Hey, ATS: How would you define, "race"?

I am currently in a Multicultural Studies in Literature course, and our first assignment was to define race and then talk about how biology, culture, nationality, and ethnicity fit into our definition. It then asks to define what makes a person a member of any given race--and asks how multi-racial identities fit into our definition.

Lastly, we have to include references to our personal experience and observation--along with specific examples from our reading--to support our definition.

So, my first thought is that race is defined via one's ancestry. For instance, I am half-Mexican (Castillian) and parts German, French, Swedish, and Native American. However, I identify myself as Caucasian because I am white.

Anyway, I was interested in hearing others' thoughts about this and look forward to seeing your response.

a reply to: rukia

Race: Human.

The rest is arguable.

Mostly irrelevant,
Its cultural differences that matter now.

We are all the human race. Anything else is a BS Government designation to be ridiculed and ignored. I usually skip the 'race' question on any applications or documents that ask for it because I find it offensive.

Alternately I simply answer, other-human or 'yes'.

I do not want to dignify the question with a response because I don't believe the question is relevant other than to create division and dissent.

Very good points.

But then would you say that ancestry doesn't matter? It does, to some extent, I think.

Yes, we are all human, but isn't it the differences that make us beautiful?

Everyone will have their view on this and it won't be wrong, and then again not necessarily right.

I'm Caucasian. I'm English. But then, what really is "English"? Germanic roots, invaded by Vikings? Some may say the only true Englishman is Welsh.

Most of us are bastard sons and daughters from previous matings.

So, ergo, we're all human.

I personally don't like the 'race' part, as we're a species and race is only cultural.

It also (the race word) implies we're rushing towards something, or are somehow in competition with one another, we're not. We're just here all of us together, some are rich some are poor. We all have one thing in common, we're all headed on a journey, some a magical one, some a mundane one.

It really is all relative when it comes to 'race'.

As it's used by modern society and the media. Race = any thing that can be used to divide us, specifically focusing on how we look or speak differently.

a reply to: Joneselius

How is race only a cultural thing? Isn't it also biological? I don't know if race is truly relative, since we all have definite ancestors. I believe that culture is relative, though.

a reply to: rukia

I honestly don't think of myself as a race. There really isn't a "white" ethnic identity in the sense that there is a black or Hispanic one as the media puts it out and as our society in the US allows for. If you have a "white" ethnic identity, it is something to be ashamed of and not proud of. Think of groups like Aryan Nation, the KKK, etc.

For whites, you can belong to a subculture like being a Geek or a Hipster or a WASP or a Yuppie, but those groups are not race exclusive in any sense. I've known black and Hispanic Geeks being a Geek. Heck there are gay Geeks, I've known some. You can also talk about your ethnic ancestry. On my mom's side I'm mostly British with some old Pennsylvania Dutch from my dad's side. You can take some pride in that, but it's not connected to your racial identity, just your cultural makeup.

So your idea of race being defined by ancestry is sort of out.

I don't really have a racial identity in that sense. There are no institutions that promote a white identity in this country. Minorities just assume that because we are the majority everything about this country reinforces a white racial identity by default, so they have black students unions and Hispanic or Latino Chamber of Commerces, things like that. Things that clearly speak out about how your race should bind you to one another.

However, since everything else is being constructed to be inclusive of everyone, the white racial identity doesn't have that.

So we don't have a white identity. It's just assumed to exist by default IMO, but if it's there, I don't feel it. I am not more attached to the white guy on the street because "white guys/gals represent!" or anything. They're just other people and no more or less special to me than the Asian, Hispanic or African-American folks who tend to be walking there. People are people.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Joneselius

How is race only a cultural thing? Isn't it also biological? I don't know if race is truly relative, since we all have definite ancestors. I believe that culture is relative, though.

Race IS biological. But if can ALSO be belief. That's my opinion FWIW.

a reply to: rukia

I observe race like this....Nascar.

Race is just one method of divisiveness used by the people who control us from the top. Along with notions such as class, education, religion, race is promoted wherever possible to keep infighting amongst people going so they can continue to rule.

You've heard of divide and conquer, this is called divide and rule. There is but one race, the human one.

Different languages, cultures and ethic backgrounds are still just human in the foreground.

I am with the first poster "human" but after that it's where your from and your beliefs over your skin colour.




a reply to: rukia

a reply to: rukia

There are no valid science-based definitions of race in regards to biology.

