During various times some of those categories are made hilariously important. Other times they are simply ignored as an oddity that isn't even used.

Are they important for us? As individuals often no, but our societies do use them and we will notice easily how powerful they can be.

Just live in a foreign country that goes into war with the country whose citizen you are and in an instant you have become to be very suspicious person. Have some other strife, riot, terrorist attack or a conflict which has to do with one of those four elements and you can notice it does effect your life even if your race, ethnicity, religion or nationality hasn't been ever important to you.

Do you think these four grouping categories about where you are from (race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality), are essentially important? Or are they holding us back? — Wheatley

What is your family like?

What is the most important thing in your life?

What sort of culture are you part of?

Who governs you?

I don't know how anyone could begin to think these things are not important They hold us - back, up, together, apart.

Aren't human beings the epitome of flexibility, inhabiting diverse dynamic environments, possessing a brain that capable of plasticity? — Wheatley

Yes, and that is why those categories do tell us something about a person, they are some of the forces that end up solidifying human plasticity into a particular form.

they are some of the forces that end up solidifying human plasticity into a particular form. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh yeah. Good call. Un-molded plastic is just a useless blob.

Nationality has some importance. It is important to acknowledge that local customs when travelling differ from those you are used to at home, for instance. I can't think of similar differences between race and ethnicity that one has to be mindful of beyond those arising out of prejudice against people on the basis if those characteristics. (E.g. it is good to be mindful of the racism a black American might have endured.) This goes for all protected characteristics really.

The obvious missing characteristic is gender, something I would encourage my surgeon to be mindful of, something that definitely impacts who I am, and again something to be mindful of when dealing with people who might be victimised on the basis of it. That aside, I see no reason to be interested in it.

Religion is different. It hugely impacts who people are, how they think, what they can learn, and how they treat others. It is itself a viewpoint and that is important to be aware of in the same way as a person's political ideology. If I am voting for someone, if they are Christian they are unlikely to be upfront about which way they'd vote on, e.g. family planning and abortion, science funding, school funding, human rights, and even military action, and these are things I need to know about.

As an example from my country, Tony Blair was a very devout Christian whose appreciation of facts was, at best, glancing, which manifested itself in a stunning economy with truth. He had no scruples about the indiscriminate killing of people of different ethnicity, religion and nationality for little or no reason. He funded schools to specifically teach children that science is a lie. These are behaviours that one must have assessed as risks before voting for someone whose religion dictated a) a limit to which facts could be absorbed and b) which religion was favoured by an imaginary supernatural deity, and unfortunately we did not make that assessment.

That is not to say being a Christian makes you a bloodthirsty tell-tale looking to brainwash our children. Nonetheless there exists a correlation between religiosity and right-wing politics (which are contra to egalitarian, progressive ideals), and a negative one between religiosity and IQ, so if I am to give the power to bomb countries and fund education to a Christian, I want to know how devout they are: are they a wishy-washy, liberal, I-won't-let-it-interfere-with-my-job Tim Farron type, or a lying, crusading, backward Tony Blair type. Not because I tend to think of them as having different value, but because the Blair end of the scale tend to think of others (e.g. atheists, Muslims, foreigners, women, etc.) as having lesser value.

Tell an ordinary person your race and ethnicity, for example, and think they know everything about you. — Wheatley

What is an "ordinary" person? Is that another type of major human category? What does that tell us about a person - only that they think they know everything about you?

I believe that these "where you're from" categories (in the title) are holding us back. — Wheatley

Holding us back from what?

Suppose I were to be presented with the following form:

Race: _________________

Religion:_______________

Ethnicity:_______________

Nationality:_____________ — Wheatley

Doesn't ethnicity encompass race and religion?

I ask myself the question: Why is it important that I provide these details? Does it really matter where I am from? — Wheatley

In certain situations, yes, it does. In certain medial situations, it might be necessary to know your racial ancestory - to know what types of diseases you might be more or less susceptible to.

One's religion would be important in religious discussions, and nationality when having certain political debates.

So these categories only matter in situations logically entailing those categories. If you try to assert that certain religions or races are only good for certain things that have no causal relation with their religion or race, then you have made a category error. It's not these categories that are holding us back, it is the category errors - what some might refer to as the "folk" notions, or social constructions, that are holding us back.

