How important are national/ethnic looks to you?

How important are national/ethnic looks to you?

  • Very imp! Looks don't only tell us where we are coming from, but also where we are going to.

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Medium importance. I only think from time to time about it (e.g. under the shower, way to work etc.)

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Low importance. I don't bother myself with such stupid questions.

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • Act. I don't care, but still love to enter those threads of bikini supermodel galleries. Yum yum!

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • Total voters
    23

Mzungu mchagga

aimless wanderer
Messages
635
Reaction score
41
Points
0
Location
Berlin
How important are national/ethnic looks to you?
Use the poll above and please comment where appropriate!
 
I don't care at all. I make contact very easy with people from all over the world I come across. Contacts through internet, on forums (fora) like this are much more complicated.

What interests me most is the stories that people can tell. Their talents.

It's a pity I often see a struggle between religion and freedom.
Also a struggle between political propaganda and freedom.

Well.. I like a woman with a pretty face, and a smile.
But she has to be intellectually challenging.

I am married with one like that. :rolleyes:
 
In latin america we do not care about the look or the ethnic of anyone, look at the president of bolivia he is native american...

we are all the same since the free from the spanish savage opressors.
 
Today Latin America is more racist places in the world.

The reality of Latin American countries remained that of a mestizo, indigenous and black majority, which national identity could not be founded on the ideal of a white population. It is in this context that the ideology of mestizaje emerges as national identity in many countries, as was the case of Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, etc.. But from the basis of a racial hierarchy in which the ideal, unattainable the majority, being white and European phenotypic traits, although socially accepted to be mestizo.


In short, the discourse of American identity is based on the complementarity of three ideas: miscegenation, discrimination and whitening. Miscegenation as the only way to the unattainable ideal of being white, always latent discrimination and denied, and bleaching as ratification of the supreme value of being white.


Therefore, Latin American racism is associated with the physical aspect, taking into account the color and appearance. But it's not racism that is expressed by a clearly differentiated target group to another non-white. It is a system of discrimination based on the relative difference of skin color and appearance, which also has the level of income and whether you're male or female. In some contexts a person can become an agent and promoter of racism in others it may be the victim, why is it so difficult to identify and recognize.
 
As far as I'm concerned my ethnicity has one of the broadest range of physical appearances of any ethnicity. Genetics would support this. At the same time there are a range of looks that I can easily identify as Serbian & I would say that Coons Dinaric classification dominates. Certainly I'm proud of that particular classification (tall, dark, athletic). Otherwise I'm really a big fan of diversity so I really don't place physical appearance within any range of acceptance. Values, mentality, attitude, culture, religion are all much more important.
 
Cultural differences have big importance, large number of cultural differences in a society a direct way to trouble.
National & ethnic difference not so much important, i think it's good to be ethnically diverse. Ideally, to have basically monocultural society with wide mixing of minorities.
 
Cultural differences have big importance, large number of cultural differences in a society a direct way to trouble.
National & ethnic difference not so much important, i think it's good to be ethnically diverse. Ideally, to have basically monocultural society with wide mixing of minorities.

How do you define "ethnicity"? Is it genetic, racial or cultural?
If you take the latter, is a mono-culture comprised of many ethnicities possible?
 
How do you define "ethnicity"? Is it genetic, racial or cultural?

Genetic don't looks much important for me, especially if it is European DNA groups. R1a or R1b? LOL who cares
Tsar Nicholas II mainly had R1b DNA but was a pan-slavist. Or for example Volga Germans, for me will be almost impossible to find differences from traditional Russians. I give to genetic aspect 10% of importance.
"Racial aspect" I think it play some role when racial differences catch the eye strongly (black & white people). Each person has programmed racial (white skin people for example) preferences inside by nature, there is nothing to do with it. So it around 20% of importance.
And third, the cultural differences. I think it's the most important and give to it 70% because culture determines human lifestyle. The biggest hatred between people growing from cultural differences, so blurring of these differences and cultural assimilation is very important for the state stability and prosperity. The more differences the greater the unreliability.

