Race and ethnicity are terms that are sometimes used sloppily, almost interchangeably. But race and ethnicity are not the same thing.
Both terms are used to describe human identity, but in different – if related – ways. Identity might bring to mind questions of skin color, nationality, language, religion, cultural traditions or family ancestry. Both race and ethnicity encompass many of these descriptors. "'Race' and 'ethnicity' have been and continue to be used as ways to describe human diversity," said Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist and paleobiologist at The Pennsylvania State University, who is known for her research into the evolution of human skin color. "Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture."
Related: Why did some people become white?
In other words, race is often perceived as something that's inherent in our biology, and therefore inherited across generations. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is typically understood as something we acquire, or self-ascribe, based on factors like where we live or the culture we share with others.
But just as soon as we've outlined these definitions, we're going to dismantle the very foundations on which they're built. That's because the question of race versus ethnicity actually exposes major and persistent flaws in how we define these two traits, flaws that — especially when it comes to race — have given them an outsized social impact on human history.
What is race?
The idea of "race" originated from anthropologists and philosophers in the 18th century, who used geographical location and phenotypic traits like skin color to place people into different racial groupings, according to Britannica (opens in new tab). That not only cemented the notion that there are separate racial "types" but also fueled the idea that these differences had a biological basis.
That flawed principle laid the groundwork for the belief that some races were superior to others — which white Europeans used to justify the slave trade and colonialism, entrenching global power imbalances, as reported by University of Cape Town emeritus professor Tim Crowe at The Conversation (opens in new tab). "We can't understand race and racism outside of the context of history, and more importantly economics. Because the driver of the triangular trade [which included slavery] was capitalism, and the accumulation of wealth," said Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe, a medical anthropologist at the Center on Genomics, Race, Identity, Difference (GRID) at the Social Science Research Institute (SSRI), Duke University. She is also the associate director of engagement for the Center on Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation (TRHT) at Duke. The center is part of a movement across the United States whose members lead events and discussions with the public to challenge historic and present-day racism.(opens in new tab)
The effects of this history prevail today — even in current definitions of race, where there's still an underlying assumption that traits like skin color or hair texture have biological, genetic underpinnings that are completely unique to different racial groups, according to Stanford (opens in new tab). Yet, the scientific basis for that premise simply isn't there.
"If you take a group of 1,000 people from the recognized 'races' of modern people, you will find a lot of variation within each group," Jablonski told Live Science. But, she explained, "the amount of genetic variation within any of these groups is greater (opens in new tab) than the average difference between any two [racial] groups." What's more, "there are no genes that are unique to any particular 'race,'" she said.
Related: What are genes?
In other words, if you compare the genomes of people from different parts of the world, there are no genetic variants that occur in all members of one racial group but not in another. This conclusion has been reached in many (opens in new tab) different (opens in new tab) studies (opens in new tab). Europeans and Asians, for instance, share almost the same set of genetic variations (opens in new tab). As Jablonski described earlier, the racial groupings we have invented are actually genetically more similar to each other than they are different — meaning there's no way to definitively separate people into races according to their biology.
Jablonski's own work on skin color, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (opens in new tab) in 2010, demonstrates this. "Our research has revealed that the same or similar skin colors — both light and dark — have evolved multiple times under similar solar conditions in our history," she said. "A classification of people based on skin color would yield an interesting grouping of people based on the exposure of their ancestors to similar levels of solar radiation. In other words, it would be nonsense." What she means is that as a tool for putting people into distinct racial categories, skin color — which evolved along a spectrum — encompasses so much variation within different skin color "groupings" that it's basically useless, she said during a TED Talk (opens in new tab) in 2009.
We do routinely identify each other's race as "Black," "white" or "Asian," based on visual cues. But crucially, those are values that humans have chosen to ascribe to each other or themselves. The problem occurs when we conflate this social habit with scientific truth — because there is nothing in individuals' genomes that could be used to separate them along such clear racial lines.
In short, variations in human appearance don't equate to genetic difference. "Races were created by naturalists and philosophers of the 18th century. They are not naturally occurring groups," Jablonski emphasized.
What is ethnicity?(opens in new tab)
This also exposes the major distinction between race and ethnicity: While race is ascribed to individuals on the basis of physical traits, ethnicity is more frequently chosen by the individual. And, because it encompasses everything from language, to nationality, culture and religion, it can enable people to take on several identities. Someone might choose to identify themselves as Asian American, British Somali or an Ashkenazi Jew, for instance, drawing on different aspects of their ascribed racial identity, culture, ancestry and religion.
Ethnicity has been used to oppress different groups (opens in new tab), as occurred during the Holocaust, or within interethnic conflict of the Rwandan genocide, where ethnicity was used to justify mass killings. Yet, ethnicity can also be a boon for people who feel like they're siloed into one racial group or another, because it offers a degree of agency, Ifekwunigwe said. "That's where this ethnicity question becomes really interesting, because it does provide people with access to multiplicity," she said. (That said, those multiple identities can also be difficult for people to claim, such as in the case of multiraciality, which is often not officially recognized.)
