Youre arguing against yourself, If there are no “races” of humans,what are there “Races” of?
What is the definition of the word “race”? There is obviously undeniable cultural,biological and religious differences between many people of the world, and thus we have designated ourselves as different “races”. Its pointless to argue otherwise,because doing so completely mutes the meaning of the word “Race” other than a competition of speed and endurance. 
Nope. Someone used the term in an NPR report (I don’t recall the context).
I would indeed say so.
I agree. There is no such thing as a biological Englishman, Chinaman, etc.
I thought I made that quite clear. All of these terms are invented distinctions, many of them quite receint in origin, which people find important for their own reasons.
Non-human animals?
Yes, there are cultural and biological differences between people. The decision of which of these differences is important for self-identity and which are not is entirely subjective.
The term “race” implies a biological inevitability about this process which by no means exists. The term gained currency during the 19th century, when attempts were made to “scientifically” classify people into four or five “races”. These attempts had little to do with science and much to do with how 19th century Europeans perceived the world and their place in it. For example, one of the main purposes of this classification was to determine the immutable characteristics of each “race”, which just so happened to scientifically prove that Europeans were superior in every way to others.
This 19th century viewpoint is of little use these days, and so this method of classifying people has fallen out of favour among many anthropologists.
Instead of “race”, it is preferable to think of “ethnicities”, which emphasizes the subjective element of their composition over the objective, biological one.
Well Race is a word. Used to describe our differences, if this isnt valid,then what is? Do we have to seperately list all of our differences now on a checksheet?
Whats not an invented distinction? Is German shepard not different than a Doverman Is this a “made up distinction that has no scientific basis” too??
They ARE all dogs who can interbreed right? I think our anti racist furor is a little over the edge when we deny the differences that make us stand out as individual races.
Do you see what i’m saying? You can’t say that “Race” is a made up thing for humans only, when it clearly applies to the animal world as well.
No, ethnicities are subcatagories,often discribed generally as a nationality and even more generally as a race
A Mccloud is an ethnicity, “Scottsman” his nationality,Caucasian his race. Race is a much broader term used to identify A scottsman with an Englishman with a German,realising we all came from the Caucase Valley,and are still blood relatives.
Race identification is about unity with those who accept and need unity,and division with those who want division.
Now…racial intermixing is about unification.
Sigh
Take your example of an “Englishman”. Are you saying that the English “race” is as biologically different from the German “race” as a Pekinese is from a doberman? [Or indeed that they are biologically different at all?]
There are undoubtedly biological differences between some groups. Many Africans have dark skin, for example. What makes this biological difference important?
To give an example relevant to this thread, there are Jews from Ethiopia who have black skin, like other Ethiopians. I think they are called “Falashas”, but am not sure.
Depending on context, what is important to their identity according to others may be their skin colour, or may be their Jewishness. If one moves to America, he or she will be considered (by others) as belonging to the “Black Race”. If one moves to Israel, he or she will be considered to be “Jewish”.
Unfortunately, your category of “caucasian” category is just about meaningless in objective terms. All it means is “colour of skin”, and indicates that the person using the term finds this a relevant characteristic for organizing people.
A nationality may also be an ethicity (indeed, you yourself used the term as such in your “Englishman, Chinaman” example) - or it may not. It depends on whether people self-identify with the nation or not. In some cases they do - as in “I am Scottish”; in some cases they don’t - “I am African-American”.
All words are made up things for humans only. “Race” is a word meant to describe differences among humans, and I don’t think there’s much question that differences exist. The question is whether “race” is a useful word in that regard. I tend to think it isn’t, because it has become politically and emotionally charged to the extent that it’s lost any descriptive power it might have once possessed. And, as others have said, it may not have ever described anything worth describing.
Dogs, BTW, don’t seem to notice their differences in breeding. If it smells like a dog, it’s a dog.
Oh crap. Not a race hijack.
Look Darph, you are new here and haven’t been through the many threads on this. You are welcome to search the archives or to open up a new thread on it. In short you will read the response that “race” is a word with lots of baggage and implications mostly bad that captures neither the meaning of how we divide ourselves up sociologically by external features and habits (for which “ethnicity” is often a better concept) or provides any utility to the biological study of groups of people (for which the more flexible concepts of “populations and subpopulations” are more salient.) But can we avoid making this thread into that discussion please?
"Unfortunately, your category of “caucasian” category is just about meaningless in objective terms. All it means is “colour of skin”, and indicates that the person using the term finds this a relevant characteristic for organizing people.
"
Wow…You think the only difference between blacks and whites are skin color? You must not study biology or Art sir.(Art is the main reason i got into looking closely at peoples differences.)