If you take the latter, is a mono-culture comprised of many ethnicities possible?

America is living example, Russia is living example, Australia is living example... Absolute 100% common culture is hardly possible to create but possible to construct a common add-in like in Russia. Also need to know the sense of limit. You can not swallow more than you can digest. Americans imported slaves from sub-Saharan Africa, now they still have some problems with black population in statistics of crime. Why that so? That's because these people came in too big numbers & were too much different culturally from European culture.
 
Today ethnicities is like a teutonic knight who rides Jeep not horse, drinks cola, and eats pizza,
today ethicities are like a good European mobile with a trade mark from Scand, made in Chech republic, and batteries are made in china,
 
There is too much importance placed on the superficial today, looks are immaterial and ethnicity is only the modern form of tribalism. Imo, diversity is a good thing and I couldn't think of anything worse than living in a homogenous society. Boring, boring, boring.
 
I don't understand what is so bad about ethnicity. As an anthropologist do you look at an African tribe you are studying and think these poor people, they are so poor, so unenlightened? It would be so much better if they did not speak their own language, practice their own customs etc? Do you think, now lets all just speak the same language, have the same sense of spirituality, do away with traditional customs and just join this wonderful western utopia which by the way in it self is very ethnic in an Anglo-Germanic direction (even if they don't realise it). Should we strive to avoid all ritual? Do we aim to be androids as in science fiction films? Personally I do not wish to be Germanic. As far as I'm concerned my ethnicity builds community and welcomes everyone. It's very healthy.
 
Last edited:
I don't care at all about where someone comes from or their ethnic background.

Of course, just like the next person, I think some people look better than others, and I can generalize at times - but when you meet someone face to face, those generalizations dissipater in a second.
 
Genetic don't looks much important for me, especially if it is European DNA groups. R1a or R1b? LOL who cares
Tsar Nicholas II mainly had R1b DNA but was a pan-slavist. Or for example Volga Germans, for me will be almost impossible to find differences from traditional Russians. I give to genetic aspect 10% of importance.

I agree on that. BTW Tsar Nicholas didn't even know his own haplogroup. Until today there hasn't been any government which has given laws on division of populations based on DNA (yet), and I hope it'll remain so! Is somebody with haplogroup R1b excluded from being a slav? Or if his autosomal DNA clusters more with Western Europe or Central Asia?

"Racial aspect" I think it play some role when racial differences catch the eye strongly (black & white people). Each person has programmed racial (white skin people for example) preferences inside by nature, there is nothing to do with it. So it around 20% of importance.
And third, the cultural differences. I think it's the most important and give to it 70% because culture determines human lifestyle. The biggest hatred between people growing from cultural differences, so blurring of these differences and cultural assimilation is very important for the state stability and prosperity. The more differences the greater the unreliability.

Yeah, whereas "culture" is a vague concept, "race" can stigmatize people with mere looks. Although for me personally race or looks don't define an ethnicity, they fulfil stereotypical criteria which are usually associated with ethnicities, if not even very often defined with such phenotypical criteria.

Take for example a black person in the USA:
How black does he have to be in order to be called an Afro-American?
Is Afro-American a pure phenotypical term? What about the stereotype of "acting black"? What about a black American who doesn't "act black" and doesn't associate himself with black culture?

Yet it is easier in the USA to be accepted as an American, as the country is based on immigration and practically everyone can become American.

It is somewhat more difficult in the former colonial countries of Europe. A black person will have slightly more difficulties in assimilating into these countries, as he doesn't share the same history of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Iberians etc... However, there is still a good chance of being accepted as a good Englishman, Frenchman, Spaniard as national identity is also based on confession to the British Crown and Parliament, French or Spanish Culture.

A black person will never, never, never be accepted as a Russian, as the identity of Russians is on a much higher rate based on blood-line. And an African would be too far away from that blood-line.

