# Race based on region and NOT skin color.



## ChrisNGibbs (Jul 23, 2015)

Another World Bulding project I'm doing takes place mostly in one country where there's a lot of regionalism. It's a fantasy counterpart culture of modern North America. The country is divided by regions, city states and decades of civil wars. Government does exist on federal scale but it has little to no power. There is a lot of intermixing by our world's standards. (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc.) However, race is based what part of the country you're from and nothing else. 

You think I can make this work? If so what do you think?


----------



## Russ (Jul 23, 2015)

I am not sure what you mean that "race" is based on what part of the country you are from and nothing else?

Do you mean cultural identification is based on where you are from, or that all of the people, who are say, asian, are all from the same region?


----------



## ChrisNGibbs (Jul 23, 2015)

Russ said:


> I am not sure what you mean that "race" is based on what part of the country you are from and nothing else?
> 
> Do you mean cultural identification is based on where you are from, or that all of the people, who are say, asian, are all from the same region?



The first one. This country is very racially deserve but is divided. There's been a lot of conflict within it for decades. 

I should have worded this differently. There's no "Race" per se in this universe despite physical diversity. There is a lot of  regionalism and the high class dominating the low class.


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 23, 2015)

I'd say it would be more accurate to just call this sectionalism.  At the absolute most, you could say that different ethnicities have come about in this country.


----------



## evolution_rex (Jul 23, 2015)

Race is purely based on location and the fact that people develop their own language as well as minor physical differences in those locations. It's never just been skin color, but any 'type' of human. In Africa, you don't just have 'the African race', there are tons of races in Africa, which is what many of their civil wars are over. In India, you've got all Indians, but there the darker skinned Indians are considered lower class than the lighter skinned Indians.

I'm kind of confused on what you're asking, but if you want these all to be defined races that live in their own city states then they need more characteristics than just being born in that specific part of their world. Otherwise it's not a race, it's a nationality.  Which would work equally well in what it seems like you're trying to do. They'd need their own languages, and minor physical attributes (One kingdom might have a stronger jaw and be taller with bright blond hair, another shorter with red and brunette hair, that sort of thing).

Personally, I usually avoid race in my works. Their diverse and I usually make my worlds unify humans physically, and conflicts like that are usually over nationalities and politics, which sounds like what you're trying to say. If I do include allegorical themes about race, then I usually do it in the form of a fictional race of human-like beings.


----------



## cupiscent (Jul 23, 2015)

You'll want to have strong establishment in your world and story of how this works. Is it government-mandated? Has it been reinforced by historic disputes? Is it grass-roots level? I mean, in the modern world we have a strong sense of national identity, but that doesn't stop there still being strong elements of other divisions within nations - race, religion, class, sporting affiliation... Not to mention who drew the regional boundaries, and when, and why? The Middle East shows us how much people respect arbitrary map lines that don't take into account stronger community forces.

But all of these things can feed into and make complex the tensions of your story, so have fun. 

I do agree, though, that calling this "race" isn't going to be accurate. It would be more accurate to say that race will not be a very important identity marker, or similar.


----------



## ChrisNGibbs (Jul 24, 2015)

cupiscent said:


> You'll want to have strong establishment in your world and story of how this works. Is it government-mandated? Has it been reinforced by historic disputes? Is it grass-roots level? I mean, in the modern world we have a strong sense of national identity, but that doesn't stop there still being strong elements of other divisions within nations - race, religion, class, sporting affiliation... Not to mention who drew the regional boundaries, and when, and why? The Middle East shows us how much people respect arbitrary map lines that don't take into account stronger community forces.
> 
> But all of these things can feed into and make complex the tensions of your story, so have fun.
> 
> I do agree, though, that calling this "race" isn't going to be accurate. It would be more accurate to say that race will not be a very important identity marker, or similar.



In my world the division is reinforced by historic disputes. The largest dispute has been the older Eastern part of the country and the newly colonized western side that wants government separation. The last civil war broke out about 40 years ago and ended when a nuclear bomb that destroyed a major city. 

To maintain peace the government created a national police force that's localized to all major cities. This policemen have to power to control and generate specific elements. (i.e. Fire, Ice, Lighting, Earth etc.) This was done to keep the internal conflicts from becoming nuclear. 

To maintain the energy infused into them the users of these elements have to be between the ages of 13 and 34. 

The biggest threats in the world are eternal. Religious extremists from a lost tribe want to destroy everything in the country, finding bliss in their enemy's demise. Corrupt millionaires and white collar crooks wanting the maintain or increase the chaos for their own selfish benefits. Finally corrupt cops who have gone mad with their new "Power" and feel they're superior and more than human to the people they swore to protect. 

