Race-Ethnicity-Nationality

[Pioneer1]

Race
Race is based strictly on physical characteristics and genes.

African , Caucasian, Native American, ect.....(there are other races)


Ethnicity
Ethnic grouping involves SOME race, but for the most part it involves shared history, religion, diet, language, social customs, ect.....

AfroAmerican, Jewish, Arab, ect....

 

Nationality
Nationality is basically what nation you were born in or in some cases depending on the laws, what country your parents were born in.

Canadian (born in Canada), French (born in France), Nigerian (born in Nigeria).....

I'd personally put "tribes" in this category.
Hausa, Fulani, Aztec,  Choctaw, Cherokee, Zulu, Flemish, Scottish, ect.....because these tribes were all "nations" with their own lands at one point.

 

 

 

It's important that AfroAmericans know the difference between these categories so that we aren't manipulated or tricked into believing that we have made more progress than we actually have.

[Troy]

Nationality is a well defined technical term, no argument there.

I think what you describe as Ethnicity is more accurately described as Culture.  Throwing in the racial (physical appearance) aspect muddies the water.  People can look very different and be part of the same culture.

As far as Race is concerned, I know what you are saying and would have agreed with you in the past.  However, a few years ago I began stopping myself from thinking of humans in terms of racial categories.  The term were devised to put us at the bottom, and only serve to perpetuate stereotypes.  

Upon further contemplation I can not think of a single good reason to continue using the concept of race, so I don't unless I'm communicating with someone who only understands the world in those terms.

[Cynique]

 

41 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Race
Race is based strictly on physical characteristics and genes.

African , Caucasian, Native American, ect.....(there are other races)

  At first,  Anthropologist divided Homo Sapiens into 3 stocks: Negroid(African), Caucasoid(European) and Mongoloid(Asian), and races were subdivisions that fell under these headings in accordance with their similar and dissimilar traits.  (Native Americans were listed under the Mongoloid stock, because it was believed that they migrated from Asia to North America across land masses that eventually broke apart and were separated by bodies of water.) This is what was taught when I attended college 65 years ago. This has been revised over the years, but it still makes sense to me. In Utopia, we may be one and all, but in the real world,  how Society views you is a large factor.  Nobody looks at a Korean beauty supply store owner  and thinks that she's a French fashion designer or a black tennis player. People are categorized by the skin they're in and the skin makes a bigger difference than the scientific claim that their internal organs are identical. 

[Pioneer1]

Troy

Nationality is a well defined technical term, no argument there.

I think what you describe as Ethnicity is more accurately described as Culture. Throwing in the racial (physical appearance) aspect muddies the water. People can look very different and be part of the same culture.

This is true.

I actually started to say this, but decided to wait until later on in the conversation so as not to confuse people by adding too many possibilities inside the concept and risk confusing people.

Ethnicity I think is probably the most confusion category because it involves and can exclude a large number of variables.
But like you said, it's largely about culture.
You have Jews who are White, and Jews who are Black.
But you also have Jews who are atheist....so why are they still considered Jewish?

AfroAmericans may look all kinds of ways, and may not even be Black.
Hispanic is also a culture made up of different races, and many Hispanics can barely speak Spanish.

 

 

 

As far as Race is concerned, I know what you are saying and would have agreed with you in the past. However, a few years ago I began stopping myself from thinking of humans in terms of racial categories. The term were devised to put us at the bottom, and only serve to perpetuate stereotypes.

Upon further contemplation I can not think of a single good reason to continue using the concept of race, so I don't unless I'm communicating with someone who only understands the world in those terms.

Well, brother T-Roy...YOU may not look at things from a racial lense....but trust me the POLICE still do.

Law enforcement agencies are very aware of the concept of race in America and they are quick to label a suspect as "Black male" or "Hispanic male" or "Middle Eastern".

They have no problem using these terms when they call other officers, and those officers responding seem to show little confusion in their understanding, LOL.

My point is, race is a reality in America whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

The "AA" in this site's acronym stands for African American, is that not a term with racial connotations?

Our best bet as AfroAmericans is to start defining ourselves instead of sitting back and allowing others to do so.....because they WILL do so if we neglect our duty to define ourselves.

If we stopped looking at things in terms of race, how would we be able to justify any claims of "racism"?

 

 

Cynique

I remember reading books where the Native Americans were considere Mongoloids like the Chinese and Koreans.
I can see reasoning in this when I look at the so-called Eskimos of Alaska, but when I look at the darker skinned Mayan and Aztecs who look NOTHING like Koreans or Japanese...it makes sense that they should be in their own category.

I actually think that a lot of Mongoloids actually came overhere thousands of years ago by way of the Bering Strait and intermixed with the Natives as they old theory goes, which is why a lot of Inuit people have an "Asian" appearance and it probably led to that erroneous classification.

But those genes didn't trickle down to the rest of the Native American population of the Americas.

[Troy]

Our course I know all of western culture looks at skin color then makes judgements about people.  I simply trying not to do it because it is impossible.  

I wish the government would stop trying to collect the data and save us some money.

Cynique, the enumerator was actually doing their each time, it was just that every 10 years the categories changed, one day you are a Mulatto the next you are Negro 

Pioneer, as far as the "AA" or African-American in the website's name, this speaks to culture, and has nothing to do with "race," one's phenotype, or what one looks like. If you celebrate the culture, rather than trying to marginalize it, I don't care what you look like.