Ethnicity and race are also irrevocably intertwined — not only because someone's ascribed race can be part of their chosen ethnicity but also because of other social factors. "If you have a minority position [in society], more often than not, you're racialized before you’re allowed access to your ethnic identity," Ifekwunigwe said. "That's what happens when a lot of African immigrants come to the United States and suddenly realize that while in their home countries, they were Senegalese or Kenyan or Nigerian, they come to the U.S. — and they're Black." Even with a chosen ethnicity, "race is always lurking in the background," she said.
These kinds of problems explain why there's a growing push to recognize race, like ethnicity, as a cultural and social construct, according to the RACE Project (opens in new tab).
Yet in reality, it's not quite so simple.
Impact of race and ethnicity
Race and ethnicity may be largely abstract concepts, but that doesn't override their very genuine, real-world influence. These constructs wield "immense power in terms of how societies work," said Ifekwunigwe. Defining people by race, especially, is ingrained in the way that societies are structured, how they function and how they understand their citizens: Consider the fact that the U.S. Census Bureau officially recognizes five distinct racial groups, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (opens in new tab).
The legacy of racial categories has also shaped society in ways that have resulted in vastly different socioeconomic realities for different groups. That's reflected, for instance, in higher levels of poverty (opens in new tab) for minority groups, poorer access to education and health care, and greater exposure to crime, environmental injustices (opens in new tab) and other social ills. What's more, race is still used by some as the motivation for continued discrimination against other groups that are deemed to be "inferior," the Southern Poverty Law Center (opens in new tab) explained.
"It's not just that we have constructed these [racial] categories; we have constructed these categories hierarchically," Ifekwunigwe said. "Understanding that race is a social construct is just the beginning. It continues to determine people's access to opportunity, privilege and also livelihood in many instances, if we look at health outcomes," she said. One tangible example of health disparity comes from the United States, where data shows that African American women are more than twice as likely to die in childbirth compared with white women, the Census Bureau reported.
Perceptions of race even inform the way we construct our own identities — though this isn't always a negative thing. A sense of racial identity in minority groups can foster pride (opens in new tab), mutual support and awareness (opens in new tab). Even politically, using race to gauge levels of inequality across a population can be informative, helping to determine which groups need more support, because of the socioeconomic situation they’re in. As the U.S. Census Bureau website explains (opens in new tab), having data about people's self-reported race "is critical in making policy decisions, particularly for civil rights."
All this paints a complex picture, which might leave us pondering how we should view the idea of race and ethnicity. There are no easy answers, but one thing is clear: While both are portrayed as a way to understand human diversity, in reality they also wield power as agents of division that don't reflect any scientific truths.
Science does show us that across all the categories that humans construct for ourselves, we share more in common than we don't. The real challenge for the future will be to see that instead of our "differences" alone.
For a deeper understanding of how the U.S. government categorizes race and ethnicity, read "Research to Improve Data on Race and Ethnicity (opens in new tab)," which traces how the Census bureau is working to keep up with individuals' understanding of their own identities. (Hint: It's usually complex.) The nonpartisan Pew Research Center has a landing page for its research and survey data related to race and ethnicity (opens in new tab), which touches on topics as diverse as immigration, health, and education.
As is easy to imagine for such a hot topic, mountains of books have been written about issues around race and ethnicity. "Superior: The Return of Race Science (opens in new tab)" (Beacon Press, 2019) by Angela Saini Beacon tracks the history of scientific racism and the ways discredited ideas still influence scientific fields today. "Genetics and the Unsettled Past: The Collision Between DNA, Race, and History (opens in new tab)" (Rutgers University Press, 2013), is a scholarly look at how the field of genetics has complicated how we talk about genetics and history. Isabel Wilkerson's "Caste: The Origins of our Discontents (opens in new tab)" (Random House, 2020) explores how race and ethnicity are used to divide people into hierarchies.
"About the topic of race (opens in new tab)." U.S. Census Bureau. Dec. 3, 2021.
"Racism and Health. (opens in new tab)" Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. November 24, 2021.
"What Racism Costs Us All (opens in new tab)." Finance & Development, International Monetary Fund. Fall 2020.
(2014, July 31). A New African American Identity: The Harlem Renaissance. Smithsonian. https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/new-african-american-identity-harlem-renaissance (opens in new tab)
Roberts, Frank Leon. (2018, July 13). How Black Lives Matter Changed the Way Americans Fight for Freedom. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/how-black-lives-matter-changed-way-americans-fight (opens in new tab)
White Nationalist. Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist (opens in new tab)
Newkirk II, Vann R. (2018, Feb. 28). Trump’s EPA Concludes Environmental Racism Is Real. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-trump-administration-finds-that-environmental-racism-is-real/554315/ (opens in new tab)
American Psychological Association. Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities (opens in new tab)
(2019, June 10). Ethnic Cleansing. The History Channel. https://www.history.com/topics/holocaust/ethnic-cleansing (opens in new tab)
Smedley, Audrey, The history of the idea of race. Britannica. Accessed April 9, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Scientific-classifications-of-race (opens in new tab)
Jablonski, Nina and Chaplin, George. (2010, May 5). Human skin pigmentation as an adaptation to UV radiation. PNAS. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914628107 (opens in new tab)
Originally published on Live Science on Feb. 8, 2020 and updated on April 9, 2022.
