What do you consider to be a more important part of your identity: race/ethnicity or language?

[Tooting Carmen]

Anyone can learn a language. You can't learn genes.

But genetics aside, who would you ultimately feel more kinship towards? A Norwegian or Japanese who converted to Islam and spoke fluent Arabic, or the descendant of a Syrian or Saudi immigrant somewhere who spoke not a word of Arabic and had absolutely no knowledge or interest in the cultures of the Arab world?

[Damião de Góis]

Ethnicity and language are usually the same. At least in Europe.

[Tooting Carmen]

Ethnicity and language are usually the same. At least in Europe.

In most cases yes, but then what about Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland etc?

[randomguy1235]

But genetics aside, who would you ultimately feel more kinship towards? A Norwegian or Japanese who converted to Islam and spoke fluent Arabic, or the descendant of a Syrian or Saudi immigrant somewhere who spoke not a word of Arabic and had absolutely no knowledge or interest in the cultures of the Arab world?

Syrian. Religion is irrelevant to me frankly, and I don't feel a sense of solidarity with other members of the same religion necessarily.

[Damião de Góis]

In most cases yes, but then what about Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland etc?

You would have to ask them on how they identify.

[Tooting Carmen]

Syrian. Religion is irrelevant to me frankly, and I don't feel a sense of solidarity with other members of the same religion necessarily.

But just because you may be genetically much closer to, say, a Syrian-American than to an Anglo-American or a German-American, Korean-American, Mexican-American, African-American etc, that doesn't guarantee that they'd have any real sense of cultural or linguistic affinity to their origins, or at least not to the same degree that you would.

[Leto]

Ethnicity and language are usually the same. At least in Europe.

Not now. Nowadays people of non-European or partially non-European background are considered to be part of European nations.

[Tooting Carmen]

Not now. Nowadays people of non-European or partially non-European background are considered to be part of European nations.

Quite apart from the crucial exceptions I already mentioned in my response to him.

[Leto]

But just because you may be genetically much closer to, say, a Syrian-American than to an Anglo-American or a German-American, Korean-American, Mexican-American, African-American etc, that doesn't guarantee that they'd have any real sense of cultural or linguistic affinity to their origins, or at least not to the same degree that you would.

You have a point. I remember a documentary about Asian Americans, a Japanese-American historian said members of his community were considered to be "perpetual foreigners", despite having been born in the US (he is a 3rd generation American himself). But when he came to Japan, he was perceived as an outsider as well. He said he might have looked Japanese, but he didn't speak the language and thus was different from the locals.

[Tooting Carmen]

It's too bad Sicilian and Greek aren't official and both spoken by most people.

So how come you haven't learnt either of them yourself?