How do you define race and nationality?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

neelu2

Babyface
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
13
Location
Los Angeles
Hi everyone-

I am doing a study on race and nationality in my anthropology course. so, if you would like to help out a fellow U2 fan, please write your thoughts on these topics. Thanks!

Questions:
1) How do you define Race?
2) How do you define Nationality?

3) How long have you been a U2 fan? How many shows have you seen and on what tours?

Cheers!
 
1. Hi neelu2! I define race as a construct based around (usually relatively recent) human evolutionary adaptations which give us our small collection of distinct physical appearance. It's real enough, and at the same time, inconsequential really. Skin deep (or maybe blood deep is the better term).

2. Nationality is trickier. I don't know if I can define it. Some nations have defined themselves on race, maybe most, maybe nearly all before the Enlightenment and its revolutions. Nowadays nations try to define themselves on goals and aspirations, but since most people most everywhere want much the same things, this makes product branding a tricky matter! The US had a good head start, but contrary to rhetoric, it is by no means the only free or democratic examplar. It did have a good head start, nonetheless. Or not. The Roman Empire was a great multiracial prototype, and so was the British Empire. But more so the Roman Empire. Did you know that they let foreigners become Emperor?

3. I'm not a U2 fan.:hug:
 
When you look across the world - the face of Asia, for example, there is no clear division between being very black-looking, Arab-looking, Indian-looking, and East Asian-looking. I don't think there are clearcut races at all anymore than when I look at two mongrel dogs.

Please note I consider us ALL mongrels - not just the above "looking" people.

In a thousand or two years most of us will be brownish, and I think that's wonderful.
 
it's hard to predict what the future holds. A thousand years? Possibly not all that much difference. The present human variance, the visible stuff, was locked in over maybe thirty to fifty thousand years, driven by environment. It lingers on until something else happens to change it. Three centuries of Africans in North America, and the only thing that has altered their appearance is the extent of intermarriage with the European populations. Evolutionary change just pans out over such vast timescales.

I'm going to hazard a guess that modern high technology civilisation cuts down the influence of environmental factors... to some extent.

What difference there is, globally, a thousand years from now will be driven almost exclusively by widespread intermarriage or the lack thereof.
 
And it is indeed very true that all racial groups bleed into each other at the edges. The steadily more asiatic faces of Russia, as you head east, are a case in point.
 
what's wrong with celebrating our differences? I'm not advocating defining someone purely by their race, but to ignore their ethnicity and culture as a part of who they are seems insulting.


There is nothing wrong with us celebrating our ethnic history.

What we seem to me be missing is something Dr. Martin Luther said.

It's time we view people by their character, not their skin color.
 
I'm sorry. I was very tired. When, I first replied to this thread.

Anthropology.....race, I would define as a region of the world your ancestors came from. For, example Ancient Africans would have darker skin then Europeans. Due to climate. It was nature's way of survival. I'm not trying to sound racist or stupid. But, I have never taken college courses in Anthropology, so I don't know the correct terminology.

Ethnic, I would describe as being cultural. I am of Irish/Scottish heritage. My family's customs, such as music, dance, art, writings and foods may be different than someone who is of French heritage. We would both be considered to be European or European decent. But, would have contributed differently to the world culture. I hope this makes sense. And I wish you the best of luck with your studies!
 
Good morning Kieran!

I agree that race, skin colour is completely unimportant in today's world. As it should be. But, I think the original poster may be doing a thesis or paper on what modern day people's views on race and ethnic groups, and how this applies his/her studies to anthropology. And/or perhaps the travels of the ancients and cultural significant they have contributed to modern day people.
 
I think you are perhaps missing my overall mood of levity.

Sorry, I just go off on my own private tangent sometimes.

The reality is, race is as valid a topic of discussion as any. Of course it is. But not in a bad way, more in a not-bad way.
 
Back
Top Bottom