Define a Definition.

Written winter 2008.

Define a definition.

Throughout the 2008 presidential election, race was a large issue. People accused others of being racist, there was discussion about whether “America is ready” or not, and the President-elect's ethnic background adds to the continuation of discussion. Although “race” is a generally understood term, its broadly defined nature creates false and potentially damaging divisions within humankind. As discussions about race and ethnicity permeate society, one must take a step back and wonder what makes a person a particular race. Is it appearance? A biological difference? Social upbringing? Languages, customs, lifestyles or other factors that vary by geographical location? For each fragile definition there is a counter-argument that disproves its validity. Most people have at least a few words to say on the topic of “racism”, but none can give a concrete definition. Although people try to explain them, “race” and “ethnicity” are indefinable terms that create divisions by the very attempt at a definition.

The denotations of “ethnic” and “race” are as clear as mud. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “ethnic” is defined as “1) having common natural or cultural tradition. 2) denoting origin by birth or descent rather than nationality. 3) relating to race or culture.” The first definition speaks to traditions and culture, but not to exclusivity. Therefore, having a few traditions in common could be enough to be an ethnic group under this partial definition. The second is related to ancestry. At a glance this appears to be a logical definition. However, regardless of whether we got on this planet by intent or chance, there was still a small original population. We all have a common ancestor, so that partial definition doesn't work either. The third definition relates to race. “Race” according to the Oxford Dictionary is “1) each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. 2) fact of concept of division into races.” Although Oxford defines race as a division within humankind that includes physical characteristics, distinct characteristics like birth defects are not considered a separate racial cue. The second definition is the most revealing, as Oxford uses the word it is defining in the definition. Race is the concept of division into races, but it is not a real or definable word. Is that just a complex way to say that race defines itself because it is conceptual in nature? If the dictionary cannot explain the divisions humankind has labeled as “race” and “ethnicity”, than a closer look at the connotative meanings is necessary.

Often racism is defined as judging someone based on skin color, but even those making the statement often say it is an oversimplification. People cannot be connected in a single such group. In a response to this colorful issue, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) issued a strong statement on race that helps dispel this misconception:

“In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups” (Smedley).

So, although physical appearance is a common part of the perception of race, it is clear that it is an inaccurate definition that inconsistently divides more than it unites. It is true that similar people in appearance may have similar cultural traditions and social patterns, but that is not always the case. When race is a non-existent term, discrimination is easily seen as what Dean Sperry, an associate of Harvard College calls it: “a matter of culture [more than] biology”. If race refers to a culture and not a physical attribute, then it is impossible to identify one’s race based on a picture.

Furthermore, “evidence from the analysis of genetics . . . indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes” (Smedley). So-called interracial commonalities are more numerous between races than within them! To claim that racism is based on the color of one's skin is not only incomplete, it is so incomplete it is reproachable. Under this logic, Germans could not be racist against Brits or anyone with a similar skin color. This obvious oversimplification is a common definition, but it lacks substance. Children of one dark-skinned and one light-skinned parent could receive dominant genes from one “white” parent and have no physical appearance of their “black” heritage, but that does not change ancestry. Similarly, Michael Jackson is a light-skinned man, but he is considered a “black” man. Labeling based on color is simply confusing. Skin color is primarily due to varying levels of melanin and is designed to keep ultraviolet rays from burning the skin. Variations in skin color as a whole occur gradually as one approaches or departs from the equator with darker skin being generally located near the equator. However, these variations would be more of a clue to physical location and do not affect the behavior, experiences or attitudes of an individual. A light-skinned person born and raised in Africa would probably have more “African” traits and values than a traditionally labeled “African” born and raised in a light-skinned community.

Thus, a second common criterion used to determine race is national origin or geographic location. This, however, is just as flawed. If Frenchmen have been racist against Brits, then the distance between the two locations can be as little as 50 miles. That is less than the distance between Minneapolis and St. Cloud. Could racism explain the Minnesota/Wisconsin quarrel? When distance is put into this perspective, it appears ludicrous. The distance and location are seemingly irrelevant, except for the social differences that could potentially arise by crossing national borders. However, these social issues are a separate facet of this discussion that are not related to physical location and distance between “races”.

Social issues and Cultural normalcies differ internationally, but actions cannot be used to define race. In Russia, a man shows romantic interest in a lady by peeling her banana. In Chile, a kiss on the cheek is a greeting for men and women. In America, asking someone how they are doing is perceived as a greeting more than a true question. Knowledge of these differences is necessary to appropriately behave in the respective environments, but the actions in themselves do not make one a different race. An American in Germany would need to know that asking a German “how are you?” would elicit a lengthy response, because Germans consider it a legitimate inquiry into a person's life. This difference does not define the races, but they are social aspects of each society. Similarly, if a baby girl from Chile was adopted by an American family, then her actions would define her as American, not Chilean, and upon visiting Chile she could be completely unaware of her ancestor's social normalcies. If the most often cited definitions of race are inconclusive, then one must examine how people draw conclusions about the issue.

