for service and for shelter: a race the best for valour of hand; ill I deem the shortness of their skein, by whom their thread was spun...
> 
> A race without arrogance, without injustice, who seied naught save of spoil of war; whose nobles were men of spirit, and whose common men most steadfast ...
> 
> Might was the tyrants against the tribe wise and strong; thought today are unhonoured, it is no joy without Clan Donald.


*

William Dunbar Por Ian Simpson Ross

*This is not a racist poem in the assumption of today. Nor is the word race used as to diminish others, but rather to exult the ones.

Also in "Peregrinação" by the portuguese Fernão Mendes Pinto, the use of the word race is impassioned, without prejudice, a sociological view of the persons he found in the distant lands he traveled to:

(...) O japonês não joga nunca (...)  São na physionomia muito mais bem parecidos que os chinas e com menos traços da raça tartara.
A cor da pelle é muito varia entre elles desde a cor de cobre até ao branco rosado dos europeus, sendo porém poucos os individuos d'esta espécie". (...)
"The Japanese have a physiognomy more beautiful than the Chinese with less traces of the Tartar (Mongol) race.
The skin color varies a lot amongst them, ranging from copper to the pink white of Europeans, this last species (kind/type!) in very few numbers ."

Them the first envoys from the church, start seeing the Africans, Asians and Amerindians as inferior because they were naked, lived free, couldn't understand a word the preachers were saying but most of all because of the traditions of captivity, what was latter called, slavery. This "slaves" were captured enemies on the battle field of the tribal wars, and although they had no rights as captives, they were entitled some honor in their shame (to have been captured!).

The misunderstanding resulting more and more in the production of literature to support and claim the White superiority. At some point, all the political states in Europe (including the Vatican) had similar approaches to the question of race and racism, as we know it, started. 

The word "race" started to be indubitably associated to racism, and the self proclamation of the (misconstrued) "white superiority".

The Portuguese, the Spanish and other nation used the naivety of Africans to start the slave trade that was offered to them. But then, by law, they went by them selfs gathering this "beasts of burden", men, women and children capture and forcefully shipped out over seas. But they only picked on the weaker tribes, the farmers .

If others didn't enslave on the ground of race, they used military might and economical necessity to subjugate, by tribe, by religion, by deception, and, where available, by exploiting the cast systems.

The Nazis used the same basic arguments to construct their "racist state", proclaiming all other than Germans to be inferior (except their cousins !). 

"Racism" and word race can also be associated to fear of the unknown, the order that does not speak our native language, to whom we can't communicate.

"Race" can play the role of the "comfortable" concept in the question of economics. Free servants, free labour, almost cost free production of good.

"Race" was (and is in certain parts of the globe) the basic economical factor for it to keep continuously popping up all around us. 

Merchantilism used race to produce cheap goods, so some states legalized slavery.

Capitalism needed cheap labor for the capitalist outrageous profits could go on. Other types of slavery went on, maybe not purely on race, but taking advantage of the lack of knowledge.

The new slavery is based on the new weak "races", on a very well defined cast-like social system.

Conclusion: 
For me more the concept of "race" is more than the visible facet of the segregation by color of the skin. 
*"Race" is an economical concept of the dominance of the strong over the weak, by means of physical dominance and/or by means of social stigma.*

So, no matter what your skin, hair or eye color is, if you believe the other are superior to you, they will use it against you.  

This is harsh, but ... death is preferable to slavery!


----------

