Yes, according to that definition, you "might easily refer to the 'English race' or to the 'Canadian race' or the 'Amish race,'..." but you'll never hear me using those terms.

"a subspecies"? When was this dictionary published?

Yes, Carol, in a court of law it might be useful but I think other terms would be more accurate.

In everyday discourse it serves only to perpetuate the myth of separate 'races' or 'subspecies'. This assumes that one group of people are superior to another which is a lie. In terms of power, there is definitely a dominate group of people but it is not defined by 'race'. Those people are usually white, male, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. It does not mean they are a sub-species or a separate 'race'. Members of the dominant group can also be of any colour, any religion and any cultural background. It would be a stereotype to say they were all the same.

It does mean that in terms of social justice, there is a dominant group who has to become more inclusive. We can help foment change by denying the existence of separate 'races' and recognizing the many factors that contribute to lack of opportunity and poverty.