Is Ethnicity and Culture Equivalent?

[Free Land of The Free Land of Freedo]

Sure, but again culture and intelligence aren't interchangeable; culture itself isn't genetic.

I'd argue that it is to a degree, in that for example a people who are inherently generally extraverted and impulsive will create a different culture to a people who are inherently reserved and quiet, say

[Ostroeuropa]

The presentation of a historical discourse is important to ethnic minorities in that nation internalizing it, as is their ability to be fully a part of a modern society. To the extent ethnicity and culture are intertwined, it is because, for example, the cultural discourse of a nation is presented as "White" and different from the cultural discourse of the "Indian", with Indian citizens being treated as "other" by the whites both historically and in the modern day.

This pressures the Indian into identifying with the "Indians" in the historical narrative rather than the "whites".

Imagine telling the story of lord of the rings in a multicultural nation. And then everybody still treats the Orcs the same, on the basis they "Wont integrate". Suddenly the alt-interpretation of Sauron as a radical egalitarian dictator against evil racist fascists becomes appealing to those Orcs seeking to make sense of their identity. Identifying and internalizing the heroic narrative of the stand of the west against evil is denied to them, because they are pushed out of that narrative and excluded. Similarly, for Indians and minorities, identifying with the technological and civilizational superiority of the west and so on excludes them in many ways, internalizing the pride of these accomplishments and values is not possible for them and so they seek identity through other narratives.

The solution is to ensure there is representation, where possible, of minority figures in the history. For example, the founder of sociology in the London School of Economics was bankrolled by an Indian billionaire who tasked these "Social scientists" to apply the western scientific method to "understand poverty, its causes, how to control it, its material nature", leading eventually to the founding of sociology as an academic discipline and the NHS and so on.

And if possible instead of generalizing along racial lines, generalize along cultural ones when discussing history.
Rather than "The British colonized the Indians", roll with, "The Insular (as in, Island, not continental) western system colonized the Mandala system.".

[Neanderthaland]

Or become the first nation with more self-aware intelligent machines than humans, given Japan's tendency to apply robotics to any problems the nation may encounter.

Yeah, I doubt developing skynet will help Japans prospect for survival.

Unless they go into cybernetics.

"You will be assimurated."

[Diarcesia]

Even granted for the sake of argument that this is fact, one must not forget that research is being done whether stress can be inherited across generations.

If that's the reason for why African Americans have on average lower IQs, why do Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs than non Jewish white people? I'd argue they've had a very stressful time as a people.

Nothing is set in stone. Also, source?

For me it's a great opportunity to share that whatever discomfort that I felt discussing this particular part is its use to excuse institutional discrimination.

[The New California Republic]

Sure, but again culture and intelligence aren't interchangeable; culture itself isn't genetic.

I'd argue that it is to a degree, in that for example a people who are inherently generally extraverted and impulsive will create a different culture to a people who are inherently reserved and quiet, say

There is no evidence to suggest that genetics can make an entire race extroverted and impulsive. So, again, culture isn't genetic.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sure, but again culture and intelligence aren't interchangeable; culture itself isn't genetic.

I'd argue that it is to a degree, in that for example a people who are inherently generally extraverted and impulsive will create a different culture to a people who are inherently reserved and quiet, say

I don’t think science holds that up

[United Muscovite Nations]

Ethnicity=/race=/culture

Ethnicity is an identity marked by common culture, language, and territory. It's more like a nation (with or without a state).

[Neanderthaland]

Sure, but again culture and intelligence aren't interchangeable; culture itself isn't genetic.

I'd argue that it is to a degree, in that for example a people who are inherently generally extraverted and impulsive will create a different culture to a people who are inherently reserved and quiet, say

This is a pretty far stretch to justify your clearly off-topic need to suggest that certain races are smarter than others.

[Diarcesia]

The presentation of a historical discourse is important to ethnic minorities in that nation internalizing it, as is their ability to be fully a part of a modern society. To the extent ethnicity and culture are intertwined, it is because, for example, the cultural discourse of a nation is presented as "White" and different from the cultural discourse of the "Indian", with Indian citizens being treated as "other" by the whites both historically and in the modern day.

