Countries that believe their culture is superior to others

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yetos said:
@Ailchu
so if I connect ethnocentrism with genes,
in case of Greece and turkey, what I must do?btw
Ailchu 80 years ago was WW2
Click to expand...

i think you are confusing something. why are you asking me what you should do if you connect ethnocentrism with genes? i asked a similar question to you and other people in this thread. didn't get real answers.

if you think that turkey and greece have the same or similar genetics but different cultures then you are giving an argument to not connect genetics to culture and not to connect genetics with ethnocentrism if you only care about culture. so i don't know why you ask me what you should do, i never said you should practice genetic ethnocentrism in the first place.

i already thought that you were referring to WW2. what i didn't get is what you ment with "there is also the UN and the diplomacy networks,
but why to start an inner war or extermination?? "
 
Last edited:
Jovialis said:
I do to some degree, I am sure most people do. But I guess I am more honest than most people. Here in the United States, I am surrounded by people who are very different from me, and I judge them based on their character. Of course there are some people that would be similar to me, whose character are not as good as people who are genetically different. That being said, I am still very proud of my culture, and I recognize that it was made by people who are genetically similar to me. It doesn't mean I hate others, or judge them based on their genetics.
Click to expand...


so do you think your group is genetically superior to others or that your culture is only possible because of people who are genetically similar to you? what group would this be?
also do you believe genetic ethnocentrism should be involved in politics or should stay a private opinion that should never have an influence on politics?
 
Ailchu said:
so do you think your group is genetically superior to others or that your culture is only possible because of people who are genetically similar to you? what group would this be?
also do you believe genetic ethnocentrism should be involved in politics or should stay a private opinion that should never have an influence on politics?
Click to expand...
No, I think superiority has more to do with individual genetics, more than whole genetic groups. For example, my IQ is in the top 1 percentile, so in that regard I am superior to 99% of the human race. There are people from radically different backgrounds in that percentile with me.
African-American athletes are seemingly superior to other groups in many forms of physical activity. However, according to the CDC they are 20% less likely to get physical activity than whites. 4 out of 5 black women are obese. So is that individual superiority? Or do these athletes generally retain genetics of a particular tribe? Most blacks are generally less healthy. There is also the dynamic of nurture. But as generations pass, how much does nurture change nature? It can have the opposite affect as well.
Personally, I think the best qualified people should be elected. But it seems that genetics means a lot more to liberals, here in the United States, as per Biden's VP pick. They picked her mostly because she is half-black. They are forthcoming about that. There were certainly more qualified people, regardless of their race or gender.
 
@Ailchu
... there are no superior groups!

some exploit genetic ethnocentrism (Identity Politics), ... it’s nothing new,
political parties have mastered Identity Politics (Patronizing), some more than others,

the Media talks about it often especially during Electoral Campaigns.

... an example: Biden said “if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you AIN 'T black”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html
 
Jovialis said:
No, I think superiority has more to do with individual genetics, more than whole genetic groups. For example, my IQ is in the top 1 percentile, so in that regard I am superior to 99% of the human race. There are people from radically different backgrounds in that percentile with me.
African-American athletes are seemingly superior to other groups in many forms of physical activity. However, according to the CDC they are 20% less likely to get physical activity than whites. 4 out of 5 black women are obese. So is that individual superiority? Or do these athletes generally retain genetics of a particular tribe? Most blacks are generally less healthy. There is also the dynamic of nurture. But as generations pass, how much does nurture change nature? It can have the opposite affect as well.
Personally, I think the best qualified people should be elected. But it seems that genetics means a lot more to liberals, here in the United States, as per Biden's VP pick. They picked her mostly because she is half-black. They are forthcoming about that. There were certainly more qualified people, regardless of their race or gender.
Click to expand...


you judge people based on their character, you do not think "your group" is better than others or that the genetics of this group are needed for the culture you like. what makes you think that you agree with genetic ethnocentrism or with what aspect of it do you agree with?
 
Ailchu said:
in what kind of aspect do you consider genetic ethnocentrism as a good thing then? you judge people based on their character, you do not think "your group" is better than others or that the genetics of this group are needed for the culture you like. what exactly makes you think that you agree with genetic ethnocentrism?
Click to expand...

I suppose, I am attracted to what is familar to me. It makes me feel comfortable, and have a sense of belonging. I don't think I need to justify it by claiming I am superior to anyone. If I was part of another group that is completely different, I would feel the same way about it. However, I will reiterate, that I only "agree" with it to a certain degree, because I do not discount the quality of others based on these aspects. It is just different.
 