The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."
Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL
The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.
The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.
Kingdom: Animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Class: Mammalia; Order: Primates; Suborder: Haplorhini; Infraorder: Simiiformes; Family: Hominidae; Subfamily: Homininae; Tribe: Hominini; Genus; Homo; Species: H. sapiens.
Based on pure biology and Linnaeus' zoological taxonomy, there are very little differences between all humans other than how we react to the external environments in which we have evolved (hair and skin color, height, facial features, muscle development, etc.). Other categories beyond this are purely human-constructed; which, is not always a "bad" thing. Only when we classify these categories as more superior or inferior do they become a source of contention. Unfortunately, that became the norm since the dawn of modern civilization.
that definitely not true, as i’ve had american indian relatives mistaken for asian more than once
ever been to southern italy?
or north africa?
Define "Political Correctness" and point to the examples of it in the text. You made this claim, so the burden is on you to back it up. I do not accept the term "Political Correctness" as anything but a subjective, emotion-laden evaluation.
Like myself at first, you misread the meaning of the statement. "There are more similarities than differences" meaning, once you take out the genes that are common across all of homo sapiens sapiens, there is no scientific way to discern "race", because the visible traits we use to determine belonging to certain races appear so often across the species that it is impossible to define in a meaningful way.
People do frequently "wrongly" identify the race of others -- at least, according to the people who say they have been misidentified. My husband, for example, is Sicilian. If he grows a beard, he looks like, and has been mistaken for, an Arab. But his DNA does not show Semitic origin as a primary contributor. He also has North African and Italian/Greek DNA, and he can become quite dark in the sun. What is his race? In the USA, up until the 1950s he'd be considered "Black." Is he Black? He does not identify as Black. He checks the White/Caucasian box.
This was not discussed in the article, but "race" as a term has changed in meaning ever since it was invented. Not even American surveys can agree on what races there are. The term itself, whenever surveys ask this question, mixes together terms that are used to denote observable features as well as language families and continents. Black, White/Caucasian (not Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American. This clearly makes no sense at all. Hispanic means "Spanish-speaking." What does one's language have to do with one's appearance, particularly since many "Hispanics" are actually of Indigenous South or Central American origin, whereas others are of more European origin. So "race" as a method of identifying people scientifically is not even something everyone agrees on, mixes together totally unrelated categories, and has never had a stable meaning.
Secondly many regions are completely ignored as separate even though there are clear differences in how they look. Why is "Asian" one race, when Chinese, Japanese and Koreans look VERY different from Central and South Asians, and Russians are primarily also in Asia. What race are they? Many South Asians share traits with people of African Descent, such as very dark skin and wiry hair. What race are people from India? What if they don't have dark skin and wiry hair? What race are people from the Middle East? What race are the Kurds, who are literally Caucasians, but also from the Middle East, and share some features with Semitic peoples, however some are blond with blue eyes?
Even today, there is no generally agreed-upon definitions of these races, let alone one based on measurable characteristics, so how can one measure the degree of belonging to a race? If you can't measure it, it's not a science-based categorization.
You are in error. Human "discernment" of "Phenotypical" features is notoriously unreliable as a basis for scientific discrimination. One need only to look at the original categorizations of species by the early biologists. When we discovered DNA, we began to realize that categorization by feature was a bad way to determine how species were related. The correct, and only method of scientifically determining relationship, including belonging to a species or a variety, is through DNA typing. This is for exactly the reason that the author mentions: because many, many traits develop independently, in almost completely unrelated organisms, under similar environmental conditions. This has led many, many species to be recategorized, moved sometimes into a completely different genus, or eliminated as a separate species entirely.
I have demonstrated how race is in fact a completely unscientific method for categorizing people:
1. it mixes unrelated categories
2. it relies upon visual distinction by humans, which is cannot reliably determine relationship
3. There is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics.
4. It ignores DNA
5. It lumps together groups of people that are clearly visually distinct from each other, and leaves others out entirely
Clearly race is an unreliable, inconsistent, self-contradictory, qualitative and totally subjective categorization of humans. There is no other logical conclusion but that it is unscientific.
The hand that feeds you is the easiest to bite.
Don't forget the WORLDWIDE pie diagram when you think of what constitutes a "minority, or race, or ethnicity" of people's. Please correct me if statistics, history, or inconvenient truths embarrass myopic views... Duh.
I don't care about the color of your skin, but as every one forgets Martin Luther King Jr.'s SECOND HALF of that sentence, "but rather that they be judged by the CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER." DUH. Please forgive the surprise that I have sprung on the uninformed, the denying fools, or the ignorant that comprise 74% of the, "bell curve." You are what you eat, and you will reap what you sow... So lay off the, Bush meat" and the bat soup... Because Y'all infected yourselves with the crowning achievement of the 2020 Darwin Award, LOL (corona virus) just like the Bush meat eaters in Africa could not resist the plagues that haunt them, too.
Stupid is as stupid does.