[lgessler]

> Race is often shorthand for ethnicity

Huh? In medical contexts I've always understood race as a person's genetic background and ethnicity as a person's cultural background. The two often don't align as many might expect: an adopted child, for example, could be racially South Asian but ethnically French because they speak French, enjoy French food and culture, perceive their self as French, etc.

[entee]

That's maybe true but in that case also quite incomplete and doesn't actually conflict with my point. Ethnicity is a readout of where that person grew up, those cultural touchtones reflect that you have a bunch of people living in the same geographical area. These people scramble their genes together, but because they're in the same area, they would naturally begin to diverge genetically from those in other areas.

You're right that ethnicity and the common definitions of race (i.e. skin tone, hair color/texture, dominant facial features) don't always correlate as well as expected, but that doesn't stop it from being used that way. Another example in addition to yours would be someone who is north african and someone who is south african may have quite different tolerance to lactose because of different prevalences of cattle herding in those regions of the world (Lactose tolerance arises very quickly when humans raise cattle). Still an outside observer would label them both "Black", despite their ethnicities and genetic makeups being different.

In short, ethnicity/race/genetics are all correlates but not absolutes. You have to do a follow-up test, you have to be careful in your assumptions or you'll make a mistake.

[TooBrokeToBeg]

> I've always understood race as a person's genetic background and ethnicity as a person's cultural background

I've heard that maybe once every 20 years. It just isn't the way the language is used. It may not be anyone's fault, but the conflation is the way it is AFAIK.