It is an artificial construct to separate based on region, culture, and appearance. In many first-world nations (especially the US), there are no clearly defined "races" that signify who we are as a race. However, people will say that people from China are racially Chinese or that people from the continent of Africa are racially Africans.

None of it has any anthropological basis beyond it being a convenient tool to control, organize, and study.

a race is a competition. we are all 1 species. our similarities vastly outnumber our differences. but we dwell on the differences (or are subliminally coerced into dwelling on them). obviously this is a simplistic, even idealistic, conclusion. but that's how i see it.

a reply to: rukia

For me as for many other posters there is only one human race that I can VERIFY to exist on the earth and that is humanity,
however for the sake of argument Race divides often follow ETHNIC boundaries based on three main criteria.

Culture
Religion
Skin Colour and physical similarity's within a group which are often related to Geographic ancestral origin and often expressed as homogenous groupings of people of any specific Nationality.

The last of these is simply caused by Isolation and inbreeding within the isolated grouping and within these isolated or seperated group's differentiating cultural traits, traditions and practices also arise along as well as dialect and language variations.

Religion is more problematic and I see no link between religion and race except and were in it is common to certain localised ethnic groupings whom often also share other cultural trait's so personally I would reject religion as a racial criteria.

For me Genetics is the only way to discern a specific Sub-Race of humanity (and as pointed out by other posters the differences are absolutley miniscule between even the most drastically seperated ethnic groupings) and as we are all the same race with only minor variations we can and do interbreed so once again that throws a spanner in the work's.

The race argument has a long history of contention, once we simply saw people as different but still recognized humanity but during the expansion of the european powers they needed workers and turned to slavery.

The north africans had done the same in there turn before the europeans and indeed slavery still occurs in many islamic nations to this day though often not recognised at official level's.

In order to justify the inhumane treatment of the Black's whom formed the bulk of the slaves of the new and competing european powers ideas about Racial inferiority became prevalent yet they were only really invented during this period though this idea was not unique as the Romans thought of themselves as a superior people to those whom they conquered.

When the idea of Evolution was proposed by one Charles Darwin a young british explorer and early naturalist it caused contention angering some and being seen as indispensible justification for the slave trade by other's whom seized on Darwins theorys about evolution to claim the Blacks were actually not human but simply apes in many cases even after the abolition of slavery, the theory of evolution 1859, the abolition in america 1865, it had already been abolished for half a century by the British as they had invented work houses instead to profit off the poor whom were then enslaved under state mandate by the rich work house owners.

Of course they themselves would happily rape the prettiest black slave girls to created lighter skinned HOUSE SLAVES, and so the caribean has a black population with a very strong genetic claim to some white ancestry.

The idea of racial superiority is an invention of the slaver period and also the settler period of western expansion and colonialism but in fact it is wrong, most third world whom are of lower IQ are so becaue of poor Diet and lack of education and even the highest IQ does not in real terms mean a socially functional entity so intelligence tests are highly subjective and skewed to portray many with such conditions as Apsergers or Autism as of superior intellect when in fact they are patently not and many whom appear to be of lower intellect on such tests are of more balanced and therefore more dynamic inteligence.

I would treat the concept of race with care, it is a matter that a polish person will regard themselves as a member of the Polish race though in fact no such race exists, likewise a Russian, a German, a Japanese, a Korean etc.

If I had to catagorise race then I would have to say Subsaharan/west African, Saharan/north African, East African, South African (as all have slight trait differences and indeed Africa has the most diverse genetic variation among it's human residents of all continents, indeed all of the rest of us are directly related to the East African's), Australasian and papua New guinean aboriginal (Seperated especially in australia for at least 60 thousand years from large scale contact with other familys of man until the european expansion), Polynesian ( some link to the Indian subconintinent can not be ruled out ), Indo European, (Gaeilic and Semitic which are linked to the north african and middle eastern familys by genetics and language phonetics), Mongoloid (many subdivisians and variations but roughly all east asian family's), north american aboriginal native people's whom may be related to the mongol race but are distinct nevertheless, South american Aboriginal native peoples whom are distinct form north american aboriginal native peoples in culture, social grouping and also appearance.

There are far more and I could subdivide all of these until I was blue in the face but in fact there is really only one race, the HUMAN race.

The divide between a human and an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling

a reply to: rukia

Races are social constructs. For instance, use the word "Latino" anywhere outside of the States. It doesn't exist.

I personally use race in terms of species, and not by the defining characteristics in one species group.

I think playing video games has helped me with this mindset...