![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sorry, folks, but "white" isn't a race. It's a (range of) skin color(s). The genetic groups usually classed as "white" are european and russian in origin, but people labelled "white" can actually have anything on the planet in their bloodline. "Black" also isn't a race. It's a (range of) skin color(s), because the genetic groups primarily contributing can be a hodge podge of african and middle eastern origins, but they can have ancestors from all over the world. The white "race" isn't. The black "race" isn't.
Ethnicity as I'm using it refers to ancestry and the genetic differences inherited therefrom, only one (a minor one) of which is skin color. Genetic groupings, if you will, and those are not the same as "race" as used today. This doesn't match the dictionary definition of ethnic, which includes the term race, btw. If someone has a better term, that doesn't try to draw arbitrary lines based on a single small set of genetic characteristics, I'd be glad to hear it. Using skin color to define "race" is like using hair color or height to define race. It renders the term "race" meaningless.
My ancestry (and ethnicity) isn't "white", it's various European tribes and migratory groups, plus whatever other groups crept in to the woodpile. Part of my family has been in the US since the 1700s, which means there may well be african and/or native american in the mix, given the migratory tendencies in this country. "White" only describes my arbitrary racial designation based on skin color (which is actually pasty pink).
Essentially, people try to use the term "race" to label the polyglot of genetic backgrounds that occur in the US, and try to force people into a stereotype due to their skin color. This is stupid. "Race" becomes a null term in a ethnically non-homogeneous population. The "white" and "black" races *aren't*. They're just rubbish bins in which to arbitrarily sort people.
Ethnicity is not learned and isn't the same as culture. Culture is an artifact of upbringing and the surrounding population, and the only thing that ties it to race or genetics is choice and/or stereotypes. By the strict dictionary definition, culture is only a *part* of ethnicity. Your genes, including the interesting little physiological factors engendered from various tribes at various locations, can't be "learned".
Maybe there are still a few ethnically (genetically) homogeneous populations, but they're rare and isolated.
"Race" used to describe a person's genetic background is virtually meaningless. A guy can be a nice chocolate brown in skin tone, and still have a major portion of his genetic background be english (anglo-saxon+), welsh (celtic+), and polish! Is he a member of some mythical black race? Uh, no. Labelling him racially "black" doesn't obviate the other genes, or the genetic strengths and weaknesses he gets from them. The only valid race to assign to him would be "mutt". Most second or greater generation Americans are mutts, including me.
If the concept of race proves out to be arbitrary and meaningless, due to thousands of years of tribal migrations and genetic mixing (especially recently in the US), what does it do to the concepts of racism? People who sort everyone into all or nothing racial labels like "white", "latino", "black" and "asian" are ignorant of history and genetics.
Now, comes the kicker: saying that persons of the "wrong" race (black, white, yellow) can't practice certain religions becomes a bit silly, doesn't it?
Ethnicity as I'm using it refers to ancestry and the genetic differences inherited therefrom, only one (a minor one) of which is skin color. Genetic groupings, if you will, and those are not the same as "race" as used today. This doesn't match the dictionary definition of ethnic, which includes the term race, btw. If someone has a better term, that doesn't try to draw arbitrary lines based on a single small set of genetic characteristics, I'd be glad to hear it. Using skin color to define "race" is like using hair color or height to define race. It renders the term "race" meaningless.
My ancestry (and ethnicity) isn't "white", it's various European tribes and migratory groups, plus whatever other groups crept in to the woodpile. Part of my family has been in the US since the 1700s, which means there may well be african and/or native american in the mix, given the migratory tendencies in this country. "White" only describes my arbitrary racial designation based on skin color (which is actually pasty pink).
Essentially, people try to use the term "race" to label the polyglot of genetic backgrounds that occur in the US, and try to force people into a stereotype due to their skin color. This is stupid. "Race" becomes a null term in a ethnically non-homogeneous population. The "white" and "black" races *aren't*. They're just rubbish bins in which to arbitrarily sort people.
Ethnicity is not learned and isn't the same as culture. Culture is an artifact of upbringing and the surrounding population, and the only thing that ties it to race or genetics is choice and/or stereotypes. By the strict dictionary definition, culture is only a *part* of ethnicity. Your genes, including the interesting little physiological factors engendered from various tribes at various locations, can't be "learned".
Maybe there are still a few ethnically (genetically) homogeneous populations, but they're rare and isolated.
"Race" used to describe a person's genetic background is virtually meaningless. A guy can be a nice chocolate brown in skin tone, and still have a major portion of his genetic background be english (anglo-saxon+), welsh (celtic+), and polish! Is he a member of some mythical black race? Uh, no. Labelling him racially "black" doesn't obviate the other genes, or the genetic strengths and weaknesses he gets from them. The only valid race to assign to him would be "mutt". Most second or greater generation Americans are mutts, including me.
If the concept of race proves out to be arbitrary and meaningless, due to thousands of years of tribal migrations and genetic mixing (especially recently in the US), what does it do to the concepts of racism? People who sort everyone into all or nothing racial labels like "white", "latino", "black" and "asian" are ignorant of history and genetics.
Now, comes the kicker: saying that persons of the "wrong" race (black, white, yellow) can't practice certain religions becomes a bit silly, doesn't it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject