When focusing on America, it seems that economic status may outweigh ethnicity. They likely walk hand in hand, but ultimately are applied assuming we can understand how people will act based on their labels. Isn't it time we limit our reliance on labels to understand the people with whom we come in contact?
Cataloging humans by race, ethnicity, economic status, or social class can have some serious downsides. For one, it risks oversimplifying who people are—reducing them to a label instead of seeing them as individuals with unique traits and experiences. That can fuel stereotypes, where assumptions about a group get slapped onto everyone in it, whether they fit or not. History’s full of examples: think of how racial profiling has led to unfair treatment in policing or hiring, or how class-based pigeonholing has locked people out of opportunities.
It can also deepen divisions. When you start sorting people into boxes, it’s easy for an “us vs. them” mentality to kick in. Studies—like those on social identity theory—show humans naturally favor their own group once categories are drawn, which can ramp up prejudice or even conflict. Look at the caste system in India or apartheid in South Africa; those setups leaned hard on classification and turned into machines of inequality and resentment.
On the flip side, some argue it’s useful for practical reasons—say, tracking health trends (like sickle cell anemia being more common in certain ethnic groups) or targeting aid to disadvantaged communities. But even then, the danger is in how the data’s used. If it’s wielded carelessly or with bias—like tying economic status to criminality without context—it can justify discrimination or bad policy. Plus, it’s often a slippery slope to dehumanization; once you’re just a stat in a category, it’s easier for those in power to overlook your rights or worth.
The trick is intent and execution. Cataloging isn’t inherently evil, but it’s a loaded tool—prone to misuse and amplifying our worst tribal instincts if we’re not careful.
This is a class analysis, which I agree with. There is far more common in black and hispanic bus drivers than between hispanic restaurant owners and bus drivers.
Yes, and in fact "ethnic group" is such a superior concept that within living memory the term race used to mean... ethnic group. The Irish were a race, as were the Germans, the Serbs, etc. The Jews were a race (the "Hebrew race" is what the anti-Semitic housing covenants said). Each people was a race, that is, a group of organisms with shared ancestry.
‘two people categorized as belonging to the same "race" may have less in common genetically than two people from different "races."‘
This is what I used to think before they mapped the human genome. Now I think that not only are people of different continental races measurably different from each other, but members of different sub-races are measurably distinct from members of other sub-races within the same race. And the same with sub-sub-races, all the way down to “people whose ancestors lived in a certain valley in Norway”. Geneticists are never going to look at someone’s DNA and discover that they’re genetically closer to someone of a different race than to someone of their own race. Or at least that’s my read of current genetic research. See, for example, David Reich’s book Who We Are and How We Got Here. But maybe I’m wrong. When you make the statement that you made, which geneticist would you say represents the view that you’re presenting?
Such an interesting and thoughtful analysis. Thanks for sharing it.
When focusing on America, it seems that economic status may outweigh ethnicity. They likely walk hand in hand, but ultimately are applied assuming we can understand how people will act based on their labels. Isn't it time we limit our reliance on labels to understand the people with whom we come in contact?
I used the word better rather than best. There may be even better ways to catalog humans.
Cataloging humans by race, ethnicity, economic status, or social class can have some serious downsides. For one, it risks oversimplifying who people are—reducing them to a label instead of seeing them as individuals with unique traits and experiences. That can fuel stereotypes, where assumptions about a group get slapped onto everyone in it, whether they fit or not. History’s full of examples: think of how racial profiling has led to unfair treatment in policing or hiring, or how class-based pigeonholing has locked people out of opportunities.
It can also deepen divisions. When you start sorting people into boxes, it’s easy for an “us vs. them” mentality to kick in. Studies—like those on social identity theory—show humans naturally favor their own group once categories are drawn, which can ramp up prejudice or even conflict. Look at the caste system in India or apartheid in South Africa; those setups leaned hard on classification and turned into machines of inequality and resentment.
On the flip side, some argue it’s useful for practical reasons—say, tracking health trends (like sickle cell anemia being more common in certain ethnic groups) or targeting aid to disadvantaged communities. But even then, the danger is in how the data’s used. If it’s wielded carelessly or with bias—like tying economic status to criminality without context—it can justify discrimination or bad policy. Plus, it’s often a slippery slope to dehumanization; once you’re just a stat in a category, it’s easier for those in power to overlook your rights or worth.
The trick is intent and execution. Cataloging isn’t inherently evil, but it’s a loaded tool—prone to misuse and amplifying our worst tribal instincts if we’re not careful.
This is a class analysis, which I agree with. There is far more common in black and hispanic bus drivers than between hispanic restaurant owners and bus drivers.
Yes, and in fact "ethnic group" is such a superior concept that within living memory the term race used to mean... ethnic group. The Irish were a race, as were the Germans, the Serbs, etc. The Jews were a race (the "Hebrew race" is what the anti-Semitic housing covenants said). Each people was a race, that is, a group of organisms with shared ancestry.
Yes. If you ask what race my immigrant Armenian partner is, she will say "Armenian," which means her definition of race essentially means ethnicity.
‘two people categorized as belonging to the same "race" may have less in common genetically than two people from different "races."‘
This is what I used to think before they mapped the human genome. Now I think that not only are people of different continental races measurably different from each other, but members of different sub-races are measurably distinct from members of other sub-races within the same race. And the same with sub-sub-races, all the way down to “people whose ancestors lived in a certain valley in Norway”. Geneticists are never going to look at someone’s DNA and discover that they’re genetically closer to someone of a different race than to someone of their own race. Or at least that’s my read of current genetic research. See, for example, David Reich’s book Who We Are and How We Got Here. But maybe I’m wrong. When you make the statement that you made, which geneticist would you say represents the view that you’re presenting?