Jovialis said:
I suppose, I am attracted to what is familar to me. It makes me feel comfortable, and have a sense of belonging. I don't think I need to justify it by claiming I am superior to anyone. If I was part of another group that is completely different, I would feel the same way about it. However, I will reiterate, that I only "agree" with it to a certain degree, because I do discount the quality of others based on these aspects. It is just different.
Click to expand...

so i'll take from you that is is mostly rather superficial feelings with which you agree? but wouldn't you agree with me then, that, if we ignore these superficial feelings, it is actually unnecessary to connect genetics with ethnocentrism especially when we are talking about culture?
 
Ailchu said:
so i'll take from you that is is mostly rather superficial feelings with which you agree? but wouldn't you agree with me then, that, if we ignore these superficial feelings, it is actually unnecessary to connect genetics with ethnocentrism especially when we are talking about culture?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is unimportant, not to me at least. For example, would you want to marry someone that is physically unattractive, despite being of good character, and intelligent? It is part of the whole ball of wax. It may be superficial to some, but it tends to matter.
 
Imo, culture stems from genetics, at least in part, and at least initially. I don't see how you can completely separate it.

No matter how many people have come to partake of the American "experience" and be indoctrinated in its values, the "system", the culture, is still basically British, as it is in Australia, and New Zealand and Canada, and it was practiced by people carrying those genetics for hundreds of years. That's why it lasted. In other places ruled by Britain where the British were a tiny minority, the systems didn't last.
 
Angela said:
Imo, culture stems from genetics, at least in part, and at least initially. I don't see how you can completely separate it.

No matter how many people have come to partake of the American "experience" and be indoctrinated in its values, the "system", the culture, is still basically British, as it is in Australia, and New Zealand and Canada, and it was practiced by people carrying those genetics for hundreds of years. That's why it lasted. In other places ruled by Britain where the British were a tiny minority, the systems didn't last.
Click to expand...

I agree,

Culture is indeed at least partly tied to genetics. Even if certain components of one culture influences another, the group adopting it puts their own unique imprint on it, according to their own sensibilities. Culture, like genetics can mutate according to location. Moreover, that "mutation" of culture, probably has a correlation with the genetics of the people.
 
Jovialis said:
I agree,

Culture is indeed at least partly tied to genetics. Even if certain components of one culture influences another, the group adopting it puts their own unique imprint on it, according to their own sensibilities. Culture, like genetics can mutate according to location. Moreover, that "mutation" of culture, probably has a correlation with the genetics of the people.
Click to expand...

I'm just a little uncomfortable with that! Maybe I'm missing something, but the people of England didn't know what their genetic makeup was. They made the decisions they made over the generations based on historical events, not their underlying DNA. Those events and how they responded to them created the modern liberal democratic order and it didn't matter whether they were R1b, I2, or G2a.

Now I get that if a butterfly dies the course of history changes (reference a classic SciFi short story), but this is giving too much weight to an underlying factor with no discernable effect on external events.

Both of you guys are real smart, so tell me where I've gone astray. I just think that a child born in an East Asian haplogroup, if raised in Shropshire since that birth, would end up being a Shropshire lad, or lass. I think culture rules.
 
[email protected] said:
I'm just a little uncomfortable with that! Maybe I'm missing something, but the people of England didn't know what their genetic makeup was. They made the decisions they made over the generations based on historical events, not their underlying DNA. Those events and how they responded to them created the modern liberal democratic order and it didn't matter whether they were R1b, I2, or G2a.

Now I get that if a butterfly dies the course of history changes (reference a classic SciFi short story), but this is giving too much weight to an underlying factor with no discernable effect on external events.

Both of you guys are real smart, so tell me where I've gone astray. I just think that a child born in an East Asian haplogroup, if raised in Shropshire since that birth, would end up being a Shropshire lad, or lass. I think culture rules.
Click to expand...

That was Plato statement milleniums ago
 
Jovialis said:
I agree,

Culture is indeed at least partly tied to genetics. Even if certain components of one culture influences another, the group adopting it puts their own unique imprint on it, according to their own sensibilities. Culture, like genetics can mutate according to location. Moreover, that "mutation" of culture, probably has a correlation with the genetics of the people.
Click to expand...

I think that's really true.

I also think that if people migrating into a culture who come from a very different background, with very different genetics, and become the majority, the original culture changes.
 
Yetos said:
That was Plato statement milleniums ago
Click to expand...


so you actually connect genetics with ethnocentrism. then why exactly did you ask me what you should do with turkey?

and say, what did you mean with using the UN and diplomacy instead of inner war and extermination?

plus, what was your point about switzerland and that greek guy?
 