Germany is on an intermediate position between Western post-colonial countries and Russia. Traditional German identity is based on blood, too, but only recently in the last decades, due to high immigration, things started to turn around a little.

America is living example, Russia is living example, Australia is living example... Absolute 100% common culture is hardly possible to create but possible to construct a common add-in like in Russia. Also need to know the sense of limit. You can not swallow more than you can digest. Americans imported slaves from sub-Saharan Africa, now they still have some problems with black population in statistics of crime. Why that so? That's because these people came in too big numbers & were too much different culturally from European culture.

Would you describe the USA, Russia or Australia as mono-cultures? :unsure:
I mean you are contradicting yourself when you say that ethnicity equals culture, but on the other hand the ideal nation is a mono-culture comprised of many highly diverse ethnicities.
What do you mean with mono-culture? Is mono-culture a culture with a blend of cultures in every person (the melting-pot so to say), or is it a culture of many seperated sub-cultures (the salad-bowl)?
 
Is somebody with haplogroup R1b excluded from being a slav?
If I not mistaking Slavic DNA is basically R1a. So that kinda funny, Nicholas II was panslavist but did not even genetically related to this group :LOL:.


Or if his autosomal DNA clusters more with Western Europe or Central Asia?
The European royal families often mixed with each other for the sake of political benefit, so that not surprising that Nicholas II and his family had mainly R1b DNA.

What about a black American who doesn't "act black" and doesn't associate himself with black culture?

Well, that already a assimilated man, he is not "african" anymore. But word "Afro-American" still can be used to emphasize his origin.
In general I think all newly arrived immigrants must be assimilated into the local culture. Otherwise that have not sense to import immigrants at all.

Yet it is easier in the USA to be accepted as an American, as the country is based on immigration and practically everyone can become American.
Yes, but America have not much traditional culture. I see only rich mass-commercial culture: lady Gaga, McDonalds, Pepsi, Burger King & Baseball :LOL: ...
With Canada even worse, comes to mind only maple leaf and hockey :LOL:

It is somewhat more difficult in the former colonial countries of Europe. A black person will have slightly more difficulties in assimilating into these countries, as he doesn't share the same history of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Iberians etc... However, there is still a good chance of being accepted as a good Englishman, Frenchman, Spaniard as national identity is also based on confession to the British Crown and Parliament, French or Spanish Culture.

I think main obstacle to intergate for immigrants in European society is lack of infrastructure for "remelting" and attention for cultural "remelting" of such people (schools to learn the local language, special training courses, special system of employment for such people) + lack of such immigrant tradition policy like USA have. I also think that Europe takes the one of the worst immigrants ever, especially people from Middle East, Pakistan, Black Africa have often damaged mentality because of local wars there and have totally different cultures to be melted.

A black person will never, never, never be accepted as a Russian, as the identity of Russians is on a much higher rate based on blood-line. And an African would be too far away from that blood-line.
Black people simply very exotic in Russia, that's why they always will look "alien", Russia had not colonies in Africa. But in second-third generation descendants of that man will look like a white persons already :grin:

Germany is on an intermediate position between Western post-colonial countries and Russia. Traditional German identity is based on blood, too, but only recently in the last decades, due to high immigration, things started to turn around a little.
On the place of Germany I would tried to "Germanise" all Turks which immigrated to Germany since 60s, to fully assimilation.

Would you describe the USA, Russia or Australia as mono-cultures? I mean you are contradicting yourself when you say that ethnicity equals culture, but on the other hand the ideal nation is a mono-culture comprised of many highly diverse ethnicities. :unsure:.
No, USA, Russia and Australia is not totally mono-cultural of course, but such big countries can exist only if they have common culture as "common second floor for everyone" through unified system of education, common language for conversation etc... In America also probably play a role their "commercial" culture, basic laws of constitution; in Russia it's simply long history of coexistence and mentality probably, about Australia don't know.
I also think that need a "pivotal" nation with their "pivotal" culture 70-80% of population otherwise everything has a high chance to fall apart. In America such role had white immigrants and protestants. In Russia it's "traditional Russians" from the East European Plain. In Australia it's white prisoners from Britain I think (lol).

