What's the difference between race and ethnicity?

[admin]

If someone asked you to describe your identity to them, where would you begin? Would it come down to your skin color or your nationality? What about the language you speak, your religion, your cultural traditions or your family's ancestry?

What's the difference between race and ethnicity? : Read more

 

[Joe]

This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.

 

[john.janossors]

If someone asked you to describe your identity to them, where would you begin? Would it come down to your skin color or your nationality? What about the language you speak, your religion, your cultural traditions or your family's ancestry?

What's the difference between race and ethnicity? : Read more

My reply to this question is I am of the Human Race (i do not consider that there is more than one race within humanity) Ethnicity has two answers the DNA which is of course not subject to change and the "Ethnic" group in which I was raised and/or am habituated to. There is no reason to continue to see it as any more complicated than that.

 

[john.janossors]

Why in heavens' name is human kind considered more than one Race. This is stupidity not Science. Humanity is but one Race. If some Neandertals had survived there would be two.

 

[TRM]

That's the point of the article, we are all the same species.

Kingdom: Animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Class: Mammalia; Order: Primates; Suborder: Haplorhini; Infraorder: Simiiformes; Family: Hominidae; Subfamily: Homininae; Tribe: Hominini; Genus; Homo; Species: H. sapiens.

Based on pure biology and Linnaeus' zoological taxonomy, there are very little differences between all humans other than how we react to the external environments in which we have evolved (hair and skin color, height, facial features, muscle development, etc.). Other categories beyond this are purely human-constructed; which, is not always a "bad" thing. Only when we classify these categories as more superior or inferior do they become a source of contention. Unfortunately, that became the norm since the dawn of modern civilization.

 

[FairfaxPhD]

This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.

I think the article does lean towards political correctness; but I think the author needs not to be censured but introduced to some statistical concepts. The physical differences we notice among the peoples native to sub-saharan Africa, Europe, eastern Asia etc. are biological in origin. These are phenotypical differences which result from genetic variations. I believe it is true that the variability within any "racial" group can be quite substantial, but not so much that an observer could wrongly perceive a person's race. There is enough enough overlap in the distribution of the skin tones of Europeans and Africans to mistake a European with dark skin for an African with light skin; but then the other the other phenotypical traits would have to bear more resemblance to the African prototype than the European prototype as well. So it might be possible but highly improbable that we could find a European with very dark skin, tightly curled hair, and thick lips that suggest the African prototype rather than the European prototype. Sometimes we will encounter a person who will be classified as black, but have a light skin tone and straight hair etc., but such people are probably the issue of parents with mixed racial origins, for example, Princess Meghan.

 

[whatthewhat]

.... it is true that the variability within any "racial" group can be quite substantial, but not so much that an observer could wrongly perceive a person's race.

that definitely not true, as i’ve had american indian relatives mistaken for asian more than once

...resemblance to the African prototype than the European prototype as well. So it might be possible but highly improbable that we could find a European with very dark skin, tightly curled hair...

ever been to southern italy?
or north africa?

 

[Ront5353]

Universality resides in the economic thesis of Karl Marx that he wrote around the early 1900,s. Use morality to blame one group or another for the ills of the world. As long as you stir the pot nothing is gained you divide people.

 

[MonaLisa]

This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

Define "Political Correctness" and point to the examples of it in the text. You made this claim, so the burden is on you to back it up. I do not accept the term "Political Correctness" as anything but a subjective, emotion-laden evaluation.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

Like myself at first, you misread the meaning of the statement. "There are more similarities than differences" meaning, once you take out the genes that are common across all of homo sapiens sapiens, there is no scientific way to discern "race", because the visible traits we use to determine belonging to certain races appear so often across the species that it is impossible to define in a meaningful way.

People do frequently "wrongly" identify the race of others -- at least, according to the people who say they have been misidentified. My husband, for example, is Sicilian. If he grows a beard, he looks like, and has been mistaken for, an Arab. But his DNA does not show Semitic origin as a primary contributor. He also has North African and Italian/Greek DNA, and he can become quite dark in the sun. What is his race? In the USA, up until the 1950s he'd be considered "Black." Is he Black? He does not identify as Black. He checks the White/Caucasian box.

This was not discussed in the article, but "race" as a term has changed in meaning ever since it was invented. Not even American surveys can agree on what races there are. The term itself, whenever surveys ask this question, mixes together terms that are used to denote observable features as well as language families and continents. Black, White/Caucasian (not Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American. This clearly makes no sense at all. Hispanic means "Spanish-speaking." What does one's language have to do with one's appearance, particularly since many "Hispanics" are actually of Indigenous South or Central American origin, whereas others are of more European origin. So "race" as a method of identifying people scientifically is not even something everyone agrees on, mixes together totally unrelated categories, and has never had a stable meaning.

