Race Is More Important Than Ethnicity

[Defiance]

I've heard from a number of people who seem to view the concept of national identity in high regard - much more so than race, in fact.

Let me put it bluntly: Race is more important than nationality. One's ethnicity - or nationality, whatever you want to call it - is a fluid, dynamic concept that is subject to any number of influences that can and will change it at any time, perhaps radically. It is utterly arbitrary.

Allow me to give you an example, in the form of a simple question: When did any given ethnicity begin to exist? Was it the moment that humans set foot in that land? Upon creation of the language native to that region? Somewhere in between? Having lived in America my whole life, am I even "French" anymore, by any means, or not? When did the French become French anyway? Like every other people on earth they're nothing but a composite of previous groups - in this case Celts, Romans, Franks and God knows who else. So at which point did this mixture of people cease to simply be a mixture of Celts, Romans, Franks and God knows who else and become the French? When a country is divided up between surrounding lands, does the ethnicity of its residents change accordingly in tandem with its new identity? If it's not blood, then is ethnicity determined by location, language, culture, or some combination thereof? If I moved to Sweden and learned Swedish, would I then be Swedish? If I spoke Mandarin in China, would I be Chinese?

Make no mistake about it: as a preservationist I'm all for ethnic pride in moderation. I see nothing wrong with this particular element of biodiversity. However, it must be said that it would be quite the mistake to take national identity too seriously - for the simple fact that it means little. It is an arbitrary, ever-changing paradigm. Race, on the other hand, is irrefutably much more static and consistent. Two White people will always breed White children; two Australoids will always breed Australoids. They can move to any continent on Earth, they can speak any language or celebrate any holiday they wish, but their genes will remain the same. This biological reality will not change.

If you care little for the subject of race, that's quite fine with me. But personally I find it perplexing that one would totally disregard genetics while tenaciously defining themselves by their location and language.

[Profileid]

stfu

[Defiance]

stfu

Is that supposed to be an argument? Try a bit harder, will you.

By the way, what's the deal with guests apparently viewing my threads the very moment I post them? I hit the button to start the thread, and there are already a couple of people here. Pretty weird.....

[Shah-Jehan]

Most ethnic groups form genetic clusters, and are genetically different from other ethnic groups of the supposed "race", e.g. a Japanese guy from Sapporo would be distinct genetically from a Han Chinese guy from Kunming or a German from Munchen, with that of a Englishman from Birmingham. These differences in biology, along with culture, language and shared history of inhabiting one particular land defines their ethnic group.

Also, there's only a solid understand of "race" in mostly the Americas, Europe, and other parts of New world. Much of Asia, Africa etc either have very loose understanding of "race" or have no concept in their cultures at all.

[Defiance]

Most ethnic groups form genetic clusters, and are genetically different from other ethnic groups of the supposed "race", e.g. a Japanese guy from Sapporo would be distinct genetically from a Han Chinese guy from Kunming or a German from Munchen, with that of a Englishman from Birmingham. These differences in biology, along with culture, language and shared history of inhabiting one particular land defines their ethnic group.

Also, there's only a solid understand of "race" in mostly the Americas, Europe, and other parts of New world. Much of Asia, Africa etc either have very loose understanding of "race" or have no concept in their cultures at all.

Ethnicity indeed is relevant; it's just too inconsistent and arbitrary to be that relevant.

Whether or not one ascribes to the concept of race doesn't matter one whit. It is what it is.

[Profileid]

Is that supposed to be an argument? Try a bit harder, will you.

By the way, what's the deal with guests apparently viewing my threads the very moment I post them? I hit the button to start the thread, and there are already a couple of people here. Pretty weird.....

This is a high traffic forum.
Or maybe they just liek u

[Peterski]

Question to the OP: more important for what, and in which settings?

a Japanese guy from Sapporo would be distinct genetically from a Han Chinese guy from Kunming

But still much closer than two people of different races from Sapporo.

[Defiance]

Question to the OP: more important for what, and in which settings?

That's a tough question, as it's rather vague and open-ended.

More important for me, at least. Certainly as far as breeding is concerned.

[Shah-Jehan]

Question to the OP: more important for what, and in which settings?



But still much closer than two people of different races from Sapporo.

Yeah, but that other guy wouldn't be a Nihonjin anymore, I'm specifically talking about a "Japanese guy from Sapporo".

Nationality is mostly citizenship/place of birth, but ethnicity is more complex.

[Peterski]

More important for me, at least. Certainly as far as breeding is concerned.

So for example if you have these two marriage options:

1) A woman of your favourite racial background, immigrant to the USA, unfamiliar with US culture, with a foreign accent and poor English skills

2) A woman of another racial background, native US-born, familiar with American culture, with no foreign accent and with perfect English skills

Which one would you more likely prefer to marry ???