What do you mean with mono-culture? Is mono-culture a culture with a blend of cultures in every person (the melting-pot so to say), or is it a culture of many seperated sub-cultures (the salad-bowl).
Mono-culture is a uniform society:
standardized education
standardized language
standardized values
standardized laws
standardized code of conduct
standardized historical heroes
standardized traditions
standardized religion or lack of it
standardized ideology
standardized ...
More united things = better, but impossible to have everything united. Deviations are possible, but rod should be shared.
"Multiculturalism" have a right on existing in sense that minorities build a common culture or attached to one of "basic" nation. "Multiculturalism" where everything is different and everyone for themselves is utopia, united state simply can't exist in such terms.
 
@Anton

I agree with you on most points!
I wouldn't see the USA as less cultured than other European countries. Mass-production and commercial culture is -as the name already says- also culture and has it's roots in business-minded Calvinist/Baptist/Puritan thoughts, which got started in Europe and were further developed in America.
I've been to the US three times as a teen, and I experienced a lot more culture than what I've ever seen in Germany. Even though a lot was commercialized (e.g. Thanksgiving, Halloween, Prom-Night, Rodeos, Sportgames, Fast Food diners), Germany doesn't even have a distinct culture as such. The reason is also partly strategical deconstruction of German culture after WWII due to it's bad reputation.


Back to the main question, which was what is ethnicity?

You said, ethnicity is comprised of 10% DNA, 20% race and 70% culture. Well, I don't walk around with a mobile laboratory, cranial ruler and nursery rhyme questionaire when asking about the ethnicity of my conversation partner.
Last year we had an incident on German media when a woman from East Germany got a job refusal in West Germany because of her origin and wanted to sue the potential employer of 'ethnic discrimination', which would mean after 40 years of division East Germans have become an own ethnicity. Some posters in this forum would argue that she would still belong to a distinct German ethnicity, if her father carries haplogroup R1b or R1a or I1. My (German) dictionary says, an ethnicity is a group of people in which a certain culture is practiced in... mmh :unsure:

It get's even more confusing when the same people start to loose their own consistency. I always remember Samual Huntington with his book "The Clash of Cultures" in which he devided the World cultures into "Western Culture", "Islamic Culture", "Japanese Culture" or "African Culture" etc.... It would be like saying:

He is black, has thick lips and curly hair ---> therefore he is of African ethnicity

He looks Asian and speaks Japanese ---> therefore he is of Japanese ethnicity

He believes in Allah and is darker skinned ---> therefore he is of Arab ethnicity

He has Ashkenazi ancestors and haplogroup J1 ---> therefore he is of Jewish ethnicity

He was born and raised in Brazil and speaks Portuguese ---> therefore he is of LatAm ethnicity

As you can see, all those comparisons make no sense and it's like asking for apples and getting pears as reply.

My own conclusion is that most people have their very own constructions and categorize people after many criteria. These are partly conscious, partly unconscious emotional and kognitive constructs to simplify the vast flood of imformation we are receiving daily. If these categories apply to a huge number of people, like groups of populations, we simply call them: ethnicities! :LOL:
 
I don't care at all. I make contact very easy with people from all over the world I come across. Contacts through internet, on forums (fora) like this are much more complicated.

What interests me most is the stories that people can tell. Their talents.

It's a pity I often see a struggle between religion and freedom.
Also a struggle between political propaganda and freedom.

Well.. I like a woman with a pretty face, and a smile.
But she has to be intellectually challenging.

I am married with one like that. :rolleyes:

I totally agree with you, my friend! If all people thought like you, this would be a better world, for sure!