I know that's all over the place but that's the jest of this universe.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jul 24, 2015)

Given it's the modern era I think you can do something like this simply because many of the cultures today are not necessarily as strongly influenced by a specific race, though it still exists as evidenced by what certain demographics consume. There will always be a racial factor in society.

The culture of ancient societies, up until modern times, were a strong reflection of the races that created them. That's why we have diversity, (not the diversity that is touted today, which is essentially a melting pot that destroys real diversity). 

You'll never escape the racial factor unless you are embracing historical revisionism. It can be downplayed in your fantasy world however. My only advice would be to create a natural progression towards this society that has a much smaller racial influence factor.


----------



## Russ (Jul 24, 2015)

evolution_rex said:


> there are tons of races in Africa, which is what many of their civil wars are over. In India, you've got all Indians, but there the darker skinned Indians are considered lower class than the lighter skinned Indians.



Really?  Just what are these tons of races in Africa?


----------



## Russ (Jul 24, 2015)

ChrisNGibbs said:


> The first one. This country is very racially deserve but is divided. There's been a lot of conflict within it for decades.
> 
> I should have worded this differently. There's no "Race" per se in this universe despite physical diversity. There is a lot of  regionalism and the high class dominating the low class.



That kind of regionalism is totally credible and I have no doubt you can do a good job of it.

You could even see it in Canada today.  We have significant regionalism and vast cultural gaps within our nation.  If you sat me  (an "easterner") down in a room with a Newfie, Down Easterner, Albertan, Montrealler, Quebecer, or Left Coaster we would all be able to tell exactly where each other was from in a couple of minutes.

I say go for it and enjoy it.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 24, 2015)

I think the niggling thing is just use of the word 'race'.  As Russ showed with his great examples, there can be divisions of a population independent of genetic traits. I think in broad terms countries are like this. For example Canada and the USA. There are differences in the way people speak and act based on that division. And as Russ said within a country there are differences too. You can go down lower and lower. Humans are always grouping ourselves into subgroups/subcultures.

I mean there are differences between jocks and nerds, in the way the act, speak, etc or Trekies vs Star Wars geeks. But there are also overlaps too.


----------



## Russ (Jul 24, 2015)

German speaking people's make for another great example.  The difference between say Prussian culture and Austrian culture and language is huge.

My mother is Austrian by birth and speaks with her distant Prussian relatives in English because it is easier than trying to understand each's other's version of German.

They also have very strong opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of each's others cultures.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 24, 2015)

Sounds like India.  "Indian" is probably the most racially diverse nationality there is.
Or maybe research ancient Celts though they never really had a unified nation.



Russ said:


> Really?  Just what are these tons of races in Africa?



The big one is Arab.  Naturally, given the geography, Arab culture has always had a close connection Africa.  The recent Sudanese civil war was mostly between Arab and non-Arab factions.
Indian ethnic groups are also pretty common along the east coast.
There are also a good number of White people in Africa as the result of colonization from decades back.

If you broaden the definition of "race" then South Africa alone has the Bantu, Khoi, San, White and Asian people.  In the country, those five demographics are recognized as different "races" with each consisting of many different ethnic groups.


----------



## Russ (Jul 24, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> Sounds like India.  "Indian" is probably the most racially diverse nationality there is.
> Or maybe research ancient Celts though they never really had a unified nation.
> 
> 
> ...



Sure there may be "two" races (if you accept even the idea of race) in Africa, or three if you want to count all the Asians who live in Africa as well.  

I don't see how arabs are a difference race that caucasians in any modern thinking.  The caveat once again being that you accept that idea of race at all.

But there are not "tons" of races in Africa.  The Bantu, Khoi, San, Zulus, Xhosa, Kikuyu, Luo, etc are not races by any stretch of the word.  Those are ethnic or cultural groups.  They are no more different races than Norwegians and Italians are not different races.


----------



## Trick (Jul 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> That kind of regionalism is totally credible and I have no doubt you can do a good job of it.
> 
> You could even see it in Canada today.  We have significant regionalism and vast cultural gaps within our nation.  If you sat me  (an "easterner") down in a room with a Newfie, Down Easterner, Albertan, Montrealler, Quebecer, or Left Coaster we would all be able to tell exactly where each other was from in a couple of minutes.
> 
> I say go for it and enjoy it.



