Do you think that "ethnic preservationism" is the same than "racial preservationism"? [Poll]

[Feral]

Differences I've noticed:

Racism emphasizes on identification through genetic distances (aka.: races) and the belief of a hierarchical order.

Ethnicism emphasizes on the ethnic (linguistic, cultural, and racial affinity) and the differences between ethnical groups.


Racist preservationism may have a ethnic factor altought this is not specified but universalized, so it promotes to preservate genetical closeness even if it may not be the same that preserve ethnic background.

Ethnic preservationism, even though it may not left behind the racial factor neither it make it the principal concern, so it promotes to preservate a context made from ethnic values (primarily culture).

[Mortimer]

i agree, well written. but i dont lean towards either. i lean towards a modern globalist multi-cultural world

[Methmatician]

The word is 'racial' not 'racist'.

[Feral]

The word is 'racial' not 'racist'.

I was about to make this thread using the word "racial" instead of "ethnical", but "racialistic" postures often come the idea of racial supremacism so the more proper term to be applied, at least in this thread, would be ''ethnical''.

[Insuperable]

There is no ethnic preservation without racial and vice versa. Sounds funny, but there is not.
I lean more towards racial preservation.

[Feral]

I lean to an ethnic preservationism posture with a reasonable degree of tolerance towards non-disruptional influences.

Ethnicity is more important than race. But this doesn't mean that race isn't important, it just mean that race isn't all.

I've noticed that race identification tends to be more emphasized in America than in Europe (which leans more towards ethnicity)

The universalization of an ethnic background has been accentuated outside Europe. That is to say: an universal pseudo-ethnicity based on closeness, a modern posture derivated from european culture but that isn't equal to it.

This posture leads to have to make a choice if you have a multi-ethnic background. People often choice their predominant compound, although some may chose the one who they feel more connect to. In rare cases, it may exist the possibility for selfdetermination - which depends on the context.

But the more important value of this compounds is culture:
You may be an german-french living in the USA. Even if you are inside a minority group that preservates it self and makes an influence unto a local culture, you'll still be on an not corresponding culture. The only way to stay german is to stay in Germany, and the only way to stay french is to stay in France. The proper thing to do if you want to preserve culture is to chose to live in the proper context.

Of course nowadays Europe has severe problems, but this is another topic to discuss.

[CrystalMaiden]

In my case, yes

[Sblast]

None. To me concepts like "ethnic values" are nonexistent.
I have personal values that are shaped by many factors, including my background but they may not be ethnic in any nontrivial sense.

[Feral]

I sincerely hope that before you die, you manage to understand how irrelevant you are as an individual.

Tell the same about them:

http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/~physics...tenlistweb.pdf




A common individual is a product of his context. An exceptional individual is the product of himself/herself with the resources given by that context.

I've an hollistic or correlational vision in this matter, so for me the colective is as important as the individual.

[Methusalem]

None of them.