Labelling "Racism" in Mauritania: Continued

So originally this was a comment to Sian's comment because I really meant to talk about something in the "labelling racism in Mauritania" post, but I forgot. And I think it confused things a little. The whole inspiration for that post was the disparity between the books and articles I have read on Mauritania, and how they conceptualize the idea of race in the country, and what is actually going on here, on the ground.

I wanted to bring up another point that I guess upon reflection is relevant and troubles me but I guess I didnt include it. This whole thing came about because the available "history" and information on Mauritania is produced by societies in which and idea of "race" as more color-oriented, exists. Because the whole color-race idea thing is a north american but more importantly also a colonial idea (which is where most race-based 'science' originated). There is a major disparity between what I read, that is published in the US or in France, and the reality on the ground. Namely, these 'informational' sources tend to base things on color, using terms like "white moor" (who are not always white) and "black african" (who are not always black) to refer to an environment where it's really not about color. Because Mauritania hasn't the means to publish its own history on an international level (so countries like the US and France do it instead), the idea of Mauritania's history as being race/color-based is disseminated and in the process does a major disservice to the country itself.
I'm bringing this up because this is where the idea of color-race and "race" (in the sian sense) in mauritania itself come together, and where "racist" really becomes a misnomer because of what it signifies and which audiences read these books.
I also think its important not to leave the color-race thing out in terms of colonial history in africa, because it was a main centrepoint, so that's why all the books written by french expats bother me.
Although I think race SHOULD be used to refer to anything that holds people inferior for superficial reasons, there are some serious historical factors that inform the discussion today that continue to return to the color issue. And unfortunately, items like the State Department Country Report, the CIA Factbook, and basically any book written by an expat on Mauritania are considered "credible" sources of information on Mauritania. The CIA factbook, by the way lists under Mauritania's "ethnicity": "black 30%".....Same goes for many french pages on the country, where the divisions are "maur" or "maur blanc" and "maur/noir metissage", and "noir". No mention of actual ethnic groups.
And I have yet to read one that doesnt consider color as being central to issues of social prejudice in Mauritania.
I'd love to believe that everyone considers racism to be an idea that is as inclusive as you say (i certainly feel that way, but I think you're way ahead of the game on this one), but I would be willing to bet that if one were to do a European-North American poll of "what's the first thing you think of when you think of race/racism", most people would make a reference to color. Thats a stretch, I know. But I can't shake the impression, book after book and article after article I read, that race is being oversimplified as color. Here, anyway.