Anyhow peoples around the world are in constant evolution, the concept of "nationality" is a human invention. No one can be defined "pure" in a national way, it is ridicolous. We live in an open world, nowdays it is no sense talking about boaders. The importance of meeting other cultures (this is the best way to think about differences!) and to know other point of views is something that make all us so rich in an intellectual sense. That's why I'm in this forum, I want to compare my heritage with other people from different backgrounds. So we shouldn't give so much important to the "ethnic look". As Reinaert says, just in case of a woman with a pretty face, a smile and a clever brain! Eheh!
 
I totally agree with you, my friend! If all people thought like you, this would be a better world, for sure!

Anyhow peoples around the world are in constant evolution, the concept of "nationality" is a human invention. No one can be defined "pure" in a national way, it is ridicolous. We live in an open world, nowdays it is no sense talking about boaders. The importance of meeting other cultures (this is the best way to think about differences!) and to know other point of views is something that make all us so rich in an intellectual sense. That's why I'm in this forum, I want to compare my heritage with other people from different backgrounds. So we shouldn't give so much important to the "ethnic look". As Reinaert says, just in case of a woman with a pretty face, a smile and a clever brain! Eheh!

An interesting question would be, democratically speaking in regards to the concept of nationality - would you allow a people to ceced from a nation if they overwhelmingly voted for it ( say over 85%) .....example, would you let piedmont secede to form its own nation or would you support the Italian army to smash these people and keep them under Italy. The answer will dictate if someone is truly democratic or not.
Might be interesting to see peoples opinion on this
 
An interesting question would be, democratically speaking in regards to the concept of nationality - would you allow a people to ceced from a nation if they overwhelmingly voted for it ( say over 85%) .....example, would you let piedmont secede to form its own nation or would you support the Italian army to smash these people and keep them under Italy. The answer will dictate if someone is truly democratic or not.
Might be interesting to see peoples opinion on this

hmmm

that problem was solved even from ancient Greeks,
the creation of major and municipal democracy and the creation of a state democracy,

the problem today that we don't understand is that democracy is the solution when a problem is over,
and not to create problems,
for example Piedmont had joined italy by democracy or by force?
Piedmont feels italian or not,

democracy is about to join groups and to split groups,

so we must a system that either is small autonono societies, or a bigger that contains small autonomo and bigger united,

that system could be EU,
if we have 3-4 rulers,
like a small of municipal, a bigger of province, and a bigger of country and a bigger of EU,

Democracy is not a pacifist political system
democracy is a political system that must create fear to rulers and not to mazes
so not to corrupted and rule the people wise,

democracy is about laws everyday life justice education etc
 
Mono-culture is a uniform society:
standardized education
standardized language
standardized values
standardized laws
standardized code of conduct
standardized historical heroes
standardized traditions
standardized religion or lack of it
standardized ideology
standardized ...
More united things = better, but impossible to have everything united. Deviations are possible, but rod should be shared.
"Multiculturalism" have a right on existing in sense that minorities build a common culture or attached to one of "basic" nation. "Multiculturalism" where everything is different and everyone for themselves is utopia, united state simply can't exist in such terms.


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



@Anton

I agree with you on most points!
I wouldn't see the USA as less cultured than other European countries. Mass-production and commercial culture is -as the name already says- also culture and has it's roots in business-minded Calvinist/Baptist/Puritan thoughts, which got started in Europe and were further developed in America.
I've been to the US three times as a teen, and I experienced a lot more culture than what I've ever seen in Germany. Even though a lot was commercialized (e.g. Thanksgiving, Halloween, Prom-Night, Rodeos, Sportgames, Fast Food diners), Germany doesn't even have a distinct culture as such. The reason is also partly strategical deconstruction of German culture after WWII due to it's bad reputation.


Back to the main question, which was what is ethnicity?