Secondly many regions are completely ignored as separate even though there are clear differences in how they look. Why is "Asian" one race, when Chinese, Japanese and Koreans look VERY different from Central and South Asians, and Russians are primarily also in Asia. What race are they? Many South Asians share traits with people of African Descent, such as very dark skin and wiry hair. What race are people from India? What if they don't have dark skin and wiry hair? What race are people from the Middle East? What race are the Kurds, who are literally Caucasians, but also from the Middle East, and share some features with Semitic peoples, however some are blond with blue eyes?

Even today, there is no generally agreed-upon definitions of these races, let alone one based on measurable characteristics, so how can one measure the degree of belonging to a race? If you can't measure it, it's not a science-based categorization.

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

You are in error. Human "discernment" of "Phenotypical" features is notoriously unreliable as a basis for scientific discrimination. One need only to look at the original categorizations of species by the early biologists. When we discovered DNA, we began to realize that categorization by feature was a bad way to determine how species were related. The correct, and only method of scientifically determining relationship, including belonging to a species or a variety, is through DNA typing. This is for exactly the reason that the author mentions: because many, many traits develop independently, in almost completely unrelated organisms, under similar environmental conditions. This has led many, many species to be recategorized, moved sometimes into a completely different genus, or eliminated as a separate species entirely.

I have demonstrated how race is in fact a completely unscientific method for categorizing people:

1. it mixes unrelated categories
2. it relies upon visual distinction by humans, which is cannot reliably determine relationship
3. There is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics.
4. It ignores DNA
5. It lumps together groups of people that are clearly visually distinct from each other, and leaves others out entirely

Clearly race is an unreliable, inconsistent, self-contradictory, qualitative and totally subjective categorization of humans. There is no other logical conclusion but that it is unscientific.

 

[knot sure]

Ugh? Whether or not this is PC, not PC, genotypical or phenotypical it is LAUGHABLE that a myopic view of what constitutes a, "minority" is AVOIDED when one thinks about the 6 or 7 billion people on earth... So whom is really a, "minority?" Ugh. LOL. Not Asians, not Africans, not every other, "minority" you can phenotypically describe... No, in the overall pizza pie slice diagram of EITHER race or ethnicity, CAUCASIANS are a MINORITY in global population. Duh. So why pretend? If a person with more consants than vowels in their name (who was apparently angelicly brought to and raised in the USA) can lash out, instead of being subjected to FGM, ethnic cleansing, slavery, or whatever OTHER atrocious behaviors STILL are PERPETRATED by people of either the same, "race or ethnicity" has apparently forgotten that slaves were for sale on the beaches of Africa, often traded for the harder alloy of bronze. The people who traded their next door neighbors were FLUSH with gold and slaves. They needed more bronze shackles from the (Latino) Portuguese.
The hand that feeds you is the easiest to bite.
Don't forget the WORLDWIDE pie diagram when you think of what constitutes a "minority, or race, or ethnicity" of people's. Please correct me if statistics, history, or inconvenient truths embarrass myopic views... Duh.

 

[knot sure]

Oops. I accidentally uttered the inconvenient truth that Caucasians are a minority when you consider the bulk of Asia, the subcontinent of India, the overcrowded islands of Indonesia, and the burgeoning slums outside the, "5 eyes" countries. IMHO we are are all equal. Period. Just don't lecture me on birth control into already impoverished scenarios, or the accompanying stupidity that follows. It is overlooked by this article that SOME THINGS ARE EASY TO SEE. whether phenotypical or genotypical, "you can not fix stupid." And as Forrest Gump said, "stupid is, as stupid does." Which explains perfectly the population rise in impoverished majorities. Who in the, "first world" dares to call them out on their profligacy? Their ineptitude at managing their scarce (oops, their fault again) resources. The simple FACT that the Paris climate accord " front loaded" and gave both India and China 50 more years to.pollute and build coal plants... Meanwhile, I can't get a plastic straw in the USA, because 80% of the pollution in the world's oceans comes from 8 (magic) rivers in Asia.... Duh.
I don't care about the color of your skin, but as every one forgets Martin Luther King Jr.'s SECOND HALF of that sentence, "but rather that they be judged by the CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER." DUH. Please forgive the surprise that I have sprung on the uninformed, the denying fools, or the ignorant that comprise 74% of the, "bell curve." You are what you eat, and you will reap what you sow... So lay off the, Bush meat" and the bat soup... Because Y'all infected yourselves with the crowning achievement of the 2020 Darwin Award, LOL (corona virus) just like the Bush meat eaters in Africa could not resist the plagues that haunt them, too.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Peace out.

 

[OzarkRw]

This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.

This comment is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with opinion.


The comment implies that our concepts of race and racial differences has a substantial basis grounded in the scientific method.

Well, if you use this "scientific mindset," then there are distinct differences between species, and especially between fauna and flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, although the variations within a species presents diversity which supports survival of various circumstances, the distinction between species is based on the degree of divergence in genetic characters, not simply traits observable by the naked eye.

The fact is that if we can DISCERN certain phenotypical differences within a species using plain sight, that means that we can discriminate between one obvious expression of genetic variation, however determining one animal species from another using modern science is based on many more factors, often not visible to the naked eye. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via opinion is not. Whomever wrote this comment does not need to be censured, however. This person should have the freedom to express their opinion, however biased it may be.

