Hey, ethnicity is always an interesting thing to talk about. I made this post a while back in requards to race and culture. I'll post it here, sine
I couldn't track it down in the search engine.
I wrote some of this in another thread a while back and I'm sure it can have some holding here, if someone would actually read it, lol. I have
slightly modified it to flow a little bit (not much though, it should be "somewhat" understandable though: ) better and added a few things here and
The Jews aren't a "race", they are a culture and Judaism is their religion (whats interesting to note though is that the Jews weren't called a
race by anyone until Adolph Hitler started calling them the "Jewish Race" - from than on, it has stuck, and the funny thing is, most Jews even use
the term). Just like Christians are a culture and Christianity is their religion. Muslims are a culture and Islam is their religion. And on and on.
For God's sake, when will people stop thinking that everybody who is "different" perse is another "race"? There are only three race's on this
planet we call Earth. They are as follows: Mongoloids, Negroids, and Caucasoids. What signifies a "race"? Skeletal structure, physical features,
etc... NOT skin tone, NOT religion, NOT geographical location (anymore), NOT country, etcetera, etcetera. Each of the three "races" come in every
Anyone other than those three "races" are a mixture of either two or three. Negroids are what most people would call the "black" "race", but
the fact is, they also come in a "white" flavor too. Many Asian Indians are what you would call the "black" "race" (or asian "race", or
indian "race", or whatever) but they are really just the "black" versions of what you would call the "white" race, which are Caucasoids. Asian
Indians are made up of every "race", as is every country, but people think of them as one "race" - they should be thinking of them as just one
"culture." So the next time someone says you're being "racist," the fact of the matter they could very well be of the same "race" and they
should be saying you are "prejudice" - because they might be of a different culture then you. What signifies a culture? Location, location, and
location. How you were raised, where you were raised, what religion you might have been brought up in, your customs, etc...
Because there are three races it makes sense that they all built themselves up in different locations of the world, seperately. But even as they
spread out, the underlying skeletal structure and other external physical features remained the same (almost no varition, hence I can say the
"same") - minimal changes of course occured inside, depending on location.
What caused these variations in the same race, or mixed? Adapted traits for the location they live in, over generations - mostly internal features
change to meet the "requirements" of their place of residence. Look at the people of Nepal, they have some of the largest lungs in the world
because of the height they live at. They need large lungs to take in as much oxygen as possible in the thin air at that altitude. I say "some of
the largest" because they aren't the only culture to have adapted to that height for living. They are mostly of the Mongoloid "race".
Skin hues are also an adaptation of the place we live in, and they change all the time, generation to generation. Different cultures have different
adaptations but they still come from one, two, or all three of the basic "races". Or maybe they truly came from one source, spread out, and for
thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years, didn't come into contact with each other - I still think the three distinct "races" were created for
the distinct regions of where they began, and over time they spread out to create distinct cultures (still the same "race" though - although it has
been shown that we are all something like 99.9% the same, that .1% is what determines our physical features, such as our skin tone, musculature, bone
structure, facial structure, etc..) and finally intertwined to create many interesting new faces and new cultures. Still, the three "races" I speak
of are indeed more factual than the preconceived notion that most people have of what "race" is, and this subject is VERY hard for most people to
In my opinion though I think we should just rid ourselves of the word "race" altogether. People act as if a different race is like a different
species. We are all the human species, and we all bleed red.
None of it really matters in the long run - you could be a Caucasoid or Mongoloid
for all you know and are just the "black" version of them - not a Negroid. Or you could be a mixture of two or all three "races", most people are
- the majority of people on this planet are not from a "pure" single "race" anymore, of the basic three (in fact, I don't think anyone really is
- some racial features just show themselves more than others). You can still distinguish what race makes up the majority of a person though, it still
doesn't mean they are "pure" though, and like I mentioned, I don't really think anyone is.
Below is what most dictionaries define "race" as (read my conclusion below the definitions):
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of
hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists
of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type,
body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The
traditional terms for these populations Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid are now controversial in both
technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American
English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a
variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather
in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with
those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one
society might be nonblack in another, many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective
Unfortunately, the three "race" classification (since the Australoid didn't make too much sense, I won't use that one) is not really in use
anymore because of how much "controversy" it caused. This system makes more sense than the system where everyone of a different "color" or
"culture" is of a different "race." Why the controversy? Simply put, no one dark-skinned wants to know that they belong to the same "race"
white people belong to, and vice versa. But as I've pointed out, this system is probably the best system for racial classification ever created. It
shows that one race can be made up of multiple tones - not just one single tone.