There are also categorizations of age, sex, sexual orientation, occupation, married or single, wealthy or poor, single child or not, growing up in a single parent household or not, being adopted or not, etc. I could go on. So there are many other types of "major" categories that humans find themselves as part of.

So yes, if you think that there are only 3 or 4 "major" groups that humans are a part of, then you will have trouble reconciling that with the fact that we are much more diverse than that.

It's my opinion that religion doesn't even belong on the document. Completely irrelevant. Race is a tricky one, because it is almost entirely social and it doesn't matter for any actual purpose unless you're doing some type of demographic study or poll on it. Ethnicity/nationality is usually more important and held to a higher degree of relevance to the individual, so in that sense I would think those to be more in line with "important" I suppose.

there exists a correlation between religiosity and right-wing politics — Kenosha Kid

I have always thought this myself, but I have noticed on the internet a tendency for some people, seemingly younger than me and probably you, to associate atheism with the right wing instead. Do you know of any real data with which to answer that question?

Do you know of any real data with which to answer that question? — Pfhorrest

I have seen some, yes. When I put my PC back together I will dig it out.

I have always thought this myself, but I have noticed on the internet a tendency for some people, seemingly younger than me and probably you, to associate atheism with the right wing instead. — Pfhorrest

The Hitler/Stalin thing, I guess. I don't see much difference between religious and political ideologues. It's not belief in the imaginary that hurts, it's using that to rationalise a suspension of empathy... conformity to an external ethical system that was never designed to be fair.

Well, the first thing I notice in that list is that all these categories have been major factors that have shaped the history of the world. Slavery (race), Islamic conquest (religion), Armenian genocide (ethnicity), World wars (nationality) to name a few. Perhaps the powers that be are right to think that these categories have far-reaching consequences, consequences that are evident in the fault lines that separate the great religious, ethnic, national, racial tectonic plates of our world.

Personally speaking, they do hold us back because these categories are essentially divisive in character and the challenges the world faces today can't be solved without the exact opposite, unity.

Do you know of any real data with which to answer that question? — Pfhorrest

Obviously this kind of data is going to be sprawling.

One is the historic exit poll data from US elections, which shows that the predominant religious demographic in the US tends to vote to the right. In correlation, people who identify themselves as more conservative vote more to the right also. Naturally religious persons outside of the mainstream (such as Catholics and Jews in the US) will tend to vote for the more liberal candidate, as they would not benefit much from voting for someone who is apt to represent specifically the interests of another religion. If you are not dominant, liberal is the best option.

For data, see Pew Research, which regularly polls the faith of voters, and any news site that publishes exit poll breakdowns such as CNN, then clear your browser history and take a shower.

Support for Trump in 2016 was found to be correlated to sexism, racism, and nationalism:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229432

The theocracies of the world are by far the most totalitarian, the most bigoted, have the worst human rights records, etc., etc.: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under Taliban rule are the worst examples of Abrahamic religions but I'd lump in any country that deifies a person (e.g. North Korea). I'm assuming I do not need to cite these, or the paedophile protectionism of the Vatican.

Academic media are full of evidence of correlation between religion and regressive, right-wing views. You can get a better picture by performing your own e.g. Google Scholar search, but here's a sample. I've provided links to preprints where available rather than traditional citations for your ease.

The relationship between racism and religiosity depends on other factors. Christian humanitarians, for instance, are less likely to be racist than your average atheist due to normalising exposure to peoples of different ethnicities. But on home turf the picture can be different. Religiosity is found a significant correlate of racism in the US, for instance:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bart_Duriez/publication/233099707_The_relation_between_religion_and_racism_The_role_of_post-critical_beliefs/links/09e4150d89392095ad000000/The-relation-between-religion-and-racism-The-role-of-post-critical-beliefs.pdf

Interestingly, religiosity in the UK is found to be a positive correlate of Islamophobia but a negative one of racism.

