| From: | chimerae@***.ie chimerae@***.ie |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Spirit of the land and it's people |
| Date: | Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:02:24 +0100 |
but this whole thread has been annoying the pants off me.
And thus did arcady@***.net on 15 Jul 99, at 16:41 speak:
> Yes it is. But it is also homogenous in relation to external regions. And
> adding the 'just' in there takes things out of context. Otherwise yes, if
> an Apache and an Inuit where in a conflict it would make sense to say you
> had two Native Americans in a conflict.
What you're saying is that to the average observer they might seem
that way. Doesn't make it true though. Terms like Native American,
European, and Asian to describe all the different cultural groups
living in a certain area only makes sense if you want to talk only
about the physical similarities, which I don't think have any
relevance in this discussion.
> So then you're saying an Apache is more like an Aboriginee than a
> Frenchman is like an Englishman?
Physically or culturally? I have the feeling that you are mixing up
two different characteristics here. Something can be said for Apaches
having a culture that is as similar to the Aborigine as the French
culture is to the English. You can find similarities but they end
once you go below the surface.
> Viewed externally Europeans are all very similar to each other. Just as
> viewed externally North American Indians are all very similar. At least in
> relation to how they compare to other groups outside their region. There
> are, like it or not; logical groupings that different ethnicities can fall
> under. If you can't see that a Frenchman, a Russian, a Englishman, a
> Kosovar, and a Romanian all have certain common elements that define them
> both physically and culturally then you're definately not living in the
> real world.
Bollocks, you might be able to group north-western Europeans into one
cultural group if you're willing to move back far enough, but to
group Romanians with Englishmen doesn't make any sense whatsoever
(even less if you mention that to the people involved, although the
Englishman might be more offended if you call him frenchie).
The rough definition of a culture is a group of people who have a
common belief system, art, historical background, customs and
conventions (I'm bound to forget a few, but it has been a few years).
Apply that to your four groups mentioned above and it will show you
that you might as well add e.g. Brazilians to the list, because it
will fit right in with your definition.
> Those elements may be very diverse. But in relation to how similar they
> are to a Ugandan or an Incan or an Inuit they are very similar.
The whole comparison doesn't make any sense in the first place,
because it involves more a difference in race than culture.
Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
