Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
This whole subspecies conversation is irrelevant if you look at the definition of race in common language. Race does not have to be a sub-species. In a scientific definition it may but not in common language. When the average person on the street refers to race they are not referring to a subspecies and instead are referring to a category that describes ones ancestry.
-----Added 20/8/2008 at 06 : 35 : 24-----
From merriam-webster
Main Entry:
race
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date:
1580
1: a breeding stock of animals
2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b: breed c: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
4obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
2a is the common definition that people refer to when talking about race.
|
Yes, I think this is likely the more relevant line of inquiry when it comes to terminology, since I find it unlikely that the average person in the street will be as versed in the finer points of bioscience terminology as is Jinn (or maybe will...what do I know?).
That said, I believe that what is in question here is the misapplication of what Webster's appears to define in #3, which usage I believe likely stems from the tendency of 19th-Century racialist scientists to use the term for meaning #3, when previously it had been applied in meaning #2-- an archaic usage that was falling out of parlance at that time.
Technically, according to definition #2, "race" could be applied to the Jewish people; but it ought not to be so applied, since this usage is archaic and outdated, and by today's standards of common usage is incorrect.