Ethnicity vs Religion

findingmyway · #1 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2011, 08:16 AM

The census is currently taking place in the UK and this has got me thinking about ethnicity vs religion. In the last US census Sikhs were encouraged to put Sikh down as their ethnicity rather than religion. Although I can understand the reasoning behind this argument I'm not sure I can agree with it. From a medical perspective Sikh is a religion as it is a set of beliefs that helps us determine how to treat a patient. Ethnicity relates to a person's genetic and physiological make up which is inherited and determines their susceptibility to certain diseases, eg. Indians are prone to diabetes, Caucasians have a high level of age-related macular degeneration, Chines are at high risk of closed angle glaucoma and Afro-Carribeans suffer from more Primary open angle glaucoma than other groups. From this perspective using Sikh as ethnicity is inappropriate as Sikhs can come from any background.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/34872-ethnicity-vs-religion.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34872
What do you think?

spnadmin · #2 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2011, 08:46 AM

findingmyway ji

I agree with you. The only thing I would add to ethnicity that you did not include is that ethnicity is bound by a common gene pool, plus a shared history, culture and often language.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34872

Sikhs who are of Punjabi origin share genetic dispositions, history, culture and language that overlap with Muslims and Hindus of Punjab. Of course the match is not perfect. When considering Punjabiyat - a history of literature, story-telling, language, poetry, art, dance, and music overlaps.

In the US Sikhs were encouraged to declare themselves a race. Though there was no place to record that, a write-in section was used. Race is even a more radical way to define Sikhs imho. Part of this comes from contemporary definitions of ethnicity and race that do not distinguish between genetic similarities and cultural and linguistic similarities. Since, as you say, Sikhs can come from various genetic populations the idea of Sikhs as either an ethnic group or a racial group seems strange to me.

In the case of the US, it is impossible to implement given the way that race and ethnicity are recorded. For example, if one claims Asian ancestry, that is broken down into Asian subgroups, who are genetically different. Same with European and African ancestry. Therefore, a new category would have to be created, and converts to Sikhism living in Espanola New Mexico would group themselves with Sikhs living Fresno California, who have married within the same genetic population for centuries.

Ambarsaria · #3 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2011, 10:08 AM

Souljoyt and spnadmin ji the following may be of use.

I just excerpted a paragraph and it is very interesting read,

Quote:

Having said that, by the mid-20th century, ethnicity, rather than religion became the most important marker of political identity in Sri Lanka. It wasn't really the LTTE that 'chose' ethnicity over religion. The salience of ethnicity had already been established well before they were created, and people already identified themselves in these terms. For the most part, this occurred during the colonial period. Many would say that the salience of ethnicity was a creation of the colonial administration and they way in which they understood native society and the ways they sought to categorise it for administrative purposes, reinforced for example, by the way in which data was collected for census purposes, and in the way that 'native representatives' were sought out.

Basically continuation of a colonial mind set of English/British based societies.

http://www.microconflict.eu/publications/RWP18_FS.pdf

In a nutshell it is to herd non-whites into manageable grouping with regard for how such groups could potentially mobilize, act in concert, etc. Wonderful

! It seems we never became free after all!

Sat Sri Akal.

spnadmin · #4 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2011, 11:02 AM

Ambarsaria ji

Quote:

with regard for how such groups could potentially mobilize, act in concert, etc.

That is the reason give for lobbying that Sikhs be listed as a race on the US census form. Religions can not effectively mobilize or act in concert for economic advantage, but races can. So I don't know how I feel about it on a practical plane. I do however think it is zany on a scientific level.

BTW I did in deed write myself in on the Other line as a member of the Sikh race.

Because I am a team player.

Randip Singh · #5 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2011, 15:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by findingmyway

The census is currently taking place in the UK and this has got me thinking about ethnicity vs religion. In the last US census Sikhs were encouraged to put Sikh down as their ethnicity rather than religion. Although I can understand the reasoning behind this argument I'm not sure I can agree with it. From a medical perspective Sikh is a religion as it is a set of beliefs that helps us determine how to treat a patient. Ethnicity relates to a person's genetic and physiological make up which is inherited and determines their susceptibility to certain diseases, eg. Indians are prone to diabetes, Caucasians have a high level of age-related macular degeneration, Chines are at high risk of closed angle glaucoma and Afro-Carribeans suffer from more Primary open angle glaucoma than other groups. From this perspective using Sikh as ethnicity is inappropriate as Sikhs can come from any background.
What do you think?

In English Law, like Jews in the case Mandala Vs Lee Dowell and Another, it has been established that Sikhs are not only a religious group but an ethnic group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandla_v_Dowell-Lee

The reason why? Well read the case.

In particular whether people like it or not, Sikhs generally come from one region of India and are one racial stock generally. This will however, change in time, and I see the "Gora" Sikh community becoming more and more prominent.

spnadmin · #6 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2011, 19:02 PM

Randip Singh ji

The issue raised by findinmyway ji boils down to how one changes one's genes.

Quote:

This will however, change in time, and I see the "Gora" Sikh community becoming more and more prominent.

Ambarsaria · #7 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2011, 21:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randip Singh

In English Law, like Jews in the case Mandala Vs Lee Dowell and Another, it has been established that Sikhs are not only a religious group but an ethnic group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandla_v_Dowell-Lee

The reason why? Well read the case.

In particular whether people like it or not, Sikhs generally come from one region of India and are one racial stock generally. This will however, change in time, and I see the "Gora" Sikh community becoming more and more prominent.

Randip Singh ji case law, the census creators and colonial mind set are from the same people (Ethnicity and Religion

). Hence the congruence. Does not make things right or wrong just consistent!

Sat Sri Akal.

Seeker9 · #8 (**permalink**) 19-Mar-2011, 07:27 AM

I had a look at the case in the wikipedia link and found this bit interesting:
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34872

"Sikhs were in that sense a racial group defined by reference to ethnic origins for the purpose of the Act, although they were not biologically distinguishable from the other peoples of the Punjab"

So whilst the case established a legal precedent, I'm going to go with Findingmyway Ji on this one as I prefer the good ol' fashioned biological version of ethnicity!

Aside from that...I like going to the most basic level in a debate and I've always liked the concept of "Sikh" as "Learner" from The Gurus....so for me, to be a learner or a Sikh is a life choice you make and direction you take and not an ethnicity. I was born Indian and will declare that on my census return!

Randip Singh · #9 (**permalink**) 19-Mar-2011, 15:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker9

I had a look at the case in the wikipedia link and found this bit interesting:

"Sikhs were in that sense a racial group defined by reference to ethnic origins for the purpose of the Act, although they were not biologically distinguishable from the other peoples of the Punjab"

So whilst the case established a legal precedent, I'm going to go with Findingmyway Ji on this one as I prefer the good ol' fashioned biological version of ethnicity!

Aside from that...I like going to the most basic level in a debate and I've always liked the concept of "Sikh" as "Learner" from The Gurus....so for me, to be a learner or a Sikh is a life choice you make and direction you take and not an ethnicity. I was born Indian and will declare that on my census return!

Well the biological thing doesn't hold.

For example, the Scottish share dna with Mediteranean people and English, Welsh and Irish.

The Romany Gypsies with Punjabi's .

The Germans some DNA with Mongolians.

etc.

Ethnicity and biological similarity are very different.