Race versus ethnicity is a colonial legal construction

Evidence

What is important to consider, therefore, is the history whereby the distinction between race and ethnicity is here primarily a legal distinction by means of which a population is both included (ruled by Western law) and excluded (deemed to be exterior to the law by the law) and falling under a different set oflaws named “customary.” The colonial state and Western law produced political differences within the colonized, but it also naturalized these political differences as cultural, and indeed ethnic. — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 42

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

  • XREF: Speaks directly to debates on the social construction of race and ethnicity in postcolonial theory and critical race studies.
  • DEFINE: Clarifies that the race/ethnicity distinction is not a scholarly taxonomy but a legal instrument of colonial governance.
  • SEED: Essay angle: the race-versus-ethnicity debate as itself a colonial artifact — how the very categories scholars argue about were invented by colonial law.