This pressures the Indian into identifying with the "Indians" in the historical narrative rather than the "whites".

Imagine telling the story of lord of the rings in a multicultural nation. And then everybody still treats the Orcs the same, on the basis they "Wont integrate". Suddenly the alt-interpretation of Sauron as a radical egalitarian dictator against evil racist fascists becomes appealing to those Orcs seeking to make sense of their identity. Identifying and internalizing the heroic narrative of the stand of the west against evil is denied to them, because they are pushed out of that narrative and excluded. Similarly, for Indians and minorities, identifying with the technological and civilizational superiority of the west and so on excludes them in many ways, internalizing the pride of these accomplishments and values is not possible for them and so they seek identity through other narratives.

The solution is to ensure there is representation, where possible, of minority figures in the history. For example, the founder of sociology in the London School of Economics was bankrolled by an Indian billionaire who tasked these "Social scientists" to apply the western scientific method to "understand poverty, its causes, how to control it, its material nature", leading eventually to the founding of sociology as an academic discipline and the NHS and so on.

And if possible instead of generalizing along racial lines, generalize along cultural ones when discussing history.
Rather than "The British colonized the Indians", roll with, "The Insular (as in, Island, not continental) western system colonized the Mandala system.".

Also, the Western system is, broadly speaking, vastly different before and after 1500. The decisions that they made since then gradually built up the Western system that colonized the Mandala system.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd argue that it is to a degree, in that for example a people who are inherently generally extraverted and impulsive will create a different culture to a people who are inherently reserved and quiet, say

I don’t think science holds that up

Idk. (not this specific point, but in general principle)
I think there's a case to be made that genetics does impact culture in many ways, but that its impacts are diminishing. For instance, the presence of lactose tolerance genes very obviously have huge impacts on farming, and thus, the presence and availability of leather goods and so on. Conversely, those that don't have it become more reliant on either hunting meat, growing crops, or fishing, both with their own impacts.

Those impacts are diminishing because they are survivalism based and only impact "ground floor" level civilizations. With the presence of an agricultural revolution the pressures there go away very quickly because now your society is 90% based around satisfying the needs of your diet, with 90% of your population employed to do that thing.

It's like how geography massively impacted history and continues to leave its impact on us, but is not so much still shaping culture directly in massive ways. The more advanced and stable civilizations get, the less different they seem to be.

A culture where 10% of your population is handling cows and cows and their products are all over the place is going to be different to a population where 0% of people are doing that. And the reason for that is lactose tolerance. The agricultural revolution means that it's 0.5% v 0%, and thus far less noticeable.

[Ostroeuropa]

The presentation of a historical discourse is important to ethnic minorities in that nation internalizing it, as is their ability to be fully a part of a modern society. To the extent ethnicity and culture are intertwined, it is because, for example, the cultural discourse of a nation is presented as "White" and different from the cultural discourse of the "Indian", with Indian citizens being treated as "other" by the whites both historically and in the modern day.

This pressures the Indian into identifying with the "Indians" in the historical narrative rather than the "whites".

Imagine telling the story of lord of the rings in a multicultural nation. And then everybody still treats the Orcs the same, on the basis they "Wont integrate". Suddenly the alt-interpretation of Sauron as a radical egalitarian dictator against evil racist fascists becomes appealing to those Orcs seeking to make sense of their identity. Identifying and internalizing the heroic narrative of the stand of the west against evil is denied to them, because they are pushed out of that narrative and excluded. Similarly, for Indians and minorities, identifying with the technological and civilizational superiority of the west and so on excludes them in many ways, internalizing the pride of these accomplishments and values is not possible for them and so they seek identity through other narratives.

The solution is to ensure there is representation, where possible, of minority figures in the history. For example, the founder of sociology in the London School of Economics was bankrolled by an Indian billionaire who tasked these "Social scientists" to apply the western scientific method to "understand poverty, its causes, how to control it, its material nature", leading eventually to the founding of sociology as an academic discipline and the NHS and so on.

