<b>^ rraajjeevv's post above</b>
Romani,
I already know about some of the major systems for delineating races. It's a form of categorising people, but it does not say anything much about the actual ground situation like say history. For example, just considering the racial categories (super)imposed onto Indians: one would think India is a meeting place of ~three race groups, rather than a - as I understand it - diversifying, generative base from which other human population groups arose. (It's largely an indigenous or localised and locally-affiliated genetic base, e.g. with connections to W Asia and SE Asia, one which has naturally also undergone genetic diversification internally over time.)
The example of Thanhawla's remarks shows that the race construct is not 'merely' a classification system.
'Race' is not recognised in the country I live in, since they don't find it scientific. Only ethnic groups are recognised, and ethnicity is not the same as race. My bio is seriously rusty, but - from memory - an ethnicity is a human population grouped by shared geography, history, 'culture' (religion, languages), possibly nationality or affiliations, that sort of thing. "Indian" is regarded as an ethnicity in its own right. Here they cover 'race' only in the sense of a historical construct, and also 'racism' is recognised: a phenomenon that has frequently resulted from viewing the world as consisting of races.
Even among Americans, I've noticed that some researchers consistently correct 'race' to ethnicity, like IIRC Longman in his article on the christian genocide in Rwanda (or maybe he's Canadian?).
Yes, see here:
http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html
Where the original christians from Europe - who invented the distinction between Tutsi, Hutu, etc - had spoken of 'race' in Rwanda's context, Longman corrects the discussion <i>where it pertains to issues still recognised in present times</i> to 'ethnicity' (or, rather, to <i>ethnic self-identity/perception</i>, since in Rwanda's case there were no clearly-delineated ethnicities either, as Longman rightly explains).
It is hard to explain, so search through the article and what I mean will become clearer:
- look at when and how he uses 'race'. ~1 occurrence, referring to the views in effect during the colonial time history of Rwanda:
"Influenced by contemporary European notions of <i>race</i> which held that the world could be divided into clearly defined and hierarchically ranked <i>racial</i> and national groups, ..."
- and compare that with when and how he uses the terms 'ethnicity' and 'ethnic' in the article.
The usage above matches with how many a scientist - including in the country where I live - uses the word ethnicity. And also with *when* they use the word race: when they are referring to <i>historical</i> ideas on human population groups.
Longman:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The exact meaning of <b>the categories of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa</b> in pre-colonial Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire is a subject of considerable debate among scholars. <b>Nearly all scholars, however, agree that the three were not clearly distinct and rigidly separated ethnic groups.</b> The three groups shared a common language and common religious practices, and they lived in the same communities throughout the region. The groups were distinguished primarily by their position within the political and economic system, which assigned members of each group specific economic activities and social roles. The Tutsi, who are generally thought to have constituted about 14% of the population, dominated most political offices and made their living predominantly from raising cattle, while the Hutu, who made up around 85% of the population, worked primarily as farmers. The Twa lived as hunters and gatherers and fulfilled certain social functions such as making pottery. Intermarriage between Hutu and Tutsi was relatively common, and those Hutu who acquired cattle, the traditional sign of wealth and source of power in the ubuhake patron-client system, could eventually be considered Tutsi, a process known as icyihuture . While the Tutsi clearly gained the greatest benefits from this system, each group had certain economic opportunities reserved for it, and a complex political system of overlapping chieftaincies helped to prevent the concentration of power.(17)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Romani,
I already know about some of the major systems for delineating races. It's a form of categorising people, but it does not say anything much about the actual ground situation like say history. For example, just considering the racial categories (super)imposed onto Indians: one would think India is a meeting place of ~three race groups, rather than a - as I understand it - diversifying, generative base from which other human population groups arose. (It's largely an indigenous or localised and locally-affiliated genetic base, e.g. with connections to W Asia and SE Asia, one which has naturally also undergone genetic diversification internally over time.)
The example of Thanhawla's remarks shows that the race construct is not 'merely' a classification system.
'Race' is not recognised in the country I live in, since they don't find it scientific. Only ethnic groups are recognised, and ethnicity is not the same as race. My bio is seriously rusty, but - from memory - an ethnicity is a human population grouped by shared geography, history, 'culture' (religion, languages), possibly nationality or affiliations, that sort of thing. "Indian" is regarded as an ethnicity in its own right. Here they cover 'race' only in the sense of a historical construct, and also 'racism' is recognised: a phenomenon that has frequently resulted from viewing the world as consisting of races.
Even among Americans, I've noticed that some researchers consistently correct 'race' to ethnicity, like IIRC Longman in his article on the christian genocide in Rwanda (or maybe he's Canadian?).
Yes, see here:
http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html
Where the original christians from Europe - who invented the distinction between Tutsi, Hutu, etc - had spoken of 'race' in Rwanda's context, Longman corrects the discussion <i>where it pertains to issues still recognised in present times</i> to 'ethnicity' (or, rather, to <i>ethnic self-identity/perception</i>, since in Rwanda's case there were no clearly-delineated ethnicities either, as Longman rightly explains).
It is hard to explain, so search through the article and what I mean will become clearer:
- look at when and how he uses 'race'. ~1 occurrence, referring to the views in effect during the colonial time history of Rwanda:
"Influenced by contemporary European notions of <i>race</i> which held that the world could be divided into clearly defined and hierarchically ranked <i>racial</i> and national groups, ..."
- and compare that with when and how he uses the terms 'ethnicity' and 'ethnic' in the article.
The usage above matches with how many a scientist - including in the country where I live - uses the word ethnicity. And also with *when* they use the word race: when they are referring to <i>historical</i> ideas on human population groups.
Longman:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The exact meaning of <b>the categories of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa</b> in pre-colonial Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire is a subject of considerable debate among scholars. <b>Nearly all scholars, however, agree that the three were not clearly distinct and rigidly separated ethnic groups.</b> The three groups shared a common language and common religious practices, and they lived in the same communities throughout the region. The groups were distinguished primarily by their position within the political and economic system, which assigned members of each group specific economic activities and social roles. The Tutsi, who are generally thought to have constituted about 14% of the population, dominated most political offices and made their living predominantly from raising cattle, while the Hutu, who made up around 85% of the population, worked primarily as farmers. The Twa lived as hunters and gatherers and fulfilled certain social functions such as making pottery. Intermarriage between Hutu and Tutsi was relatively common, and those Hutu who acquired cattle, the traditional sign of wealth and source of power in the ubuhake patron-client system, could eventually be considered Tutsi, a process known as icyihuture . While the Tutsi clearly gained the greatest benefits from this system, each group had certain economic opportunities reserved for it, and a complex political system of overlapping chieftaincies helped to prevent the concentration of power.(17)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->