 

[Michael D. Rogers]

Anyone will agree that a mastiff, a poodle or kelpie are ALL dogs, There ARE other similar animals: Coyotes, Wolves, Dingoes etc. that can interbreed with dogs and each other. These AREN'T considered the same as dogs. These animals do have Genes that I think are unique to them. I don't think that what we call different races DO have that distinction, am I wrong? As stated in the article, some groups tend to have certain characteristics: slanted eyes, curly hair, very dark skin but NONE as great as the difference among dogs. In addition to their differing appearance, dog's have different traits: Herders intrinsically know things about herding, Dobies easily become aggressive attack dogs, used in the military and police, why shouldn't some human's have intrinsic tendencies? If so, further study cold determine if some humans from an identifiable group tend to have certain characteristics. Anyone that has had much to do with human infants will affirm that they ARE different from one another: some are inconsolable, others always happy etc. All this difference is BEFORE their behavior has been in any way manipulated bu their caretakers.

 

[Phinneus]

My reply to this question is I am of the Human Race (i do not consider that there is more than one race within humanity) Ethnicity has two answers the DNA which is of course not subject to change and the "Ethnic" group in which I was raised and/or am habituated to. There is no reason to continue to see it as any more complicated than that.

Would you then consider the animal kingdom the same way? If so, and if not, why not, then as far as you are concerned a leopard and a chipmunk have no difference.
Have a nice walk in the woods.

 

[KatworthCimby]

The continued use of race for everything from "racism" and "racist" really makes people look dim. They do not stop to think and instead go with the popular sounding terms regardless of reality.

Ethnicity describes, skin color, physical build, food, religious ideology, speech, music, environmental attributes, clothing and so much more. Race describes one thing, belonging to the Human species or the Human race as a whole.

I get a good chuckle when I see Humans fighting among themselves calling each other racists or claiming racism, the entire time these Humans forget over 10 million years of Human evolution and only seem concerned with the very recent of history and timelines, altogether forgetting what they once looked like or did to others throughout time.

 

[rainjain]

If someone asked you to describe your identity to them, where would you begin? Would it come down to your skin color or your nationality? What about the language you speak, your religion, your cultural traditions or your family's ancestry?

What's the difference between race and ethnicity? : Read more

I see myself first and formost as "complex" with complex abilities and flaws and complex needs. This is the way I choose to define myself and the way I choose to define every other person I meet. Non of us have the privilege of controlling how others define us. we only have the privilege to have a say in how we define ourselves. How we define ourselves leads directly into how we ourselves define others. If you define yourself by the pigment of your skin then that is how you will define everyone else you come into contact with. If you see your self first as your gender or your age or culture ...that how you will judge all others you meet. We are all complex lifeforms on this planet ...each of us is a walking talking NY times bestseller and we each have an amazing story to tell of our individual lives ... thats our one and single commonality.

 

[JohnLindsay]

This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.

NOTHING in the article is indicative of political correctness and neither does it mplies what you posted: The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Articles published on the Human Genome Project's website supports this article.

I have no idea how you arrived at the following:

"Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL."

According to the Human Genome Project and several other scientific sources....all humans have 99.20% DNA in common....sooooo....where is there room for not only one other race but 3 or 4 other races?!

The pervasive racist pseudo-science crap is what's driving your comment.

 

[JohnLindsay]

Anyone will agree that a mastiff, a poodle or kelpie are ALL dogs, There ARE other similar animals: Coyotes, Wolves, Dingoes etc. that can interbreed with dogs and each other. These AREN'T considered the same as dogs. These animals do have Genes that I think are unique to them. I don't think that what we call different races DO have that distinction, am I wrong? As stated in the article, some groups tend to have certain characteristics: slanted eyes, curly hair, very dark skin but NONE as great as the difference among dogs. In addition to their differing appearance, dog's have different traits: Herders intrinsically know things about herding, Dobies easily become aggressive attack dogs, used in the military and police, why shouldn't some human's have intrinsic tendencies? If so, further study cold determine if some humans from an identifiable group tend to have certain characteristics. Anyone that has had much to do with human infants will affirm that they ARE different from one another: some are inconsolable, others always happy etc. All this difference is BEFORE their behavior has been in any way manipulated bu their caretakers.

I generally agree with what you posted....except for:

"why shouldn't some human's have intrinsic tendencies?"

If all humans came from Africans, as the science tells us....and differences in skin colors arose via migrating Africans' bodies adapting to varying climates (less sunlight equals Vitamin D deficiency which resulted in lighter and lighter skin as they settled here and there on their journey northward)....how could these adaptations result in "differences intrinsic tendencies?!

Their skin color changed....not their brains.
Up until 8,000 years ago....ALL....ALL Europeans had dark skin.
Of course, Europe was not the continent's name at the time.

Most people have a tendency to think "all people on every continent looked the same as they do today....and they did not.
The first humans were African....and all other groups arose from them due to adaptations to different climates.