That's not entirely different from America. I'm from the North West and my father is from back east, Pennsylvania. He and I sitting with a person from Louisiana and another from Missouri or something would all sound very different, use different colloquialisms and phrases. Our origin regions would be pretty obvious to others and each other. But there are still divisions of race too. It sounds like the OP's goal is sort of what the future of America will hopefully be, to a certain extent; where we feel special kinship and loyalty to people from our region regardless of physical race attributes. The balance that needs to be struck between maintaining cultural history and moving forward into the formation of a new, regional or national culture is tough though. It will take many more years if it does in fact work.


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 24, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> Sounds like India.  "Indian" is probably the most racially diverse nationality there is.
> Or maybe research ancient Celts though they never really had a unified nation.
> 
> 
> ...



Let's settle on a definition of race.  Are we using the definition used by modern biologists, which basically amounts to minor variations in facial structure?  Or are we using the old definition used by scientists back in the 1800s and early 1900s?  

If we use the modern biological definition, there are only three races in the whole world:  Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids.  In that case you would have two races who had some members totally native to Africa: Negroids and Caucasoids.  If you add in immigrants, you get all three.  

What you're talking about are ethnicities.  The Celts aren't a race.  They're part of one, but they aren't a distinct race.


----------



## Trick (Jul 24, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> The Celts aren't a race.  They're part of one, but they aren't a distinct race.



We have enough gumption for a whole race though!


----------



## Russ (Jul 24, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> Let's settle on a definition of race.  Are we using the definition used by modern biologists, which basically amounts to minor variations in facial structure?  Or are we using the old definition used by scientists back in the 1800s and early 1900s?
> 
> If we use the modern biological definition, there are only three races in the whole world:  Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids.  In that case you would have two races who had some members totally native to Africa: Negroids and Caucasoids.  If you add in immigrants, you get all three.
> 
> What you're talking about are ethnicities.  The Celts aren't a race.  They're part of one, but they aren't a distinct race.



Modern biology might (and I think does) go a step farther and suggest race does not exist as a valid concept.  This is an argument I personally find very persuasive.

But I have never seen a coherent definition of races that included more than 5 or 6.


----------



## Russ (Jul 24, 2015)

Trick said:


> We have enough gumption for a whole race though!



Or even a race and a half!


----------



## Tom (Jul 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> That kind of regionalism is totally credible and I have no doubt you can do a good job of it.
> 
> You could even see it in Canada today.  We have significant regionalism and vast cultural gaps within our nation.  If you sat me  (an "easterner") down in a room with a Newfie, Down Easterner, Albertan, Montrealler, Quebecer, or Left Coaster we would all be able to tell exactly where each other was from in a couple of minutes.
> 
> I say go for it and enjoy it.



In the eastern US, regionalism is pretty pronounced. Just crossing the state border into Pennsylvania from New York is like entering a new culture. Going to West Virginia (which is what I've done the past two summers) feels like visiting a foreign country. The character of the region is very different, and people can peg me as a stranger immediately, though they may not know where I'm from. I've had some folks down there assume I'm Canadian--which is actually not that inaccurate, seeing how close I live to the border.


----------



## Addison (Jul 25, 2015)

I think it could work, as it's already a part of reality. People judge other people based on their income. In big cities people are judged by what neighborhood they grew up and/or live in. People are judged by their accent or state they live in. I think a while ago a newcomer in town filed a harassment charge on a coworker who talked to him in such a condescending, degrading, arrogant way just because he was from Arkansas. The charges stuck. 

So your plan can work. If you feel it works for your story, use it. Happy Writing.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jul 25, 2015)

Addison said:


> I think it could work, as it's already a part of reality. People judge other people based on their income. In big cities people are judged by what neighborhood they grew up and/or live in. People are judged by their accent or state they live in. I think a while ago a newcomer in town filed a harassment charge on a coworker who talked to him in such a condescending, degrading, arrogant way just because he was from Arkansas. The charges stuck.
> 
> So your plan can work. If you feel it works for your story, use it. Happy Writing.



Economics is what we judge happiness by in America.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 25, 2015)

Russ said:


> But there are not "tons" of races in Africa.  The Bantu, Khoi, San, Zulus, Xhosa, Kikuyu, Luo, etc are not races by any stretch of the word.  Those are ethnic or cultural groups.  They are no more different races than Norwegians and Italians are not different races.





X Equestris said:


> Let's settle on a definition of race.  Are we using the definition used by modern biologists, which basically amounts to minor variations in facial structure?  Or are we using the old definition used by scientists back in the 1800s and early 1900s?



The point I was trying to make with that post is that which definition of "race" you use is whatever definition you choose to use.
Why are we even talking about negroids or caucasoids?  This is Mythic Scribes: we could just as easily be talking about elves and dwarves.