Theres a LOT of differences, Size for one, Muscle density, The shape of ones hands and feet, and knuckles, How about that thing called a NOSE? Eye color? The way the face is Made up,The brow,facial hair,cheek bones, ear size,Chin, the shape of the skull…lips,hair anyone?
You can even go to a lower level… Sickle cells , Fast Twitch muscle fiber density (white people have slow twitch as the majority,why do you think no white guy can run the 100meter dash in under 10 seconds?) . The amount of Oxygen the blood can hold per quota,the Density of bones. There are probably thousands of differences. To ignore them is just bad biology man!
As a society we are too cowardly to admin there are more differences than just skin color in the different races, because we are afraid of the racist witch hunt, Its a fanatical beleif that may be good for brain washing people into accepting each other in the short term, but very very very very very bad in the long term,because it takes away from individuality over the long run.
Why are you scared to look at these? Are you afraid people will call you a racist? A true scientist would screw the political hang ups and look at the truth. We are as different as any other species of mammal . If you had a breed of short stocky dogs with kinky hair and smooshed facial structor (like a kinky bulldog) and one with long limbs and long face,different eye and hair color- doesnt share some diseases as the other,is it the same thing? A dog? Or are you scientific minded enough to classify it by its many differences. It doesnt seem like you are.
Please? (he says seeing the trainwreck approach and with no hope of avoiding it.)
Look. I’ll even link you to place where you can discuss it to your heart’s content!
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=234127
Bring it there. Okay?
Well, I won’t follow Darph down that rathole anymore, if that helps.
But I think the question of who is a Jew has been answered. For the most part Jews are self-defining, and it really isn’t anyone else’s call. The only time this isn’t true is when some idiot decides Jews are a race, in which case some ad-hoc definition is made up. But that brings us back to the rathole.
Jews don’t have any problem figuring out who is and is not Jewish, except when conversion or the idea of Jewishness through the father is claimed. But Jews, unlike Christians, are not in the business of conversion. You go to the Jews, they don’t come to you. There’s nothing stopping a person from converting Orthodox if he/she chooses, except that they are required to buy into Orthodoxy. Not an unreasonable requirement, I think.
Finishing the thought, if you convert to Orthodox, no Jew will question your Jewishness. If you convert Conservative, like I did, or reform, well, buyer beware.
Soooooooo… if Clark were elected, would he be the first Jewish president, or not?
Not.
Ideas like race and ethnicity have no natural science standing (in today’s world, at least).
Sociologists use “race” and/or “ethnicity” as a means of classifying people for demographic purposes. For example, when they cite a stat saying that a certain percentage of African-American people <insert quality here>, they are not implying that African-American people are genetically predisposed to do said quality. It’s just showing that a certain segment of the population that has a similar background (having their origins traceable back to slaves from Africa, primarily) also has a certain quality. There is nothing “biological” about it.
Back to the thread. I’ll expand to outside of “in America”
Here are a few situations (source book “Fragile Branches” by James Ross), please comment on each:
“Crypto-Jews.” Individuals whose heritage includes a direct bloodline (unable to document if entirely maternal) to Jews who hid their Jewishness from the Inquisition and whose families have some cultural traditions that clearly are of Jewish origin. Many of us are aware of the “Marranos” in Mexico but in Brazil alone there may be 15 million people who descend from Iberian exiles. If/when these individual’s embrace Judaism should they be embraced? Rabbis usually weon’t without formal conversion. They are shunned by other Jewish communities.
Africans who claim ancient ties to the Judaism. The Lemba who have some gentic evidence on the Y chromosome of common genetic heritage with the bulk of other Jewish populations. Ethiopian Jews, who claim descent from the lost tribe of Dan, but who more likely were Ethiopian Christians who formed a sect based on the Hebrew Bible about 500 years ago (and have been accepted in Israel although subject to significant discrimination). The Abayudaya, who claim no bloodline link and whose evangelical embrace of Judaism dates back roughly 100 years of practice.
Others as well, in India several groups with varyingly well believed bloodline claims, who practice some very traditional beleifs. Do they need to convert before being acccepted as Jewish? They believe they already are. If they were still around Jews in China who apparently migrated there about a thousand years ago and intermarried but kept up traditions until several decades ago. Communities across the world that identify themselves as Jews, often facing great difficulties in the process. Are they Jews to you? If you are Jewish, do you feel a kinship with them? Would that sense be stronger if you knew they had bloodline connections? If they looked like you? Is it stronger because they are oppressed by virtue of their choice to call themselves Jewish?
And Eve, I’d still like to hear your answers from before if you stop back.