Birth or Ethnicity?

[Kaboose the Moose]

When it comes to race, there are two common views that people hold. There are those who believe that birth is most important in determining a person's race and those that believe that birth alone does not decide the race. This lack of a proper definition results in conflict for countries that have several nations and groups with their borders. (like the English of the United Kingdom, the Catalans of Spain, and the Tamil of Sri Lanka). Conflicts arise because a government can deny the rights (particularly freedom) for people because they do not identify themselves as British, Spanish, French, etc. This goes against human rights and often the state's own anti-racism, even anti-terrorist, laws.

Morally, the people who say birth is most important in determining a person's race are on less stable ground. What right do they have to say that they are superior to others, and demand that all others are labeled as them because they speak a different language or are different in some way?. Legitimate governments have no right to do so, as it breaches the human rights to which almost all of them subscribe, and is to deprive people of their simplest needs because their ethnicity is illegal in the state of their birth.

-edited from a lecture slide.
The question that arises now is that how would you define your race?. What do you see as more important in determining a person's race: descent or birth [the conditions (environment) one is born into]. I am just studying a paper on ethnocentrism and looking for views.

 

[Daye.04]

I'd have to say that a persons race is determinded by where their parents where born

I don't recognize "race" except for the human race.
You can make the argument that different skin colours/physical features makes a race, but I will ignore you.
Because I can.
So I guess the answer is: I pick a third option.
/such a rebel

Here I was under the impression that they meant race as in more like what nation you belonged to. Otherwise I won't really care for race. It's all the same. But what nation you belong to does kinda matter

Also off topic. Beated to the finish line again, Max. I shall have my revenge. Mark my words.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

I don't recognize "race" except for the human race.
You can make the argument that different skin colours/physical features makes a race, but I will ignore you.
Because I can.
So I guess the answer is: I pick a third option.
/such a rebel

That's not what I was saying at all. In fact I was asking you what defined a race!. And I did mean the human race :/

 

[rossatdi]

Can I seek clarification?

Do we mean (for example) what makes someone English/French/etc: being born in that country (and assuming ethnic homogeneity) or being raised in that country?

If that's the case then obviously raised.

 

[Sane Man]

I believe most people of the world would say birth, and not heritage.

Especially as an American it would be hard for me to claim any heritage as we are a country of immigrants. Although, I am descended from those who first came and created America (Anglo-Saxon Protestants, mainly). Anyone born here I consider an American. You can break those Americans into different groups if you want, and study how they came to be here, but overall they are American.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I don't recognize "race" except for the human race.
You can make the argument that different skin colours/physical features makes a race, but I will ignore you.
Because I can.
So I guess the answer is: I pick a third option.
/such a rebel

What about in medicine? There are drugs given specifically to black people becase the drug for the same symptoms but for white people has adverse affects. Anyway the point is there are anatomical differences and therefore different races. Granted being different races shouldn't induce any different way of life-style or conflict but my first point is something that can't be ignored.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Can I seek clarification?

Do we mean (for example) what makes someone English/French/etc: being born in that country (and assuming ethnic homogeneity) or being raised in that country?

If that's the case then obviously raised.

Yes, I mean what makes someone English/French etc. For eg: if you are of a different ethnic background and you are born in England, are you considered British because of birth;(birth) or can you be British only if you have a British decent; (decent)?

 

[rossatdi]

Can I seek clarification?

Do we mean (for example) what makes someone English/French/etc: being born in that country (and assuming ethnic homogeneity) or being raised in that country?

If that's the case then obviously raised.

Yes, I mean what makes someone English/French etc. For eg: if you are of a different ethnic background and you are born in England, are you British or do your (birth) or are you British if you have a British decent (decent)?

Obviously it's where you're raised. It can't be anything else. You can have identity based on you're racial heritage but you can't claim to be Irish if you were born and raised in Ohio.

One of my best mates was born in Harrow (England) to two Indian parents. He is more English than I am (at least in terms of accent and having gone to public school etc). Yes he identifies with India but he is English.

 

[Spicy meatball]

Can I seek clarification?

Do we mean (for example) what makes someone English/French/etc: being born in that country (and assuming ethnic homogeneity) or being raised in that country?

If that's the case then obviously raised.

Yes, I mean what makes someone English/French etc. For eg: if you are of a different ethnic background and you are born in England, are you British or do your (birth) or are you British if you have a British decent (decent)?

Obviously it's where you're raised. It can't be anything else. You can have identity based on you're racial heritage but you can't claim to be Irish if you were born and raised in Ohio.

One of my best mates was born in Harrow (England) to two Indian parents. He is more English than I am (at least in terms of accent and having gone to public school etc). Yes he identifies with India but he is English.

Ahh now I agree with what you say but on many a trips I make to Chicago I keep running into my mates who were born and raised in Chicago and their parent were born and raised in the United States and their great grandmother or someone wandered in from Galway, Ireland and they all of a sudden claim to be Irish, and this isn't in a "Oh look at me I'm Irish" way either they take it very seriously. So, its not always where you were raised. I think it comes down to where you feel mostly connected to.

I mean if you grew up in a foreign neighborhood you would get along with everyone fine but you will always be, by blood at least what your heritage tell you are. My mate in Australia is like 7th generation Australian but he sees himself as an English bloke because his family has passed down the traditions and the culture with them. So I don't think its as clear cut as it being simply as where your from.

 

[lapan]

I don't recognize "race" except for the human race.
You can make the argument that different skin colours/physical features makes a race, but I will ignore you.
Because I can.
So I guess the answer is: I pick a third option.
/such a rebel

ditto

 

[rossatdi]

I mean if you grew up in a foreign neighborhood you would get along with everyone fine but you will always be, by blood at least what your heritage tell you are. My mate in Australia is like 7th generation Australian but he sees himself as an English bloke because his family has passed down the traditions and the culture with them. So I don't think its as clear cut as it being simply as where your from.