Peek, Lowe & Williams (1991) find a correlation between religiosity and sexism in the General Social Surveys of 1985 and 1988, with the most sexist being fundamentalists and the least sexist being non-literalists among religious people (men and women).

http://www.academia.edu/download/33102080/Gender_and_Gods_Word.pdf

Laythe, Finkle, Bringle & Kirkpatrick (2002) found that religious fundamentalism was a reliable predictor of homophobia, which is unsurprisingly when the thing they are fundamentalist about is itself homophobic:

http://www.academia.edu/download/47632048/RF1.pdf

The relationship between religion and nationalism is particularly sprawling and complicated by the fact that nationalism itself is a greater predictor of intolerance and human rights abuses. Reiffer's qualitative survey in 2016 found that the greater the religious influence on nationalism, the more prone it was to violate human rights:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.853.1492&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It's worth noting that religion is found to be a centre around which nationalism can be forged, rather than a direct cause of nationalism, relying on a dominant local religion.

That aside, while I've seen this sort of thing before in journalism and academia, personal experience has shaped my judgement more than anything else. In the UK, the correlation between religion and conservativism, religion and age, religion and xenophobia, etc. is an everyday stimulus. Anglicans have persistently supported the Conservative party for decades, as cited here:

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/how-faith-communities-vote-in-uk-elections/

and here:

https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/archive/files/Reports/Voting%20and%20Values%20in%20Britain%2012.pdf

It took Blair's right-wing uprising within the left-wing party to briefly change that. Again, Muslims (a minority religion) vote for what is nominally the more liberal, progressive Labour party, though since we haven't had a left-wing government since the '70s, I'm not sure on what basis. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

Thank you for that very thorough response! That all correlates with my own experience and expectations as well. I wonder, in light if all that, why atheism seems to be seen (on some parts of the internet at least) as associated with the right. I wonder if it’s entirely because of a segment of YouTubers who bill themselves as “rational skeptics” and initially mostly did content on atheism and against religion and other woo, but then a decade or so ago (circa gamergate?) turned to anti-feminism and then by association more and more anti-left topics.

Back on the topic of the OP, I think “ethnicity” is itself a complex topic, that other items on this list factor into. I like to think of ethnicity as decomposing into phenotypic ancestry (“race”), language, and religion.

Strictly speaking nationality is synonymous with ethnicity (a nation is a people, not a state), but I understand that you mean it to mean association with a state. Just bear in mind that there are some peoples who don’t have states that correspond to them, e.g. the Kurds.

I wonder, in light if all that, why atheism seems to be seen (on some parts of the internet at least) as associated with the right. I wonder if it’s entirely because of a segment of YouTubers who bill themselves as “rational skeptics” and initially mostly did content on atheism and against religion and other woo, but then a decade or so ago (circa gamergate?) turned to anti-feminism and then by association more and more anti-left topics. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure I'm familiar with it. I know that the left here is very decentred, with everyone being a Nazi to someone else. The socialist, largely atheist left is mired in probably accurate accusations of anti-Semitism, which appears to be rooted in its long-term anti-Israeli stance. A friend of mine was part of Stop the War and was considering quitting because of its open-door policy to anti-Semitic Arabs.

Feminism is being repositioned from left- to right-wing because of its widespread transphobia and edginess about speaking out against misogyny in Muslim cultures. Feminism used to be correlated with other political modernisms such as communism, socialism and atheism, I don't know if it still is. And, of course, to trans-exclusionary feminists, trans women are a hostile and oppressive takeover of female domain and safe spaces, a reassertion of male primacy.

In the UK, nationalism, racism and xenophobia, that unholy trinity, is overwhelmingly a correlate of post-industrial socio-economic deprivation, not religion, especially in the North. These areas tend to have a dominant non-devout, anti-multicultural white demographic and boy are they motivated now. Being English working class is also a strong correlate of right-wing views.

Doesn't ethnicity encompass race and religion? — Harry Hindu

Not exactly,

Ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of presumed similarities such as a common language, ancestry, history, society, culture, nation or social treatment within their residing area.

Here the most common issue or most obvious difference of ethnicity is language. People can have different language, yet share the same religion and there be no outward differences. And with different language there comes different culture.

Strictly speaking nationality is synonymous with ethnicity (a nation is a people, not a state), but I understand that you mean it to mean association with a state. — Pfhorrest

Case point, being an US citizen or even an UK citizen are examples of nationality not being synonymous to ethnicity. And don't try to say that the UK and US aren't nations, but only states! Being British is a later invention, being English, Scottish or Welsh is basically what you call an ethnicity.