I was just trying to suggest Celts and Indians (and Africans) as research material for ChrisNGibbs.  I'm not in the slightest bit interested in discussing or defining race in the real world.  I get enough of that at my day job.



Miskatonic said:


> Economics is what we judge happiness by in America.



I'm going to steal this quote.  It's so true.


----------



## ChrisNGibbs (Jul 26, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> The point I was trying to make with that post is that which definition of "race" you use is whatever definition you choose to use.
> Why are we even talking about negroids or caucasoids?  This is Mythic Scribes: we could just as easily be talking about elves and dwarves.
> 
> I was just trying to suggest Celts and Indians (and Africans) as research material for ChrisNGibbs.  I'm not in the slightest bit interested in discussing or defining race in the real world.  I get enough of that at my day job.
> ...





When you mean Indian, you do mean East India right? Just being sure.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 26, 2015)

ChrisNGibbs said:


> When you mean Indian, you do mean East India right? Just being sure.



I meant the people of the nation of India but any region qualifies.  Though, if I'm not mistaken, East India isn't especially ethnically diverse - at least, no more so than any other region.


----------



## Russ (Jul 27, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> The point I was trying to make with that post is that which definition of "race" you use is whatever definition you choose to use.
> Why are we even talking about negroids or caucasoids?  This is Mythic Scribes: we could just as easily be talking about elves and dwarves.
> 
> I was just trying to suggest Celts and Indians (and Africans) as research material for ChrisNGibbs.  I'm not in the slightest bit interested in discussing or defining race in the real world.  I get enough of that at my day job.



We were discussing negroids etc because someone suggested that there are "tons" of races in Africa and Africa is a real place, with real people that can be discussed in a real context.  There are not "tons" of races there.

I do not think their are elves or dwarves in Africa living alongside the Xhosa.

The word "race" has a meaning.  If one is going to have conversations with other people in the same language that meaning needs to have value.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 27, 2015)

Russ said:


> I do not think their are elves or dwarves in Africa living alongside the Xhosa.



There aren't?  Well, that's news to me.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 27, 2015)

Just stopping by to say that thinking of race in terms of region of origin is actually the original definition. The idea of race being tied to skin color and the prejudice based on that is actually a relatively modern thing. "English" was referred to as a race in the not-so-distant past.


----------



## Mectojic (Jul 28, 2015)

I do that, and I'm going to be the most famous writer in the 21st century, once I get around to it 
Why shouldn't you?


----------



## arbiter117 (Aug 24, 2015)

There are hundreds of examples of this all over the world, in every country! Examples Tutsi or Hutu (Rwanda). Fanti or Shanti(Ghana) Californian or southerner ..(USA) Scottish or Welsh (UK), Castellano, Basque, Gallego, or Catalan (Spain) Spain's a really good one. Each region has a native and recognized language and unique culture. Basque and Catalan are known to want independence from the rest of Spain (to the point of violence at times)


----------



## FifthView (Aug 25, 2015)

I somewhat agree with Mindfire.  Here is an excerpt from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "English Traits" which explores the idea of race: Chapter V. Race —with ambivalence.


----------



## Cambra (Aug 25, 2015)

arbiter117 said:


> There are hundreds of examples of this all over the world, in every country! Examples Tutsi or Hutu (Rwanda). Fanti or Shanti(Ghana) Californian or southerner ..(USA) Scottish or Welsh (UK), Castellano, Basque, Gallego, or Catalan (Spain) Spain's a really good one. Each region has a native and recognized language and unique culture. Basque and Catalan are known to want independence from the rest of Spain (to the point of violence at times)



Hey you forgot the Valencians!!!


----------



## Cambra (Aug 25, 2015)

This is from the British Race Relations Act 1976:



> 3 Meaning of “racial grounds", “racial group" etc.
> (1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires–
> “racial grounds” means any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins;
> “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person’s racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls.
> (2)The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group for the purposes of this Act.


----------



## arbiter117 (Aug 25, 2015)

Cambra said:


> Hey you forgot the Valencians!!!


I tried to keep it short, but yes let's not forget valenciano, asturiano, and andaluz who definitely have more than a little pride in their part of Spain

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Russ (Aug 27, 2015)

Cambra said:


> This is from the British Race Relations Act 1976:



It is a slippery slope to use legal terms to define how words are used in common parlance or even intellectual conversation.

Not a good idea at all.  The purpose of such legislation is highly politicized as opposed to either scientific or cultural which is more useful.

And then you get some moron who says he prefers the Canadian approach to the issue which in a much more modern approach to hate speech use the term "identifiable group" rather than the troubling term "racial group":



> (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.


----------