Well he isn't an English bloke, nor would anyone in England think he was. I don't care what he sees himself as.

Blood has little or nothing do to with it, especially when it's as far back as 7 generations. You are shaped by the society you grew up in, if you grew up in an Irish-American neighbourhood in Chicago you are not Irish, your experience is not Irish, your frames of social reference are not Irish, they are at the most American-Irish.

I've got a heap of Scottish blood in me (and on me, zing!) but I'm not Scottish at all. I am British - English.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Hey, the neither race nor birth really matters, we're all human,

That was never the question. I don't personally believe they matter either but the question was what do you consider to be the reference point if you were to judge your self. Do you see your self from a decent point of view or from a birth point of view?

 

[Spicy meatball]

I mean if you grew up in a foreign neighborhood you would get along with everyone fine but you will always be, by blood at least what your heritage tell you are. My mate in Australia is like 7th generation Australian but he sees himself as an English bloke because his family has passed down the traditions and the culture with them. So I don't think its as clear cut as it being simply as where your from.

Well he isn't an English bloke, nor would anyone in England think he was. I don't care what he sees himself as.

Blood has little or nothing do to with it, especially when it's as far back as 7 generations. You are shaped by the society you grew up in, if you grew up in an Irish-American neighbourhood in Chicago you are not Irish, your experience is not Irish, your frames of social reference are not Irish, they are at the most American-Irish.

I've got a heap of Scottish blood in me (and on me, zing!) but I'm not Scottish at all. I am British - English.

I agree totally as an american, things like that tend to not matter to me. there are so many different ethnic groups within a stones throw that classifying people as one thing or another isn't a big deal. The point is though, its a subclass, chinese born in the US are still chinese, but they're also american. both location of birth AND genetics are used as identifiers, all that really matters is what you personally choose to identify yourself with. personally, i dont think it matters, as caring too much about the labels on people's race/ethnicity can lead to ethnocentricism and/or racism, which are two things the world is better without.

 

[theklng]

I don't recognize "race" except for the human race.
You can make the argument that different skin colours/physical features makes a race, but I will ignore you.
Because I can.
So I guess the answer is: I pick a third option.
/such a rebel

i agree, race shouldn't be defined at all other than "human".

 

[Spicy meatball]

I don't recognize "race" except for the human race.
You can make the argument that different skin colours/physical features makes a race, but I will ignore you.
Because I can.
So I guess the answer is: I pick a third option.
/such a rebel

i agree, race shouldn't be defined at all other than "human".

What are you on about?. It is referred as "human" what other race is there?..Protoss?

 

[000Ronald]

"Once you've reached a certain age (say, being alive for 67 years) you learn that the only difference there can be between two men is what they belive in. All the wars, all the suffering, all the murder in the world, is becuase one person belived in something different than another. Makes ya think, doesn't it?"

Yeah, that about covers it for me.

Apologies for so bringing so little into the conversation, but...well, it's the point of the thing.

 

[Same River New Water]

Skarin, that block quote is major TL;DR material. A few improvements:

1) Give it an introductory paragraph, don't just drop us in the middle of a sentence, especially since it begins with a conjunction and continues with a really long-ass multiple-clause sentence.

2) Break it up into paragraphs, with a line break between each one.

3) Cut it down to the essential text, and put the rest behind a spoiler box (see below) or a link to the source material.

4) Attribute who you're quoting.

Spoiler

To make a spoiler box like this one, the code is (spoiler)text(/spoiler), but with square brackets.

-----

ON TOPIC: This whole argument depends on your subjective definition of the key words: "race", "ethnicity" and "environment" at least. Words have flexible meanings, and until you pin them down for the purpose of the discussion, you'll end up talking at cross purposes, like you just did with MaxTheReaper. Neither of you are wrong, you're just defining your words differently.

 

[Daye.04]

I don't recognize "race" except for the human race.
You can make the argument that different skin colours/physical features makes a race, but I will ignore you.
Because I can.
So I guess the answer is: I pick a third option.
/such a rebel

i agree, race shouldn't be defined at all other than "human".

What are you on about?. It is referred as "human" what other race is there?..Protoss?

yey! Protoss. How awsome would'nt it be to be human by birth, and protoss by ethnicity? =D

But let me ask. Have I totally missunderstood, or does this thread not really have anything with the term "race" as to how you define it? Isn't this thread more about national belonging?

 

[Nick Bounty]

... both location of birth AND genetics are used as identifiers

To me that argument doesn't seem fully applicable, as locations of birth (i.e. Russia) reflect the name of an entirely separate ethnicity which should not have the right to make other ethnicities Russian AND whatever they originally were.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Skarin, that block quote is major TL;DR material. A few improvements:

1) Give it an introductory paragraph, don't just drop us in the middle of a sentence, especially since it begins with a conjunction and continues with a really long-ass multiple-clause sentence.

2) Break it up into paragraphs, with a line break between each one.

3) Cut it down to the essential text, and put the rest behind a spoiler box (see below) or a link to the source material.

4) Attribute who you're quoting.

Spoiler

To make a spoiler box like this one, the code is text, but with square brackets.

-----

ON TOPIC: This whole argument depends on your subjective definition of the key words: "race", "ethnicity" and "environment" at least. Words have flexible meanings, and until you pin them down for the purpose of the discussion, you'll end up talking at cross purposes, like you just did with MaxTheReaper. Neither of you are wrong, you're just defining your words differently.

Thanks for the heads up, that was actually a cut down version of a lecture slide from a history lecture. I'll probably edit out the essentials as I go along but for now I'll make it much shorter.