You do bring up a better word than “nationality” to describe the thing it’s being used for here: citizenship.

“Nationality” is traditionally a synonym of “ethnicity”. The whole (relatively recent) idea of nation-states is that a state, ie that thing of which one is a citizen, should be coterminous with a nation, ie a people, an ethnicity. That would be a nonsense thing to want if nationality just was the same thing as citizenship. It’s only since the era of nation-states that nationality and citizenship have been able to be treated like they were synonyms, but in some cases (like the Kurds) they still come apart.

Multi-ethnic states like the US should arguably not be considered nation-states, for that reason. They’re more like empires.

“Nationality” is traditionally a synonym of “ethnicity”. — Pfhorrest

In my own language this has never been so. Nationality and citizenship might be synonyms sometimes, but ethnicity hasn't. And now as we use ethnic or ethnicity isn't a synonym for nationality.

It’s only since the era of nation-states that nationality and citizenship have been able to be treated like they were synonyms, but in some cases (like the Kurds) they still come apart. — Pfhorrest

I don't think so, actually. Even the Romans understood the power of assimilation to being Roman. Hence first the various people in the Italian Peninsula were made to be Romans and later others too. So it's absolutely no coincidence that the people we called Byzantinians thought of themselves, and justly so, as Romans. Hence these ideas are far older.

My question is: Do you think these four grouping categories about where you are from (race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality), are essentially important? Or are they holding us back? — Wheatley

I wouldn't call them "essentially important" but they can be important when it comes to forming connections and relationships due to how someone else's answers compare to our own. Basically, when we don't know people we look for connections. We all have a cultural heritage and it can be fun to talk culture with people. It provides a safe, fun, informative ground for getting to know that person and their culture.

Obviously, I'm not going to be like "oh you're from X, therefore you're like Y" but there is such a thing as cultural trends and if someone bucks a trend that's interesting in its own right. Learning another language is an excellent way to gain insight into another culture and help form a bridge. Personally, I regard my cultural background as important but in no way is it the entirety of me - only one aspect.

The reason it's not of "essential" importance is that we can (or at least should) be able to hit it off great with people from different backgrounds. I think values and worldview are more of "essential" importance.

I'm going to ignore all the hostile responses. I rather spend my time on constructive discussions. (Sorry for your inconvenience.)

Personally speaking, they do hold us back because these categories are essentially divisive in character and the challenges the world faces today can't be solved without the exact opposite, unity. — TheMadFool

Ideally that is true, but there's always going to be some groups of people hating other groups of people.

During various times some of those categories are made hilariously important. Other times they are simply ignored as an oddity that isn't even used. — ssu

I agree. I would say "where you're from" categories are superficial and best used (if at all) as a social lubricant.

Are they important for us? As individuals often no, but our societies do use them and we will notice easily how powerful they can be.

Just live in a foreign country that goes into war with the country whose citizen you are and in an instant you have become to be very suspicious person. Have some other strife, riot, terrorist attack or a conflict which has to do with one of those four elements and you can notice it does effect your life even if your race, ethnicity, religion or nationality hasn't been ever important to you.

Of course, the best way to attack a stranger is to find its vulnerabilities. For example: the strongest most offensive way to attack me (not knowing anything about me) is to call me a "Jew".

Back on the topic of the OP, I think “ethnicity” is itself a complex topic, that other items on this list factor into. I like to think of ethnicity as decomposing into phenotypic ancestry (“race”), language, and religion. — Pfhorrest

I think it's more about the geographic regions your recent ancestors grew up in than an actual genotype.

Strictly speaking nationality is synonymous with ethnicity (a nation is a people, not a state), but I understand that you mean it to mean association with a state. Just bear in mind that there are some peoples who don’t have states that correspond to them, e.g. the Kurds.

I believe the Kurds are an ethnic group that inhabit different countries (similar to Jews and Gypsies).

It's my opinion that religion doesn't even belong on the document. Completely irrelevant. Race is a tricky one, because it is almost entirely social and it doesn't matter for any actual purpose unless you're doing some type of demographic study or poll on it. Ethnicity/nationality is usually more important and held to a higher degree of relevance to the individual, so in that sense I would think those to be more in line with "important" I suppose. — GTTRPNK

I would agree.