And if possible instead of generalizing along racial lines, generalize along cultural ones when discussing history.
Rather than "The British colonized the Indians", roll with, "The Insular (as in, Island, not continental) western system colonized the Mandala system.".

Also, the Western system is, broadly speaking, vastly different before and after 1500. The decisions that they made since then gradually built up the Western system that colonized the Mandala system.

Yes, you can also tell the story of internal ideological/cultural struggles this way.

[Genivaria]

By definition culture is an aspect of ethnicity but there is more to ethnicity than just culture.
Ethnicity is a rather broad and vague term and involves many things.

An ethnic group or an ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation.[1][2] Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

[Bear Stearns]

There is overlap. They are components of one another but not always the same.

Example: Many Americans and Brits are of the same ethnicity but are of different cultures.

[Pope Joan]

look at the love of cricket in Commonwealth nations, or of fine dining in former French colonies

[Bienenhalde]

And if possible instead of generalizing along racial lines, generalize along cultural ones when discussing history.
Rather than "The British colonized the Indians", roll with, "The Insular (as in, Island, not continental) western system colonized the Mandala system.".

You make reasonable points, but couldn't terms like "British'' and ''Indian'' just as easily be understood in reference to geography or culture as opposed to race?

[New haven america]

It is equivalent in my view. Would Japan truly still be Japan, if it wasn't majority Japanese? I don't think so. Japanese at least managed to keep their nation Japanese, in spite of being fully conquered by Americans after a lost war.

You have no idea how much of Japanese culture has been imported from the West and its neighbors.

[Hanafuridake]

No, I won't say that they're entirely separate, but it's foolish to assert that they're synonymous, and both are extremely broad to begin with. Before the nation-state, most localities couldn't understand each other for instance.

It is equivalent in my view. Would Japan truly still be Japan, if it wasn't majority Japanese? I don't think so. Japanese at least managed to keep their nation Japanese, in spite of being fully conquered by Americans after a lost war.

What is Japanese?

[Hanafuridake]

It is equivalent in my view. Would Japan truly still be Japan, if it wasn't majority Japanese? I don't think so. Japanese at least managed to keep their nation Japanese, in spite of being fully conquered by Americans after a lost war.

You have no idea how much of Japanese culture has been imported from the West and its neighbors.

He doesn't care. The real actual Japanese history and culture don't hold a candle compared to his idealized view of them as based Asian National Socialists, and facts aren't going to get in the way of that.

[Conserative Morality]

Of course. Racial pseudoscience has no place in such discussions, and anyone who thinks otherwise should be ashamed of themselves. And probably exiled to some worthless rock in the middle of the ocean.

[Hanafuridake]

civilizational superiority of the west

And if possible instead of generalizing along racial lines, generalize along cultural ones when discussing history.
Rather than "The British colonized the Indians", roll with, "The Insular (as in, Island, not continental) western system colonized the Mandala system.".

No, because that completely whitewashes the actions of the British Empire as just a cultural clash, instead of what it was. The British Empire colonized Indian people. Indian people experienced famine, racial discrimination, massacres, etc. not abstract cultural systems.

[Diarcesia]

civilizational superiority of the west

But my railroads! No, seriously, in at least a scientific standpoint. If the Chinese invented much of the modern stuff around us we might be discussing about the "perennial civilizational superiority of China"

And if possible instead of generalizing along racial lines, generalize along cultural ones when discussing history.
Rather than "The British colonized the Indians", roll with, "The Insular (as in, Island, not continental) western system colonized the Mandala system.".

No, because that completely whitewashes the actions of the British Empire as just a cultural clash, instead of what it was. The British Empire colonized Indian people. Indian people experienced famine, racial discrimination, massacres, etc. not abstract cultural systems.

Yes, that was bad. Ideally, the Indians would have sought the technological advances on their own, and the British should have GTFO of Indian land the moment the latter refuses them.

