NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't usually do these, but this one made me curious.

Taken apart from any given ethnicity, what do you think of the following statement:

"It's really our cultural responsibility to graduate from and be taught by our own people and to bring more children in and have them follow our path. That's going to be taken away from us,"

Now think about what you would say if it were a young, blonde, blue-eyed man saying it.

What would you think if it were a Native American?

What would you think if it were a black person?

An Asian person?

Do your thoughts on it change depending on who said it?

I would think that they were a crazy person. This is because the only people who obsess over cultural identity are crazy persons. Especially those people (*cough*France*cough*) that are convinced that the rest of the world will sneak into their homes and staple Mickey Mouse ears to the heads of their children if they let so much as one English word into their language or fail to protect their people from the movies that those people want to see.

I don't usually do these, but this one made me curious.

Taken apart from any given ethnicity, what do you think of the following statement:

"It's really our cultural responsibility to graduate from and be taught by our own people and to bring more children in and have them follow our path. That's going to be taken away from us,"

Now think about what you would say if it were a young, blonde, blue-eyed man saying it.

What would you think if it were a Native American?

What would you think if it were a black person?

An Asian person?

Do your thoughts on it change depending on who said it?
I think any person who thinks "our people" should be defined by racial characteristics is very silly, and this includes whites, blacks, browns, yellows, reds, and chartreuses.

Now think about what you would say if it were a young, blonde, blue-eyed man saying it.
Obviously he's a racist Nazi.

What would you think if it were a Native American?
Proud of his culture.

What would you think if it were a black person?
Being oppressed by "The Man"

An Asian person?
He's an Isolationist.

Do your thoughts on it change depending on who said it? It doesn't depend on who says it. It depends on who's reading it.

Any attempt to preserve "culture" is futile. It's in constant flux. Just the way it is. Further, those who try are close-minded, and probably biggots at some level.

I think any person who thinks "our people" should be defined by racial characteristics is very silly, and this includes whites, blacks, browns, yellows, reds, and chartreuses.
Thats "Chartreuse American", thank you!

The culture of the UK does not require one to be white.

The culture of the UK does not require one to be white.
Then it's not a true culture. :rolleyes:

I don't usually do these, but this one made me curious.

Taken apart from any given ethnicity, what do you think of the following statement:

"It's really our cultural responsibility to graduate from and be taught by our own people and to bring more children in and have them follow our path. That's going to be taken away from us,"

Now think about what you would say if it were a young, blonde, blue-eyed man saying it.

What would you think if it were a Native American?

What would you think if it were a black person?

An Asian person?

Do your thoughts on it change depending on who said it?
its not dependent on who says it, but what they mean by it, or how they're going to achieve it.

for example: a native american talking about preserving cultural identity or ethnicity is quite different to a blonde, blue-eyed caucasian saying the same thing. i suppose the 'who' part comes back in, in that a minority attempting to preserve ethnicity/cultural identiy is quite different from a majority going about the same thing, as the latter almost necissarily means treading on that minority. hence a blonde, blue-eyed caucasian will - most likely, at least in the west - be in the majority and hence will have to go about preserving such ethnicity and cultural identiy in their society by impacting negatively on the minorities in it.


plus don't forget, blonde blue-eyed people ranting on about ethnicity and cultural seperation relates to this little thing that happened in germany in the 40's... :eek:


i'm not sure if this is relavent, sorry - i'm more watching tv than posting here :P

Then it's not a true culture. :rolleyes:

Fish and Chips was invented by the Sephardic Jews.

Then it's not a true culture. :rolleyes:

I'll assume that's satire.

Fish and Chips was invented by the Sephardic Jews.
*the more you know*

*the more you know*
*the less you care*

Thats "Chartreuse American", thank you!
And they're not "mixed race," they're "Plaid Americans."

He's an Isolationist.
Well technically it's isolaznist :D

I'll assume that's satire.
Maybe, maybe not.

Separatism
Aside from this issue of 'superiority' comes the bigot's corollary of 'separatism'. They don't want to be in any way near or involved with people who don't look like themselves because it is viewed as an implied threat against their own welfare. There are those who only want to pursue a network of Negro driven businesses in order to demonstrate they don't need the "white man's" help to be successful. There are those in Southern areas of the US who would just as soon be able to go to the supermarket without having to look upon anyone of color. "Let them keep to themselves.", they insist for the better good of all. While separatism may seem like the perfect Band-Aid to avoiding conflict, over the long term what it really does is allow for the reinforcing and forwarding of these unsound doctrines of hatred to be passed on to the next generation. Rather than encourage unilateral cooperation and acceptance, separatism is the breeding ground for reinforcing the misplaced pride that fuels continued racism.

Does not matter the color of the skin.

Regards,

JMayo

I think racial pride is a rather pointless idea over all. In many cases, it's understandable as a reaction to attitudes of inferiority or exclusion, but it's much better to define yourself than to rely on a group for an identity. Conforming is the easy way out if you ask me, but creating your own identity without falling back on the notion that you are a unit in some group is much more fullfilling in the end.

its not dependent on who says it, but what they mean by it, or how they're going to achieve it.

Suppose that, in each case, the objective is exactly as stated - and they are going to acheive it by attending schools run by and attended almost or completely exclusively by members of the culture they wish to preserve.

for example: a native american talking about preserving cultural identity or ethnicity is quite different to a blonde, blue-eyed caucasian saying the same thing.

How so? How is the blue-eyed caucasian who wishes to preserve their cultural and ethnic identity any different at all from the native american? Don't both have to try and ignore/exclude other cultures to do so? Aren't both placing a high value on ethnic background and, essentially, "who your daddy is"?

i suppose the 'who' part comes back in, in that a minority attempting to preserve ethnicity/cultural identiy is quite different from a majority going about the same thing, as the latter almost necissarily means treading on that minority.

How is that a necessity? Would a majority who did not want to associate with the minority, of necessity, tread up on them? What if the minority themselves did not want to associate with the majority? How is it any different just based upon numbers? The idea is still the same - a wish to exclude or avoid others based upon ethnicity.

plus don't forget, blonde blue-eyed people ranting on about ethnicity and cultural seperation relates to this little thing that happened in germany in the 40's... :eek:

But does it have to? And is it really a different cocept based on majority vs. minority? Or is it simply that a majority is in a better advantage as far as enforcing it?