<p>Okay okay okay.</p>
<p>I come into this discussion and see absolutely no discussion of genes in this thread.</p>
<p>What is race? Race is simply common ancestry through (a) your maternal line and (b) through your paternal line. </p>
<p>Anyways, the federally defined categories are extremely ambiguous. But with the era of widespread genetic testing soon on the horizon, we'll be able to trace people by their Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Is a guy who immigrated from Egypt an "African-American"? Egypt is in Africa, after all.</p>
<p>Now, take a guy who immigrated from Saudi Arabia, just a short distance east from Egypt. Is that guy an "Asian-American"? After all, Saudi Arabia is in Asia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By census designations, the person from Egypt is African-American, even though technically, his line of ancestors comes from a group that is genetically distinct (that is, the common ancestor of all Egyptians is more recent than the common ancestor of all Egyptians + sub-Saharan Africans) from those of those in sub-Saharan Africans.</p>
<p>And actually, sub-Saharan Africans have probably the greatest genetic diversity of any human group. Bantu peoples are quite genetically distinct from Pygmy peoples, who in turn, are quite genetically distinct from Xhosa peoples. </p>
<p>That being said though, it's not easy to identify such ancestry (until genetic testing becomes prevalent - and this may bring about moral issues). </p>
<p>As a side note, people of particular races are more likely to possess some characteristics than others are (this makes statistics collecting far easier - as we can identify groups that are, say, more likely to be disadvantaged due to factor X in ENVIRONMENT Z than other groups) [African-Americans in America are likely to encounter different barriers to success as compared to, say, African-Americans in another country]. However, with every group categorization we make, we will inevitably run into the trouble of oversimplifying the diversity WITHIN every group (this leads to issues like the above-mentioned one). The legitimacy of racial categorizations, of course, comes from the fact that the extreme cases are sufficiently small enough not to warrant additional subdivisions or an elimination of such categorizations altogether in a particular environment - say - the United States. However, in a different country (say, Zimbabwe), it may be more important to subdivide Africans into different ethnic groups (if possible) in order to identify trends that are more likely to afflict one group as compared to another. </p>
<p>as a case in point, in America, most African Americans are sub-Saharan Africans, not north Africans. Clearly, the circumstances with respect to North Africans are different from those of Sub-Saharan Africans (there is less discrimination against lighter-skinned Africans). But if the number of north Africans was comparable to that of sub-Saharan Africans, then there would be substantial incentive for the census to subdivide Africans into sub-Saharan and north Africans. </p>
<p>For more information: </p>
<p>Luigi</a> Luca Cavalli-Sforza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human</a> Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human</a> mitochondrial DNA haplogroup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<a href="https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html%5B/url%5D">https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html</a></p>