[Forsher]

Race is a meaningless term.

Ethnicity has nothing to do with race.

Ethnicity basically describes which cultures one enculturated to.

Many believe acculturation is sufficient to change ethnicity but this doesn't really match with how people use the term.

[Torrocca]

No, they're not equivalent. They can be (and often are) intertwined, but they're not equivalent. A Mongolian person can grow up in and have Scottish culture, or an English person could grow up in and have Egyptian culture.

The presentation of a historical discourse is important to ethnic minorities in that nation internalizing it, as is their ability to be fully a part of a modern society. To the extent ethnicity and culture are intertwined, it is because, for example, the cultural discourse of a nation is presented as "White" and different from the cultural discourse of the "Indian", with Indian citizens being treated as "other" by the whites both historically and in the modern day.

This pressures the Indian into identifying with the "Indians" in the historical narrative rather than the "whites".

Or maybe they'd rather identify with Indians over "whites" because of centuries of oppression, slaughter, and man-made famines caused by their colonizers? Maybe it's not a case of them being peer-pressured away from identifying with the exact people that oppressed them?

Imagine telling the story of lord of the rings in a multicultural nation. And then everybody still treats the Orcs the same, on the basis they "Wont integrate". Suddenly the alt-interpretation of Sauron as a radical egalitarian dictator against evil racist fascists becomes appealing to those Orcs seeking to make sense of their identity. Identifying and internalizing the heroic narrative of the stand of the west against evil is denied to them, because they are pushed out of that narrative and excluded.

Interesting how you treat your analogy for your example of Indians not identifying with "whites" culturally as, "the west versus evil," rather than the accurate, "Indians being colonized and oppressed for about two whole centuries by the West."

Similarly, for Indians and minorities, identifying with the technological and civilizational superiority of the west

HAHAHAHAHA, holy shit, 10/10 with this nuclear fucking take. You might've been able to slip this by if you hadn't pulled the ol' race realist strategy of dismissing non-white civilizations as inferior.

and so on excludes them in many ways, internalizing the pride of these accomplishments and values is not possible for them and so they seek identity through other narratives.

Why the fuck should they have pride in other people? Particularly people who willingly and openly colonized them and oppressed the fuck out of them in order to profit from their resources and people?

The solution is to ensure there is representation, where possible, of minority figures in the history. For example, the founder of sociology in the London School of Economics was bankrolled by an Indian billionaire who tasked these "Social scientists" to apply the western scientific method to "understand poverty, its causes, how to control it, its material nature", leading eventually to the founding of sociology as an academic discipline and the NHS and so on.

>TFW the Indians are suddenly a hivemind who used an Indian billionaire to study poverty and its causes
>TFW this now means the Indians suddenly have a culture to turn to and take pride in, because literally nothing they had for thousands of years before that matters
>TFW Indians are minorities in India

western scientific method

>TFW the scientific method is only western now, and not just a universal thing that actually dictates what is and isn't science

And if possible instead of generalizing along racial lines, generalize along cultural ones when discussing history.
Rather than "The British colonized the Indians", roll with, "The Insular (as in, Island, not continental) western system colonized the Mandala system.".

We've gone past a previous nuclear take straight into a fucking supernova with this whitewashing of India's history.

The British colonized the Indians and oppressed the fuck outta them. End of story.

[New Bremerton]

Race and culture are certainly not equivalent. Culture, like religion and political affiliation, is a choice. Race is not.

The definition of ethnicity isn't all that clear cut to me. Ethnicity implies an intersect between race, culture, and occasionally, religion. Interestingly, the Jews are an ethnoreligious group, but they are not a single race. Ditto the Druze. I'd say that ethnicity isn't really much of a choice either.

Race, ethnicity and culture are three different things, with ethnicity falling somewhere in between. If I was born and raised in England, I would be culturally English, but I will never be ethnically English or racially white. A white Frenchman born and raised in England would never be ethnically English either, although it would be far easier for him to pass off as such.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

No /thread