I wouldn't call them "essentially important" but they can be important when it comes to forming connections and relationships due to how someone else's answers compare to our own. Basically, when we don't know people we look for connections. We all have a cultural heritage and it can be fun to talk culture with people. It provides a safe, fun, informative ground for getting to know that person and their culture. — BitconnectCarlos

Very good point! Culture is very important. If I had to revise my OP, I would say that the four categories mentioned are only important because of culture.

Obviously, I'm not going to be like "oh you're from X, therefore you're like Y" but there is such a thing as cultural trends and if someone bucks a trend that's interesting in its own right. Learning another language is an excellent way to gain insight into another culture and help form a bridge. Personally, I regard my cultural background as important but in no way is it the entirety of me - only one aspect. — BitconnectCarlos

Same for me.

The reason it's not of "essential" importance is that we can (or at least should) be able to hit it off great with people from different backgrounds. I think values and worldview are more of "essential" importance. — BitconnectCarlos

I couldn't agree more.

I believe the Kurds are an ethnic group that inhabit different countries (similar to Jews and Gypsies). — Wheatley

That's what I mean by "there are some peoples who don’t have states that correspond to them". The Kurds are a people -- an ethnic group, a nationality in the strict sense. But they don't have a nation-state to themselves; they are spread across several other states.

They're different from Jews and Romani ("Gypsies") because the former are a displaced diaspora and the latter are nomadic, so they've both migrated into territories occupied by other nations already, but the Kurds are a people who are still living in their homeland, there just isn't a state whose borders correspond to that homeland; it's entirely divided up among other states.

Strictly speaking nationality is synonymous with ethnicity (a nation is a people, not a state), but I understand that you mean it to mean association with a state.

They're different from Jews and Romani ("Gypsies") because the former are a displaced diaspora and the latter are nomadic, — Pfhorrest

I know this is nit-picking but, do you believe that Jews and Romani are nations?

If they aren't nations, then it is demonstrated that there are at least two ethnic groups that aren't nationalities. Hence nationalities = ethnicity, is false.

In the strict sense, Jews and Romani are nations. I admit that that sounds kind of weird to the modern colloquial ear which has come to think of "nation" and "state" as synonyms, though.

I’ll have to take your word on that. :wink:

Ideally that is true, but there's always going to be some groups of people hating other groups of people. — Wheatley

Well, we needn't add fuel to the fire by creating more ways to divvy up humanity, each such division becoming a spawning ground for hate-filled conflict.

Why is it important that I provide these details? — Wheatley

I suspect for statistical reasons and census.

Religion is important. I can't live with a women who said God doesn't exist. And other stuff like this.

Someone smart don't choose women with beauty but with criteria such as religion in my opinion. So the others, like nationality, are for sure really important.

It is relative to context. As someone acknowledged in a previous post, it matters to society what your race and nationality is as examples. For an average person, greatly influenced by culture and society, at least one of these categories is very important to them. On one hand, these categories allow us to more easily judge people and divide ourselves and not get to know an individual. On the other hand, ideally, categories can exist and be discussed without the division amongst all. Some opposites will probably stay divided.

At a very young and therefore impressionable age, I was emphatically told by my mother (who's of Eastern European heritage) about the exceptionally kind and caring nature of our Black family doctor. She never had anything disdainful to say about people of color; in fact she loves to watch/listen to the Middle Eastern and Indian subcontinental dancers and musicians on the multicultural channels.

I believe this had a notably positive effect upon me.

Had she (for whatever reason) told me the opposite about the doctor, however, I could have aged while blindly linking his color with an unjustly cynical view of him and, eventually, all Black people.

When angry, my (now deceased) father occasionally expressed displeasure with Anglo immigrants, largely due to his own experiences with bigotry as a new Canadian citizen in the 1950s and ’60s.
He, who also emigrated from Eastern Europe, didn’t resent non-white immigrants, for he realized they had things at least as bad. Plus he noticed—as I also now do—in them an admirable absence of a sense of entitlement.

Therefore, essentially by chance, I reached adulthood unstricken by uncontrolled feelings of racial contempt seeking expression.

Not as lucky, some people—who may now be in an armed authority capacity—were raised with a distrust or blind dislike of other racial groups.

Regardless, the first step towards changing our irrationally biased thinking is our awareness of it and its origin.