Ailchu said:
hmm, so you actually connect genetics with ethnocentrism. then why exactly did you ask me what you should do with turkey?

and say, what did you mean with using the UN and diplomacy instead of inner war and extermination?

plus, what was your point about switzerland and that greek guy?
Click to expand...




:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

:shocked: :banghead: :banghead:


after this bellow, your logical extract is the above quote?

[email protected] said:
I'm just a little uncomfortable with that! Maybe I'm missing something, but the people of England didn't know what their genetic makeup was. They made the decisions they made over the generations based on historical events, not their underlying DNA. Those events and how they responded to them created the modern liberal democratic order and it didn't matter whether they were R1b, I2, or G2a.

Now I get that if a butterfly dies the course of history changes (reference a classic SciFi short story), but this is giving too much weight to an underlying factor with no discernable effect on external events.

Both of you guys are real smart, so tell me where I've gone astray. I just think that a child born in an East Asian haplogroup, if raised in Shropshire since that birth, would end up being a Shropshire lad, or lass. I think culture rules.
Click to expand...

Yetos said:
That was Plato statement milleniums ago
Click to expand...


:disappointed: :disappointed: :disappointed:
 
Yetos said:
:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

:shocked: :banghead: :banghead:


after this bellow, your logical extract is the above quote?






:disappointed: :disappointed: :disappointed:
Click to expand...

my mistake sry. i just knew that some greek philosophers had a different opinion here, should have checked first. i was still a bit confused because you argued with me before for some reason. and becasue of sentences like these "the difference of genetics is obvious, and will never be overpassed as also the behavour of the kids among them." seems like we had a similar opinion the whole time. but can you still say what you tried to say?
 
[email protected] said:
I'm just a little uncomfortable with that! Maybe I'm missing something, but the people of England didn't know what their genetic makeup was. They made the decisions they made over the generations based on historical events, not their underlying DNA. Those events and how they responded to them created the modern liberal democratic order and it didn't matter whether they were R1b, I2, or G2a.

Now I get that if a butterfly dies the course of history changes (reference a classic SciFi short story), but this is giving too much weight to an underlying factor with no discernable effect on external events.

Both of you guys are real smart, so tell me where I've gone astray. I just think that a child born in an East Asian haplogroup, if raised in Shropshire since that birth, would end up being a Shropshire lad, or lass. I think culture rules.
Click to expand...

I'm butting in, but I completely disagree. Culture doesn't COMPLETELY rule anything, just as environment doesn't completely, or, imo majorly rule anything when it comes to individuals. If you believe what you say you believe, I wouldn't be able to convince you so I won't try. It would require an entire thread of its own.
 
Last edited:
Angela said:
Imo, culture stems from genetics, at least in part, and at least initially. I don't see how you can completely separate it.

No matter how many people have come to partake of the American "experience" and be indoctrinated in its values, the "system", the culture, is still basically British, as it is in Australia, and New Zealand and Canada, and it was practiced by people carrying those genetics for hundreds of years. That's why it lasted. In other places ruled by Britain where the British were a tiny minority, the systems didn't last.
Click to expand...

so if american ethnocentrists would want to keep american culture american they would have to somehow keep non-british descent people down?
that culture stems from genetics only initially would actually mean that culture does not stem from genetics or that the correlation is not a causality. so you could seperate it.

Angela said:
I think that's really true.

I also think that if people migrating into a culture who come from a very different background, with very different genetics, and become the majority, the original culture changes.
Click to expand...

do you have examples? let's say that original culture is italian, then what are the "very different genetics" that could change the culture? how do you define who is genetically able to be culturally italian?

and do you think it is justified that turks in germany are not considered as complete germans?
 
Last edited:
Ailchu said:
so if amercan ethnocentrists would want to keep american culture american they would have to somehow keep non-british descent people down?



do you have examples? let's say that original culture is italian, then what are the "very different genetics" that could change the culture? how do you define who is genetically able to be culturally italian?

and do you think it is justified that turks in germany are not considered as complete germans?
Click to expand...

are you asking people who are not in Germany, who are not Germans or Turks, etc etc this question?
 
Angela said:
I'm butting in, but I completely disagree. Culture doesn't COMPLETELY rule anything, just as environment doesn't completely, or, imo majorly rule anything when it comes to individuals. If you believe what you say you believe, I wouldn't be able to convince you so I won't try. It would require an entire thread of its own.
Click to expand...

Jeez, you having a bad day or something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 59798 times.

Back
Top