You said, ethnicity is comprised of 10% DNA, 20% race and 70% culture. Well, I don't walk around with a mobile laboratory, cranial ruler and nursery rhyme questionaire when asking about the ethnicity of my conversation partner.
Last year we had an incident on German media when a woman from East Germany got a job refusal in West Germany because of her origin and wanted to sue the potential employer of 'ethnic discrimination', which would mean after 40 years of division East Germans have become an own ethnicity. Some posters in this forum would argue that she would still belong to a distinct German ethnicity, if her father carries haplogroup R1b or R1a or I1. My (German) dictionary says, an ethnicity is a group of people in which a certain culture is practiced in... mmh :unsure:

It get's even more confusing when the same people start to loose their own consistency. I always remember Samual Huntington with his book "The Clash of Cultures" in which he devided the World cultures into "Western Culture", "Islamic Culture", "Japanese Culture" or "African Culture" etc.... It would be like saying:

He is black, has thick lips and curly hair ---> therefore he is of African ethnicity

He looks Asian and speaks Japanese ---> therefore he is of Japanese ethnicity

He believes in Allah and is darker skinned ---> therefore he is of Arab ethnicity

He has Ashkenazi ancestors and haplogroup J1 ---> therefore he is of Jewish ethnicity

He was born and raised in Brazil and speaks Portuguese ---> therefore he is of LatAm ethnicity

As you can see, all those comparisons make no sense and it's like asking for apples and getting pears as reply.

My own conclusion is that most people have their very own constructions and categorize people after many criteria. These are partly conscious, partly unconscious emotional and kognitive constructs to simplify the vast flood of imformation we are receiving daily. If these categories apply to a huge number of people, like groups of populations, we simply call them: ethnicities! :LOL:


have ever abroad germany?

I will give in a video what is Anton saying
and you are saying.


so we are all same no africa no arab no latin
WE EAT ALL BURGERS
AND DRINK COLA
AND LISTEN BEYONCE or Heavymetal
WE ALL LIVE IN AMERICA

the alternate,


the october fest in greece making raki-tsipoyro-tsikoydia
a fair of drunken people all day.

THAT IS SOMETHINK YOU NEVER LIVE WITH OUT ETHNICITY
the laws of our father
No ethnicity it is like Munchen October fest with cola and burgers
no beer no wurst

they even make tourism an industry and many times I travel with agency I wonder if I really met the other people;s ethnicity,
 
have ever abroad germany?

I guess so!

THAT IS SOMETHINK YOU NEVER LIVE WITH OUT ETHNICITY
the laws of our father
No ethnicity it is like Munchen October fest with cola and burgers
no beer no wurst

they even make tourism an industry and many times I travel with agency I wonder if I really met the other people;s ethnicity,

It depends on your definition of the word 'culture'. Of course, if your definition says that it needs to be developed by an ethnicity [which we btw just discussed here, is in itself hard to define!], then people in the USA lost all their culture and didn't develope any new culture from the start from which they lost their ethnic bounds to Europe. A lot of Americans, especially in the South, can't tell which ethnicity they actually belong to, and simply refer to themselves as 'Americans', see here:


In that case you would have to say that Country Music is no real music, because it wasn't developed by a certain ethnicity. Sqaure Dance is no real dance, because it wasn't devloped by an ethnicity. The 'Star-Sprangled Banner' is no real anthem, 'Yankee Doodle' is no nursery rhyme, jeans are no cloths, BBQ-Sauce is no sauce, Louisiana shrimp stew is no serious meal etc...

Germany is not a good example, because it really is the least cultured nation of Europe. Not that it doesn't show any culture, but the specific identity is widely gone, especially in Northern Germany, it is somewhat different in, for example, Bavaria.
There is no folk dance when you go to Northern German feast. Traditional meals, except for fast food like Bratwurst, are usually avoided. There is not a single song except for one nursery rhyme ("Alle meine Entchen"), all Germans from all parts and from young to old could sing etc...
So I think it's more than hypocritical of Rammstein to accuse Americans of having no culture. BTW, where did they actually think their kind of music was invented? :unsure:
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 18248 times.

Back
Top