I don’t want to copy and paste my own writing, but I touched upon a similar topic on another thread. Looks like concerted racialists have abandoned this discussion, so I won’t bother now, except to respond to the following.

“Ergo, the “white race” and
“race” in general are not valid concepts.”

And here we have a racist right here. Who else can insist there is something called a ‘white race’? White describes your skin, and nothing else. May as well classify people based on attached/detached earlobes, or the relative length of ring finger with respect to the index.

But to counter the obvious, here’s a hint: “European” ain’t a race, either.

“(The concept of the “social construct of race” I would agree is valid and
worthy of study — but only after it’s distinguished from the biological.)”

We already distinguish between the two quite well. One’s a SOCIAL science, and the other is a CRANK science.

“The biological definition, on the other hand, is often criticized for not being
comprised of clearly distinct categories.”

No, the biological definition is often critizied for being comprised of clearly POLITICAL categories. “White” is not a race. “Black” is a not a race. “East Asian” is not a race. The human race may well be divided - who can say with certainty - but its fundamental dividing lines aren’t the options listed next to boxes on the Census.

“But this too is a weak argument, as
it could be applied to the color wheel to conclude that blue and yellow do not
exist, as there are so many different greens.”

So long as blueness or yellowness aren’t used as premises for shaky hypotheses with drastic implications, we’ll let ambiguity slide. But I tell ya what’s not gonna happen - a weak, watered-down, flimsy premise that ‘people are different’, and not expecting you guys to hunker down further, and meanwhile, here’s how we can specifically apply that generality to this pet political issue X. Sorry. First, you propose the terms and categories clearly. Then, science debates that and gives its word. Popper’s a bitch, ain’t he?

Ooh, betcha this one’s gonna haunt you in Google for some time to come.

But although it’s a good gag, I don’t have to explain why it’s not a smart critique of the term “people of color,” do I?

Mom: That’s the most adorable little colored girl playing outside.
Steve: “Colored”? You’re saying “colored people” in 1988? You know better, Ma.
Mom: Then why the “National Association for Colored People? I don’t think Negroes mind at all.
Steve: Don’t say “Negroes,” Ma! You can’t say “Negroes”!
Mom: Can I say “United Negro College Fund”?
Steve: You are baiting me, Ma!
Dad: That’s it. We’re leaving.
Mom: Stay put, Reginald. “Mister Socially Sensitive”isn’t finished shaming his parents into enlightenment.
Steve: Everybody just calm down. Let’s agree to use the the New-Age term “People of Color.”
Mom: People of Color.
Steve: People of Color.
Mom: Colored people.
Steve: NO!!
Dad: We’re leaving.

The biological definition, on the other hand, is often criticized for not being
comprised of clearly distinct categories. But this too is a weak argument, as
it could be applied to the color wheel to conclude that blue and yellow do not
exist, as there are so many different greens.

To repeat — lots of interesting comments, but please anything but the term “people of color” … talk about a judgment-laden term … it’s usually the case that those who use this term would also contend that “race doesn’t exist” …

My conception of race, which I assign no valuations upon btw, is based upon a holistic view of what I know about sociological race blended with what I know of population genetics, and poured into a glass of my own reason. Race is only useful from genetic angles, and from issues of how others react to race, like ethnocentrism or discrimination. I question agendas that may be ethnocentric in origin, or criticism and attacks that may be discrimination bias. All types of people perform ethnocentric and discriminatory practices btw, some cynically for self-benefit, others out of ideology.

How about these:

(19) Half-Indian, half-Dutch
(20) Jew of Israeli, Polish, German, Latvian, Ukrainian, Russian, and Romanian descent, and plenty I’m leaving out.

From the comments here, it seems that (19) would be classified as non-white, and (20) as white. (20) describes me, and (19) describes a good friend of mine. He and I are regulars at a certain local concert series, and one evening I arrived without him. The woman who sells tickets asked me where “my brother” was that night. He and I have roughly the same skin tone, and look similar enough as to be mistaken for siblings, but a simple enumeration of countries of origin has us of being of different races.

There’s a whole lot of ambiguity within individuals, not just within nationalities - something I don’t see discussed very often even in the most nuanced of conversations on race (cf “I don’t consider Israelis to be white, because some are Ethiopian…” as opposed to “I don’t consider even specific Israelis to be white because they’re much darker than Swedes and much lighter than Nigerians.”).

A couple of things about using race as medical information. Sickle cell anemia isn’t exclusively an ‘African’ problem — you’ll also find it in people of Yemeni origin and in some Mediterrenean populations. It’s rarer, but it’s known. Of course let’s not add any issues of people who LOOK white but have considerable African ancestry (which I further have to qualify by noting that the sickle cell anemia mutation isn’t distributed evenly at all!). Assuming that a white person who has collapsed after exertion and who is retaining fluid at a frightening rate despite having overall good cardiac function *cannot* possibly be suffering from a sickle cell crisis simply because they’re white is a good way to end up with a dead person. You do have to do a work up from first principles and go with where they lead you, not where you think they ought to go. That’s good medicine.

Wheras in the US, African-American women are noted for having breast cancer rates (despite having large European infusions), over here in the UK where the black population is much ‘blacker’ it’s women from the Indian subcontinent who are statistically much more at risk.

At the very very best, race or apparent race may be *a* clue, but that’s all it can possibly be. Using it as the basis to discount the need to work fairly from first principles taking *all* evidence and differential diagnoses into account is medical malpractice.

Also, I live in an area where most of the population (at least 85%) is considered white. When I hear on the radio, as an example, that I live in one of the whitest places in the nation, I cringe.

So I guess I’m uncomfortable with the construction of whiteness in general, whether it’s an over generalization (Israelis are non-white) or a factual statistic (85%+) about where I live.

I don’t want to pigeon-hole entire populations, and I don’t want a whole bunch of people pigeon-holing my experience of where I live, either.

But, since the question is being asked, I felt compelled to put in my 2 & 1/2 cents.

Rachel, I am looking forward to finding out the agenda behind the list of yes’s and no’s.

Besides, race is an artificial construct, hence it’s fluidity.

1. Chileans - no
2. Irish - yes
3. English - yes
4. Iranians - no
5. Cameroonians - no
6. Israelis - yes
7. Italians - yes
8. Nigerians - no
9. Chinese - no
10. Mexicans - no
11. Portuguese - yes
12. Russians - yes
13. Puerto Ricans - no
14. Saudis - no
15. Egyptians - no
16. Germans - yes
17. Canadians - yes
18. Americans - yes