QUOTE (knusper_muesli @ Feb 7 2006, 4:15 pm)

I don't like the use of the word "race":
See:
Race vs. EthnicityQUOTE
You can identify ethnically as Irish and Polish, but you have to be essentially either black or white. The fundamental difference is that race is socially imposed and hierarchical. There is an inequality built into the system. Furthermore, you have no control over your race; it's how you're perceived by others.
...
This is a very U.S.-Centric view of the difference between race and ethnicity. And also perpetuates the belief that anyone with a bit of black blood in his family tree is black.
Just as many Americans may claim mixed ethnicity, it is quite common for people in the UK who have, say, a black and a white parent to claim mixed race. Similarly in many spanish speaking countries in America where there is a mix of castillian, african and native indian "races". And the people in Germany (i.e. first generation immigrants) who may claim Irish or Polish ethnicity can not claim a second ethnicity as well.
I think this quote (from the same site) is more reflective of reality
QUOTE
To be sure, groups defined as "ethnically" different have been discriminated against in the U.S. too, but not in ways that had nearly as dramatic an impact. Indeed, those "ethnic" groups that suffered from severe discrimination were usually labeled, at the time, as "racial" groups as well. Consider the history of discrimination against the Irish, Italians, and Jews, for example.
I get the impression that "race" is used in the U.S. more to describe the amount of discrimination or disadvantage that a person may experience, rather than any meaningful scientific measure
The fact of the matter is that there is no scientific way to define what "race" any particular individual belongs to. In the US it seems to be done based on skin colour. Anyone with dark skin and
some african blood in his family tree is considered "black". Anyone with oriental looks is considered "Asian" and people who speak spanish are called "hispanic" though many of them would actually also be caucasian. And how would you clasify a Turk or an Iranian or an Indian. I gather they're not considered "Asian" as they don't have oriental features. Please don't say they're "brown" as there is so much difference between them.
As mentioned previoulsy, the Nazis also had ways of defining race, based on popular beliefs in Europe at the time. According to these, Jews and Slavs belonged to a different "race" to Germans - not a different "ethnicity".
When discusing racism in a European context, I don't think the North American view of what constitutes a "race" is really valid.