Why do people confuse Race vs. Ethnicity?

[nec209]

Why do people confuse Race vs. Ethnicity when they talk or post on the internet?

Where the dictionary is really clear that ethnicity is shared cultural characteristics, like language, religion, fashion, way you dress, music, custom, food so on.

Where race referring to physical characteristics on what the person looks like .

where base on this article there is 30 human races in the world.

https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-many-major-races-are-there-in-the-world/
 

But way more ethnicity in the world.

 

[koti]

4 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Why do people confuse Race vs. Ethnicity when they talk or post on the internet?

Where the dictionary is really clear that ethnicity is shared cultural characteristics, like language, religion, fashion, way you dress, music, custom, food so on.

Where race referring to physical characteristics on what the person looks like .

where base on this article there is 30 human races in the world.

https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-many-major-races-are-there-in-the-world/
 

But way more ethnicity in the world.

 

People in general are very confused as to most subjects. I remember being a kid at least breathing, eating and procreation were subjects free of confusion but that too is no longer the case.

[joigus]

12 minutes ago, koti said:

People in general are very confused as to most subjects. I remember being a kid at least breathing, eating and procreation were subjects free of confusion but that too is no longer the case.

+1. These are confusing times. Science education is more important than it has ever been.

Just one more thing: The concept of race no longer is useful in any sense that I can think of.

Edited June 12, 2020 by joigus
minor stylistic correction

[koti]

53 minutes ago, joigus said:

+1. These are confusing times. Science education is more important than it has ever been.

Just one more thing: The concept of race no longer is useful in any sense that I can think of.

I don’t know joigus, myself having a semi vague idea about how GR works, what alleles are, how virus attenuation works, how networks work or why race is not a useful concept hasn’t helped me or my family much in life. Why do you think that science education (Ive been in the education business all my life) is more important that it has ever been?

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

Why do people confuse Race vs. Ethnicity when they talk or post on the internet?

Mostly, because they want someone to blame for all the shit in their lives, and have been taught by their village, that we should fear the differently coloured and non-locals; it's so much harder to accept one's own falability (as a member of the human race).

The irony is, we're ALL so much better off when we think past such trivialities and just get along.

Edited June 12, 2020 by dimreepr

[joigus]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I don’t know joigus, myself having a semi vague idea about how GR works, what alleles are, how virus attenuation works, how networks work or why race is not a useful concept hasn’t helped me or my family much in life. Why do you think that science education (Ive been in the education business all my life) is more important that it has ever been?

I think a basic, down-to-earth, practical-for-life, science education for everybody is important because we're living times when religions are loosening their grip on people's minds in the West and other countries with similar tendency. As a consequence, it's only too obvious that some religions are tightening their grip --as a defensive move-- on what's left of their flocks (or desperately trying to) in many developing countries, while swathes of people in the West are turning their heads towards the occult, and fresh-from-the-nonsense-factory myths.

The reason why I imply that "race" is a blurry concept at best is because:

1st) Humans have a minimal genetic dispersion among primates

2nd) Africans have a maximal genetic dispersion among themselves in the human family

So take, e.g., people of African origin. They have been some of the most discriminated-against for centuries, based on the colour of their skin. Let's leave aside for a moment the most emotional factors like those related to sheer cruelty, injustice, pigeonholing, etc., important thought they are. Does it make any sense at all to separate Africans based on a secondary characteristic (catch anything you can by Nina Jablonski on the role that vitamin D played on it) once we learn from science that humans are extraordinarily homogeneous from a genetic POV (Toba catastrophe being pointed at as the main culprit) and that, even that being very likely, Africans are among the most genetically disperse among themselves?

Race, as a concept to divide humans, or even classify them, especially if or when one of the proposed categories is "Africans" vs "non-Africans" would be at least about as silly as trying to study animals as separated into "jellyfish" and "non-jellyfish." That completes my point about race. And I do hope nobody out there (I'm sure not you, @koti) misunderstands my use of the jellyfish example.

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Mostly, because they want someone to blame for all the shit in their lives, and have been taught by their village, that we should fear the differently coloured and non-locals; it's so much harder to accept one's own falability (as a member of the human race).

Agreed. That's why it's so important to study mechanisms in people's minds as such, and not as "they do it just because they want to." I'm optimistic though. I think humans have an uncanny ability to collaborate that's not present in other species. We just need to stimulate it and render the irrational self-defence mechanisms dormant when they become more of an obstacle or bring about any kind of injustice.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

" I'm optimistic though. I think humans have an uncanny ability to collaborate that's not present in other species.

That just seems to depend on the size of the pack, but I'm optomistic too; we've seen it in the past, mostly via religion, some via oppresion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an athiest, but if history is anything to go by, our uncanny ability that's not present in other species, is to extend the pack despite the danger.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, joigus said:

The reason why I imply that "race" is a blurry concept at best is because:

 

[joigus]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That just seems to depend on the size of the pack, but I'm optomistic too; we've seen it in the past, mostly via religion, some via oppresion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an athiest, but if history is anything to go by, our uncanny ability that's not present in other species, is to extend the pack despite the danger.

Yeah, I'm generally optimistic, which doesn't mean I'm starry-eyed or overconfident. It may take time, but the course of change is well defined in one direction. Resistance is met, I know, primitive drives die hard. I hope I'm not wrong.

Although I'm an atheist too, I agree that Christianity probably played a positive role during the first centuries when it entered the Roman Empire, by substituting human sacrifice and similar horrours by something more humane. Less damaging myths at that particular point in history if you wish. Some of my atheist friends do not agree with me. But obviously, after that, pretty much Christianity by itself with its different internal divides and war against other religions is involved in every major conflict that Europe and the Middle East have been involved in through the Middle Ages and after that. Both race (as a convenient political construct to argue in the past for the rights of your tribe to dominate over other tribes, to incorporate @iNow's last point) and religion, have played a major role in arguments for political power. 

