editions and race

Most Germans find it strange that Americans are obsessed with race. Yes, some skin is darker, some hair frizzy, but after a beach holiday, a Greek's skin can be darker then that of her African-American neighbour. In 2000 for the first time Americans could be officialy multi­racial or "mixed" as the British say.
For Germans, the very idea of human races is absurd, why should character corelative with skin colour?
How can most "white" Americans forget that not long ago, Italians, Irish and Jews were obviously non-White, that only the numerical decline of English, Scandi­navian, Protestant Dutch and Germans brought them to admit that Serbs and Jews are white alright.
It's not because of the Nazis ‒ who by the way did not write a lot about die "weiße Rasse", but about nordische, westi­sche/mit­tel­meeri­sche, osti­sche/al­pine, dinari­sche, (ost)bal­tische, fäli­sche, sude­tische, vorder­asiatische, orienta­li­sche Rasse und deren Mi­schungen (cf. Hans F. K. Gün­ther: Kleine Rassen­kunde des deutschen Volkes) ‒ but because in German "Rasse" is not only "race" but "breed" --> in German, dogs and horses come in races, not humans; despite US and ZA laws against mis­cege­nation, there are no Kör- und Stut­bücher (lists of re­cognized males and females of a certain human race) re­gulat­ing the status of "true White", "true Jewish", or "true Sephardic").
The language we normally speak shapes the way we think:
For German speakers there is a clear dif­ference bet­ween "Auf­lagen" (runs of an iden­tical book) and "Aus­gaben" (fresh/changed editions) ‒ in English both can be called "editions", although the dif­feren­ce bet­ween "run", "reprint" "re­vised and expanded/ new edition" exists: there is a fog not exist­ing in German. From the 1940s on­ward, one can spot on the copy­right page/impressum a printer's key "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" or often "1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2". In Germany mostly two rows of numbers like „26 27 28 29 · 97 96 95 94“ ‒ this is the 26th run in 1994, from the first row each time one numbers is/was scratched from the plate, for the second row the last year was taken away (un­less there was a second run in the same year).

at the bottom right "1": first edition, left "15": 2015

For me the two pages above are from two different Aus­gaben: not the same edition. When you look at the last page/im­pressum of different Amīriyya editions, you find: Gizā+Būlāq, Būlāq, Maṣr, al-Qahira ‒ to me this is not just "second run" and dif­ferent year, the text before the year is so different that it is not the SAME edition.

And in the second edition 1925/6 the word "its origin" (= its modell, seine Vorlage)

and ten signets were added.

Later the dedication page was changed

later yet, الن in 73:20 was changed to ان لن .
When you have in the 1952 aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ Amīriyya edition seven pages

that are missing in the small 1955 aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ Amīriyya edition, they ARE not the same edition, although by the same editor(s), the same publisher!
Yes, there are people who do not care to dis­tinguish between at least four different edi­tions bet­ween the first and 1951, nor between at least two different editions starting from 1952 ((I am willing not to count different year, different place of pub­lication, dif­ferent name of the same printer, different authorities vouch­saving the cor­rect­ness)), not even bet­ween the editions made by al-Ḥusaini al-Ḥaddād and those made by aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ and collea­gues, but they should not hold a con­ference on book editions.

IDEO held a con­ference on the 1924 edition but used some­thing like the 1952 title box. They just don't care, do not know, do not even want to know.
­‒