Many people make assumptions about the “race” of someone because of unconscious influences. First and foremost, as Americans the issue of race often highlights our national history. A “slave” is defined as a “person who is the legal property of and has to serve another”(“slave”). Note that “race” is a non-existent term in this definition. Furthermore, skin color, ancestry and national origin are irrelevant in the definition of a slave. However, according to a recent Facebook survey in which members of a group titled “What is Race/Ethnicity?” were asked what they thought of after hearing the word 'slavery', most answers referenced early America, the Civil War, or 'African Americans' specifically. A few referenced forced servitude for various reasons. In the past, slavery was a form of servitude one could willingly enter to pay off a debt or for a variety of other reasons regardless of skin color. Once one became a slave, one was completely at the master's disposal. Modern understanding of this term has diverged from its original role, and the connotation of recent history has overshadowed denotation. A second yet powerful influence on the perception of “race” is the media.

Television shows containing a different lifestyle for people with differing skin colors or ancestry, movies depicting false stereotypes, and novels in the cannon addressing this topic all add to the perception that appearance is a valid determination of a person. Canonical novels such as To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Wuthering Heights make strong comments about “race”, and the hearty acceptance of these works perpetuates the acceptance that the term is valid. Serious and heart-wrenching movies such as Remember the Titans and Schindler’s List point out the immorality of “racial” judgment along with lighter movies, such as Fried Green Tomatoes and Hairspray. The immoral actions because of “race” are a central conceit in these media and each makes a valid argument. However, while hatred exists between “races,” encouraging the acceptance of “races” is not the best way to address the issue. If races do not exist in a scientific sense, but rather as a term created to divide, then using an ambiguous and divisive term to call for unification is oxymoronic in nature.

Finally, “racism” is not simply a negative judgment based on perceived “race.” Most people cite examples of racism as negative, meaning someone is denied something, injured, or falsely accused based on the color of his or her skin. However, as one respondent to a Facebook group prompt said, “thinking well of one because of race is no less racist than thinking poorly of another because of race. There is something wrong with making judgments, good or bad, based on someone's origins or skin color.” Assuming someone is trustworthy because of his or her skin color is just as flawed as assuming he or she is dishonest. There is even a political mindset, particularly seen in the last election, in which people believe their representative must be a part of the same group (gender, racial or other uncontrollable factors) as themselves. Some women believe a woman would better represent them, and this might be true. Some “Caucasian” Americans believe a “Caucasian” would better represent them, and this is probably not true. A “Caucasian” has the same chances as an “African American.” Because two people share a physical feature does not mean that they have a similar childhood, upbringing, social setting, or set of morals, but stereotypes confuse reality. An uncontrollable physical appearance could make one person bitter, defensive or accusatory, and it could make another sensitive, perceptive to suffering, and protective of those harmed. It has everything to do with the individual and nothing to do with their “race”. Some may argue that racial stereotypes are grounded in some truth and can therefore be cautiously used, but the necessary caution overpowers any concrete conclusions.

This argument is in no way asserting that people are not judged based on the way they look. On the contrary, most people subconsciously form opinions and expectations about people based on their skin color, clothing styles and numerous other physical characteristics. For example, with few exceptions every responder on Facebook admitted to initially judging by appearance while knowing it is wrong to do so. Respondents made statements like “I try, though I may sometimes fail, to judge people exclusively on how they act and not on how they appear”, “I think it's instinct to judge someone immediately based on what you see”, and “my immediate reaction is based on how the people look and act, but I try to ignore those initial opinions until I know more about the person.” These people realize that skin color or perceived race does not affect the true nature of a person, and they consciously try to disregard initial impressions. It is obvious that people have been, and continue to be, discriminated against because of perceived race, and herein lies the problem. Asserting that race does not exist is not contradictory to seeing that “racist” actions exist. Race is a perception of racial differences, and although the word is defining itself, as long as people continue to classify other into “races”, there will be a problem.

Instead of placing people of different cultures and traditions into a biological group, one must advocate the acceptance of all cultures. In discussions about “racism,” one should strive to highlight the commonality of all humankind. As race is indefinable from a literal, biological, physical, social or geographical standpoint, one must acknowledge that it is a label created to divide humanity into groups. These divisions cause more harm than good, and it is clear to see that the understanding of race is based on unconscious sources. Instead of insisting that people ignore the non-existent and divisive term known as “race,”one should strive to “bind all human hearts and minds into a Brotherhood of Man” as J. Pierrepont Finch sings in How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Work to bring humanity together. Work to appreciate differences in lifestyles, but do not advocate the acceptance of the undefinable “races.”

Works Cited

Anon. “What is Race/Ethnicity?” Online postings. Nov. 20-Dec. 7 2008. Facebook. Dec. 5 2008. <http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1655988&id=585511973#/group.php?gid=51068766419>

http://anthro.palomar.edu. 05 July 2006. 18 Nov. 2008 <http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_2.htm>

http://besthealth.com. 04 Dec. 2008. <http://www.besthealth.com/besthealth/bodyguide/reftext/html/skin_sys_fin.html#color>.

Billikopf, Gregorio. “Cultural Differences? Or, Are We Really That Different?”. cnr.berkely.edu. 04 Dec. 2008.

Cowart, Jeremy. African Man. c.2007. 04 Dec. 2008. <http://www.virb.com/jeremycowart/photos/72194>.

“Ethnic” Def. All. Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus.2^nd American Edition. 2002.

“Race.” Def. 1,2 . Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus.2^nd American Edition. 2002.

Smedley, Audrey. “American Anthropological Association Statement on Race.” aaanet.org. 17 May 1998. 18 Nov. 2008. <http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm>