Japan is a homogenous nation, supposedly. Japan, next to Korea, seemingly has one of the smallest visible minority populations in the world, at less than 1 percent--though less-visible ethnic Koreans and Chinese make up a larger percentage. In fact, most Asian countries have visible minority populations of 10 percent of more. Some, like the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, or India (the most diverse place on Earth) barely have a majority or have no majority population at all. But, though the ethnic variation in Japan is so mixed that is difficult to differentiate ethnic groups in Japan, Japan is historically multi-ethnic: a mixture of the indigenous Jomon inhabitants, who arrived in Japan around 14,000 BC; Ainu; Yayoi, who settled Japan nearly 2000 years ago from the Korean Penninsula, and later, Han Chinese. But, Japan is by no means the only place that has seen substantial population movements. Not only are the Maori people of New Zealand of polynesian descent, but more evidence shows that polynesians probably originated in what is now modern day Taiwan. Mayans in Chiapas, Mexico share a surprising amount of cultural and genetic traits with East Asians, which is not surprising given that Native Americans most likely originated in what is now Siberia and Northern Japan, and are the most genetically similar to the Ainu people of Japan. Many foreign visitors who have spent some time in Japan quickly realize that Japan isn't as homogenous as they thought, particularly when they recognize how culturally and linguistically diverse Japan is: the Tsugaru dialect in northern Aomori Prefecture is generally unintelligible to people in Tokyo. If one of the most homogenous places on earth is really not very homogenous, how useful is the concept of race?
Some caution should be used if we speak of ethnicity, for the concept of ethnicity is still a generalization and a human construct. "Race" is not only a human invention, but a genetic impossibility. These generalizations are harmless of course until people start attaching significant differences to these general categories, but how useful are the generalizations in the first place? First, when it comes to neatly categorizing people, there are almost always too many exceptions to the rule. People referred to as "Negritos" in the Asian countries of Thailand, Malaysia or the Philippines are hardly Asiatic looking at all but share more in common genetically with Australian aboriginal peoples. A French friend in Osaka is often mistaken for Japanese, by native Japanese, but isn't of East Asian descent at all. A Japanese friend in Sakai, is often mistaken for "Caucasian" by other Japanese. Another Japanese friend was mistaken for "Mexican" when she lived in the US. Even if we look at specific traits there are no clear defining characteristics. While East Asians are often born with a "mongolian spot", a pigment mark found on the lower back and buttocks on newborns, at least 20 percent of Japanese aren't born with the mark, yet most Native Americans, many East Africans and 10 percent of Caucasians have the same mark. Many Japanese don't produce ear wax (as difficult as that is to believe), but some do. Some Japanese have straight hair, but many Okinawans, and some people in Kyushu, have wavy, or curly hair. My wife tans darkly when she is in the sun, but her sister is fair-skinned, doesn't tan well, and burns very easily. Probably just as many people in Japan are likely to have a fair complexion as to have a darker complexion. Many people in Japan don't have the epicanthic eye fold (perhaps as much as 40%) that is often such a defining characteristic of Asian people, but many Scandinavian people, particularly the Sami of Finland or the Namibian people of African do. Perhaps a trait has some kind of practical significance if it applies to 95% of the population, but what about 60 percent? Even if certain traits generally apply to a population, there are often far more traits that are exceptions. Apples are generally red and might average 8cm in diameter, but what about small, green apples or yellow apples, are they a separate fruit? In Japan, lobsters aren't a separate animal at all but a type of "ebi" or shrimp. Cuttlefish are a type of "ika" or squid. Many types of tuna in Japan are thought of as separate fish. Difference only occurs when we actually attribute that difference to something.
Some caution should be used if we speak of ethnicity, for the concept of ethnicity is still a generalization and a human construct. "Race" is not only a human invention, but a genetic impossibility. These generalizations are harmless of course until people start attaching significant differences to these general categories, but how useful are the generalizations in the first place? First, when it comes to neatly categorizing people, there are almost always too many exceptions to the rule. People referred to as "Negritos" in the Asian countries of Thailand, Malaysia or the Philippines are hardly Asiatic looking at all but share more in common genetically with Australian aboriginal peoples. A French friend in Osaka is often mistaken for Japanese, by native Japanese, but isn't of East Asian descent at all. A Japanese friend in Sakai, is often mistaken for "Caucasian" by other Japanese. Another Japanese friend was mistaken for "Mexican" when she lived in the US. Even if we look at specific traits there are no clear defining characteristics. While East Asians are often born with a "mongolian spot", a pigment mark found on the lower back and buttocks on newborns, at least 20 percent of Japanese aren't born with the mark, yet most Native Americans, many East Africans and 10 percent of Caucasians have the same mark. Many Japanese don't produce ear wax (as difficult as that is to believe), but some do. Some Japanese have straight hair, but many Okinawans, and some people in Kyushu, have wavy, or curly hair. My wife tans darkly when she is in the sun, but her sister is fair-skinned, doesn't tan well, and burns very easily. Probably just as many people in Japan are likely to have a fair complexion as to have a darker complexion. Many people in Japan don't have the epicanthic eye fold (perhaps as much as 40%) that is often such a defining characteristic of Asian people, but many Scandinavian people, particularly the Sami of Finland or the Namibian people of African do. Perhaps a trait has some kind of practical significance if it applies to 95% of the population, but what about 60 percent? Even if certain traits generally apply to a population, there are often far more traits that are exceptions. Apples are generally red and might average 8cm in diameter, but what about small, green apples or yellow apples, are they a separate fruit? In Japan, lobsters aren't a separate animal at all but a type of "ebi" or shrimp. Cuttlefish are a type of "ika" or squid. Many types of tuna in Japan are thought of as separate fish. Difference only occurs when we actually attribute that difference to something.
Race is a social construct; there isn't enough genetic variation between populations to neatly categorize people. But, how good are we at forming artificial categories in the first place? In the photos below, coming from countries spanning the circumference of the world, determine the girl's country of origin (numbered from left to right, top to bottom). Answers: 1. America (Navajo) 2. Mexico (Maya) 3. China (Uyghur) 4. Japan 5. Tajikistan 6. Finland
Second, from a genetic perspective, the distinguishing characteristics that we see are purely arbitrary. By focusing on a few genes that make us different, we ignore the thousands of other genes make us the same. While one arbitrarily selected gene might make us appear different, thousands of others might be identical. While there are genetic markers that are found only amongst East Asians, 30% of Japanese don't have them at all, but share thousands of genes found in other racial groups. As much as 15 genes are responsible for eye color, but fewer may be responsible for skin color. Only one gene is responsible for 38% of the range we see in skin color. A person with a different eye color is likely more dissimilar genetically, but curiously, eye color isn't a characteristic that is used to distinguish caucasians from other "races", though skin color is. Disregarding the absurdity of "yellow skin color", in almost all asian countries, one will see such a gradient in skin color that it becomes so arbitrary as a distinguishing trait that we might as well use height as a defining characteristic of race.
The current racial classification system that we are so familiar with dates back to the 17th Century, yet, as early as 1775, in the treatise, "The Natural Varieties of Mankind, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach recognized that the graded transition in appearance from one group to another was so gradual that it was impossible to mark any boundaries. Biologists have long argued that "race" is a human construct and that all humans belong to the species, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Humans are too new a species and too intermixed to allow further classification. Not only are most national boundaries arbitrarily drawn amongst different ethnic and language groups, but the whole concept of race, a subdivision of humankind based upon distinct physical characteristics, is a genetic impossibility. The greatest amount of genetic variation is within so-called "races", 85.4 percent to be exact, not between them. Differences between local populations account for 8.5 percent of total human variation; differences between regions (different parts of the world) accounts for 6.3 percent. People are just as likely to be genetically similar to people in other "races" than they are to a person within their own ethnic group. That is, any given individual in one place is likely to have more in common genetically with somebody in another part of the world as a person from their own ethnic group: the genetic code of a person in Paris, France might be more similar to a person in Kenya than Lyon. In fact, people are more likely to find their closest genetic match in another part of the world rather than nearby. The tiny percentage of genes that humans have chosen for human classification are not only inconsistent but scientifically insignificant.
Zen Buddhists long ago recognized the limits of human perception and common mental traps. To assert one thing is often to deny something else: to say a cup is "empty" is to deny it is "full" of air. This is of no consequence to the average person, but to call a scuba tank "empty" when it is full of air is quite something else. Perhaps no harm is done when we recognize that racial categories that we use are only generalizations, and as long we don't attach any kind of behavioral attributes or capacities to these categories. But clearly more historical harm has been done than good, and of what use is the concept of "race" anyway? If one of the most homogenous societies in the world isn't really very homogenous, and if the arbitrarily chosen traits that we have used for categorizing people are useless, perhaps it is time to do away with this whole mental trap as a whole.
The current racial classification system that we are so familiar with dates back to the 17th Century, yet, as early as 1775, in the treatise, "The Natural Varieties of Mankind, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach recognized that the graded transition in appearance from one group to another was so gradual that it was impossible to mark any boundaries. Biologists have long argued that "race" is a human construct and that all humans belong to the species, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Humans are too new a species and too intermixed to allow further classification. Not only are most national boundaries arbitrarily drawn amongst different ethnic and language groups, but the whole concept of race, a subdivision of humankind based upon distinct physical characteristics, is a genetic impossibility. The greatest amount of genetic variation is within so-called "races", 85.4 percent to be exact, not between them. Differences between local populations account for 8.5 percent of total human variation; differences between regions (different parts of the world) accounts for 6.3 percent. People are just as likely to be genetically similar to people in other "races" than they are to a person within their own ethnic group. That is, any given individual in one place is likely to have more in common genetically with somebody in another part of the world as a person from their own ethnic group: the genetic code of a person in Paris, France might be more similar to a person in Kenya than Lyon. In fact, people are more likely to find their closest genetic match in another part of the world rather than nearby. The tiny percentage of genes that humans have chosen for human classification are not only inconsistent but scientifically insignificant.
Zen Buddhists long ago recognized the limits of human perception and common mental traps. To assert one thing is often to deny something else: to say a cup is "empty" is to deny it is "full" of air. This is of no consequence to the average person, but to call a scuba tank "empty" when it is full of air is quite something else. Perhaps no harm is done when we recognize that racial categories that we use are only generalizations, and as long we don't attach any kind of behavioral attributes or capacities to these categories. But clearly more historical harm has been done than good, and of what use is the concept of "race" anyway? If one of the most homogenous societies in the world isn't really very homogenous, and if the arbitrarily chosen traits that we have used for categorizing people are useless, perhaps it is time to do away with this whole mental trap as a whole.