Different ways of defining race/ethnicity

[pa_dutch]

Not sure if this requires a pre-1900 POD, but as we know, concepts of race and ethnicity are rather unscientific and arbitrary. In the US Census today, we can see this (Chinese and Indian are both lumped together as "Asian," etc) and we can see the constantly-changing definitions of the past (Pacific Islanders were once grouped with Asians but aren't anymore, Mexican was once a race, etc). Other countries have different models - the Latin American division of different mixed-race groups, the Soviet and Chinese model of putting everyone into neat little ethnic boxes).

I'm curious to see what it would look like if different countries used different systems, for example, more countries using the Soviet system. France and Spain, for example, regarding themselves as multiethnic states with their various linguistic groups seen as ethnic minorities. China where "Han" is actually not one ethnic group but several, based on the unintelligibility of various Chinese dialects. The United States with an ethnicity-based system rather than a race-based one.

 

[Iudeus Rex britannicus]

Well, in the case of the United States, racially categories are reflective of the social vestiges of the colonial era, so this might require a POD during the days of the Atlantic Slave trade. it is is feasible for example to have various European ethnic groups, such as the Irish, Germans and Italians seen as distinct entities as opposed to as simply white, this might exacerbate ethnic tensions as there would be no unifying factor among all of them and lead to further justification of anti-Italian and Irish sentiments as they would be seen as inferior to the Anglo-Saxon stock of the nation as opposed to a part of the white majority. On the other hand, this ethnic focus could allow for increased assimilatory capability for "non-white" minorities such as Indians and Chinese, who wouldn't have the obstacle of race to face, and would be presumably on the same level as immigrants from European nations. Blacks and American Indians would also face fewer obstacles in society, and could actually argue that they are more American than some of the other ethnic immigrants to the Americas.

For Spain, if the moors aren't expelled in 1492, you are left with a large Berber population. Domestic slavery in Spain and immigration from the new world could also increase its African and potentially Amerind population. This would force the Spanish monarchy to face the reality of a large Spanish population and the possibility if admixture. Perhaps you would have a domestic casta system in which "races" are organized by rank. This could also make Spain more xenophobic and resistant to non-white immigration in an attempt to preserve "la limpieza del sangre." Inversely, it could also make Spain a more tolerant place.

China, it depends on how far back your POD goes. If it is imposed by the communist government, but the people themselves still see themselves as a single ethnic group, then it would not be particularly impact flu socially; however it might give the impression of regional favoritism as certain "Han" minorities might be exempted from the one child policy for example. An earlier distinction, changes the course of chinese history, there is less of a unified resistance to the yuan and the Qing as well as to western imperialism. China would be beset with far more issues of ethnic separatism and the event that created the psychological distinction might have severely limited the power of the emperor. A constant warring states period.

All in all, I think this just shows how contrived race is.