Regarding “white,” white used to refer to Northern Europeans, and distinguished some Caucasians from other Caucasians.
Also, about the number of races, there are maybe five: (1) Negroid, (2) Mongoloid and (3) Caucasian, (4) the indigenous people of Australia and (5) the indigenous people of the Americas. I realize some people fold #4 into #1, and fold #5 into #2, but computers will sort human genomes into these five major groups. Within the Caucasian group, there will be the obvious break-downs.
We might have been the first country to define citizenship as a choice, rather than race or ethnicity, or even heritage. As A. Lincoln put it, we’re “a new nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” The French define citizenship as a language and culture. I think this is the emerging consensus of the center-right in Europe. You can be German, for example, if you speak the language and embrace German culture of having a balanced life of working, family life, etc. The left define citizenship along the lines of income distribution, in terms of what “rights” the government gives you. (Of course, to us, these aren’t rights at all, they are privileges bestowed upon some at the expense of others.)
The Japanese, being an island people, have held onto the idea of Japanese being a race or ethnicity for a long time after other democratic people have moved on from that definition. The question is, however, can they hold on to the idea of Japanese being a language and a culture if they start accepting that a person might have a different skin color?
“Regarding “white,” white used to refer to Northern Europeans, and distinguished some Caucasians from other Caucasians.”
I think the definition of “white” can also be subjective; that is dependent on a viewpoint regarding nationality. For example, I know people whose parents and ancestors (as far as can be traced) were only Eurasians. They look “white” in skin complexion like, say, Eastern Europeans, but aren’t from Eastern Europe.
In genetically mixed countries like Iran, those from upper-middle class families traditionally (over the centuries) kept their kids out of the sun so that they didn’t ‘tan’ or the gradual change in skin pigmentation, which tanning due to exposure to the sun is, could be minimized.
“Also, about the number of races, there are maybe five: (1) Negroid, (2) Mongoloid and (3) Caucasian, (4) the indigenous people of Australia and (5) the indigenous people of the Americas. I realize some people fold #4 into #1, and fold #5 into #2, but computers will sort human genomes into these five major groups. Within the Caucasian group, there will be the obvious break-downs.”
Actually, “indigenous inhabitants” of a country (minus genetic mix) have developed protections against a climate of a country. Or broadly speaking adapted.
Australia, for example, is not continent which naturally and climate wise would be welcoming to (fair-skin) Europeans. The sun is very harsh, hence many cases of Melanoma, especially among Europeans.
But, indigenous Australians (Aborigines) are definitely not “Negroids” of Africa. Got to look at facial features and naturally straight-hair too. I believe they’re Polynesians, with darker skin.
As for Japan, a Japanese friend from Osaka told me that Japanese are a hybrid of Chinese & Koreans - linguistically and racially.
Actually there are more than 5 races: Negroid (sub Sahara African), Caucasians (Europeans, north Africans, Semites (Jews and Arabs), iranis and Indians and dravodians (south Indians and Tamil), and aborigines) then Malay-Polynesian, tungusic-mongol-Chinese, khoi san
Other countries have defined citizenship as a choice: Ancient Rome, the city states etc. Remember that there is a difference between citizenship and nationality.