[Pioneer1]

Troy

You're looking at the negatives of racial classification, and there are many.

However there are some important positive aspects of it.

I've heard from many AfroLatinos from Latin American nations like Peru, Columbia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere where racism is rampant that one of the biggest problems they have is articulating their problems.

See, in many Latin American nations "race" doesn't exist either.
ALL people are considered "Latinos" despite how they look. 
Although they may recognize various shades, they don't recognize racial terms like Black or White.

So when AfroLatinos become angry over the lack of "Black" representation in positions of authority, on the police force, in the media, ect....because race doesn't "exist", they don't know how to structure a complaint to bring it to attention.
It's not until they get to the United States where the identities are more clear, that they find the language to articulate their frustration.

So you see, it can work both ways....for bad and good.
 

[Troy]

@Pioneer1, of course I considered that argument.  But we can deal with all of those problems without adding race into the mix.

If the police, or anyone does not want hire someone, then deal with why that person was not hired.  

If the cops gun someone down in the street for no reason; that by itself is reason enough to deal with the injustice.  The so called race of the victim does not matter.  This is a fight against police brutality, that everyone can join, because white boys get tuned up and killed by the Po-Po too.

Someone starts a twitter hash tag called #blacklivesmatter, then folks compliant and and state the obvious that; "all live matter" and rather than dealing with bad policing we are fighting about whose lives matter most.

Pioneer, give me one example of when bringing the issue of race into the discussion actually worked better than dealing with the underlying injustice. 

[Pioneer1]

Troy

A good example would be: Abolition


Slavery was primarily an economic institution in the South that not only exploited Blacks but there were White and Native Americans slaves as well.  However not enough Whtie men were enslaved for the White population at large to take notice and see it for the evil it was.  Since Blacks were the predominant victims of it, Abolutionists made the wise decision to not only make it a "human" or moral issue but a RACIAL issue with morality at the center of it.


Now you're right, many White men are harassed and beat up by the cops too.  But unlike the 60s where White males and females tended to protest everything, today in this post-Reagan era most White men have been taught not to complain about their problems.  They have been taught that it's not manly, it's what women or "nigggers" do....playing the victim.  They are taught to deal with their problems individually or to blame themselves.  So because of this as well as the fact that the predominant victims of police abuse tend to be Black and Brown, even when a White man IS a victim he often times doesn't see himself as one.

Far more White men are killed by police than White women, but when was the last time you saw a crowd with more White men than White women marching against police brutality?
 

 

But I THINK I may understand the point you're trying to get across to me about labling everything with racial overtones, because it's one I grapple with from time to time.

If I'm reading you correctly, your point is why is there such a need for Black people to lable things "Black" this or "Black" that when Whites aren't doing it.

Why does it have to be BET, Whites don't have to call it WET they can call it NBC or ABC and do just as good?
Why does it have to be a Black forum or Black magazine, we can't we just call it a magazine and let Black people and whoever come?

Why does housing, crime, and other issues have to be about race...why can't they just be issue ALL citizens should be concerned about?

Before I go any further with my explanation, am I correct in my understanding?

[Cynique]

4 hours ago, Troy said:

... give me one example of when bringing the issue of race into the discussion actually worked better than dealing with the underlying injustice. 

How about the O. J. Simpson Case????? Playing the race card helped get him off because the brutal treatment of Rodney King by LA cops showed the world that, when it comes to race in this country, there is no equal justice under the law, and Simpson's acquittal was payback for this because it influenced the mindset of the black jurors. Yes, killng your wife is a terrible thing  but a husband is innocent until proven guilty unless he is black and she is white.  

The issue of race is also a contributing factor in why black boys are suspended in integrated schools more often than white ones are. This is what white privilege is all about. Black conduct is viewed differently from white.  On campuses, black protesters are mobs,  unruly white crowds are just overzealous kids acting up. 

The underlying issue is irrelevant. Breaking the rules is a fact of life.  Everybody does  it.  But the tendency is to punish black perpetrators more severely for this. 

When the argument is made that ghetto people bring on their own problems, you are the first to claim that they aren't totally to blame for their situations, Troy, contending that they are victims of The System.. Yes, poor white people may be victims of The System, too, but if they try to get their act together, they have a head start toward succeeding because they have white skin.   

[Troy]

Cynique, I would argue that O.J. getting off was a travesty of justice and makes my point.  If race were not a issue The Juice would have almost certainly have gone to jail for decapitating those two people.  

The L.A.P.D. could should have been crucified for beating Rodney King the way they did.  It does not matter what the skin color was of anyone involved.  

Again, I'm not saying that people are not racist. I'm even not saying let's make believe racism does not exist.  It obviously does. 

I'm saying let's punish the behavior independent of race, and let's stop behaving as if the color of someone's skin makes any difference.  All this has done is perpetuate the racist mentality into the 21st century and has stopped us from moving past it.

I know people want to hold onto race, just like they want to hold onto believing in Zeus.  But the science has demonstrated that genetically we are essentially identical, and the concept of race is as fictional as the Easter Bunny.

 

 

[Cynique]

The Easter Bunny does exist; He is a stuffed animal, a costumed character,  a chocolate marshmallow, a white rabbit.