I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
Individual
Family/Kin
Clan
Tribe
Ethnos
Nation
Religion
Racial category
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.