[Prometheus]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I agree that Christianity probably played a positive role during the first centuries when it entered the Roman Empire,

I believe the consensus is that human sacrifice had already largely vanished in most European traditions before the arrival of Christianity, but accusations of such were propagated as part of the subjugation of pagan traditions. 

[joigus]

17 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I believe the consensus is that human sacrifice had already largely vanished in most European traditions before the arrival of Christianity, but accusations of such were propagated as part of the subjugation of pagan traditions. 

I don't know about that, but it wouldn't surprise me either. I don't feel very strongly really about defending Christianity or any other monotheism. The Romans played the same propaganda trick against the Phoenicians, so I see no reason why they wouldn't have played it again. I simply don't know enough about it to be sure one way or the other. But what you're saying makes a lot of sense to me.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, joigus said:

Although I'm an atheist too, I agree that Christianity probably played a positive role during the first centuries when it entered the Roman Empire, by substituting human sacrifice and similar horrours by something more humane.

Not for me, in keeping with the topic, it's about forgiving those who sacrificed anything alive and applauding those who sacrificed  themselves instead.

20 hours ago, joigus said:

Less damaging myths at that particular point in history if you wish. Some of my atheist friends do not agree with me. But obviously, after that, pretty much Christianity by itself with its different internal divides and war against other religions is involved in every major conflict that Europe and the Middle East have been involved in through the Middle Ages and after that. Both race (as a convenient political construct to argue in the past for the rights of your tribe to dominate over other tribes, to incorporate @iNow's last point) and religion, have played a major role in arguments for political power.

 Whenever there's a schism, there's a lack of understanding; basically the bible says "chill, don't sweat the stuff you can't change, and be content (as happy as you can be, with what circumstance will allow)...

And being righteously indignant is not chilling.

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not for me, in keeping with the topic, it's about forgiving those who sacrificed anything alive and applauding those who sacrificed  themselves instead.

 Whenever there's a schism, there's a lack of understanding; basically the bible says "chill, don't sweat the stuff you can't change, and be content (as happy as you can be, with what circumstance will allow)...

Well, in keeping with the topic too, the Bible is the fist book that defends genocide as a legit way of fostering your people's ambitions. So no, I'm no defender of Christianity.

My opinion on the Bible, in case you want to know, is more or less abridged here:

"Race" was a very important concept in the past. Egyptians depicted the Semites in no ambiguous terms in their papyri, with big noses and different clothes and hairstyles.

In that sense I think I diverge (ever so slightly) from @iNow's picture only in the particular aspect that I think that the modern concept of it is an utilitarian re-definition (instead of a definition) for Europeans to keep making it rich to the expense of other peoples. But we could be discussing about this for ages. I think we basically agree.

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Well, in keeping with the topic too, the Bible is the fist book that defends genocide as a legit way of fostering your people's ambitions. 

How can you be sure?

If anything the new testament seems to be trying to why explain why the old one read that way, it's like Jesus learnt to chill and forgave those who had the schism's. 

Imagine a guild book/map that never changes, representing an Earth that always changes.

It's only accurate, till it's not...

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How can you be sure?

If anything the new testament seems to be trying to why explain why the old one read that way, it's like Jesus learnt to chill and forgave those who had the schism's. 

I'm not sure of anything. But the story of Joshua and the Canaanites is pretty unambiguous. You can spin it any way you want, but at the end of the day it's: God tells Joshua "I've promised Moses this land is yours, take it from the Canaanites. The Bible is clearly making things up about Jericho, which was destroyed by an earthquake about 1000 years before, but the story in Hazor seems to be pretty different, according to archaeologists: Internal rebellion. What seems to have happened is that grassroots people killed their own powerful brethren and made it look like a genocide of one people at the hands of another. In any case, the idea of extinguishing a rival culture was already being used. Even if it wasn't true! LOL

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

God tells Joshua

I thought we were both athiests; Joshua writes something down and tries the PR approach... 

I'm confused, did god tell you something too... 🙂

Edited June 13, 2020 by dimreepr

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I thought we were both athiests; Joshua writes something down and tries the PR approach... 

I'm confused, did god tell you something too... 🙂

LOL. It's end of the week, @dimreepr. I'm beat. Forgive me. God speaks to me, but I'm never listening when he does.

[dimreepr]

@MigL Do you love me now... 😆

Sorry mate, I couldn't resist...

[joigus]

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

@MigL Do you love me now... 😆

Sorry mate, I couldn't resist...

What's going on?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

What's going on?

Annoying bickering and sniping that wastes bandwidth and time. Don’t spend cognitive resources bothering with it

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

What's going on?

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Annoying bickering and sniping that wastes bandwidth and time. Don’t spend cognitive resources bothering with it

He's not wrong, again sorry for my lack of fortitude. 😔

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

He's not wrong, again sorry for my lack of fortitude. 😔

 

I just hope I'm not totally un-right, right? You're a very good bad person. Or maybe a very bad good person. Which one would you rather be?

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Annoying bickering and sniping that wastes bandwidth and time. Don’t spend cognitive resources bothering with it

I'll watch my step.

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

I just hope I'm not totally un-right, right? You're a very good bad person. Or maybe a very bad good person. Which one would you rather be?

A very good bad person, is a very good tool for teachers ( I'm not going to generalise and say that all nazi's are c%$&'s)...

[MigL]

Did I hear my name being called...

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Did I hear my name being called...

This is not fun with flags, Sheldon.  😄