what does the term "white culture" mean to you?

[Sniper Noob]

So then why can't there be white culture by the same rules?  What's your objection?  Why even bother raising the point that white people growing up in certain areas have a different experience than white people growing up elsewhere?  It seems like you have a bit of a double standard going on.  You're recognizing indian culture as indian even when it is not unified, but refusing to apply the same standard to white people. 

 

Or are you also saying that there is no indian culture, because indian culture isn't unified?  At least that would be consistant.

 

I think the major difference is that all Indian people, by definition, live in India, a single country. White people pretty much live all over the world, so I think that's why one makes more sense than the other.

 

Obviously, even within India there are many different cultures, but I think it's reasonable to say it's more likely that 2 random Indian people are more similar in culture than 2 random white people.

[puddingkip]

So then why can't there be white culture by the same rules? What's your objection? Why even bother raising the point that white people growing up in certain areas have a different experience than white people growing up elsewhere? It seems like you have a bit of a double standard going on. You're recognizing indian culture as indian even when it is not unified, but refusing to apply the same standard to white people.

 

Or are you also saying that there is no indian culture, because indian culture isn't unified? At least that would be consistant.

You do not get my point, do you?

 

There is not a single, unified white culture. Just like there is not a single, unified Indian culture. There are many, many different cultures. And Dutch culture is a thing, just like Hungarian and Serbian culture are. And Punjabi and Rajastani culture. But national borders are not the only limits to culture. There's Burgundian culture, which spreads over country borders. It's a thing in parts of the Netherlands and parts of Belgium and parts of France. Then there's pretty big differences between cities. The Hague has a much more Hindustani and Indo character than Rotterdam, which has more Antillian and Moroccan influences. This leads to the fact that somebody raised in The Hague has a different culture than somebody raised in Rotterdam, despite the cities being only 20 odd km apart. And the dialects... Don't even get me started. I was born and raised in Delft, a city between Rotterdam and The Hague. Yet if somebody with a strong accent from either city would talk to me I'd only understand half of what they're saying.

 

My point being: you can't classify culture on national borders, much less so racial ones. My grandmother grew up in Dutch-India. She, throughout her life, had a very distinct Indian cultural background, although she had spent the last 70 odd years of her life in the Netherlands. But racially, she wasn't Indonesian. She was Frisian/Dutch.

 

I think the major difference is that all Indian people, by definition, live in India, a single country. White people pretty much live all over the world, so I think that's why one makes more sense than the other.

 

Obviously, even within India there are many different cultures, but I think it's reasonable to say it's more likely that 2 random Indian people are more similar in culture than 2 random white people.

Would they? If you have a different religion, a different language and completely different looks. I'd say I'm closer to the average American in culture than a Hindu Bengali is to a Muslim from Rajastan. Keep in mind, India has only been one country for 65ish years, with great regional autonomy

[Heated Bread]

You do not get my point, do you?

 

There is not a single, unified white culture. Just like there is not a single, unified Indian culture. There are many, many different cultures. And Dutch culture is a thing, just like Hungarian and Serbian culture are. And Punjabi and Rajastani culture.

 

Well at least that's consistant.  White people have culture, as indian people have culture.  The only thing you're objecting to is the blanket term "white culture" or "indian culture" purely on the basis of a lack of overall uniformity.  That's fine by me.  You're basically just arguing semantics.  IMO, that's the best kind of argument.  lol. I don't really see a problem here.

 

I think the major difference is that all Indian people, by definition, live in India, a single country. White people pretty much live all over the world, so I think that's why one makes more sense than the other.

 

No they don't.  There are large indian populations in Canada, the US, the U.K., Australia, China, etc...

[Heated Bread]

There is no such thing as race, in the sense that race is a social construct.

"Black culture" doesn't exist either, it's just that Americans are incredibly short sighted and think african-american = all black people.

Saying all white people don't look the same is such a laughably redundant statement like... no shit bro? Asian people from different countries look different too, shocking!

I'm gonna take a wild guess that you're American, because once again... no, most people don't think of white as exclusively anglo-saxon.

 

A consequence of believing that race is a social construct is that if I change my skin color and other features, I'm now a member of a different race so long as my transformation is convincing enough.  It also means that I can't be guilty of the sin of "cultural appropriation" because that races culture is now mine, again, as long as I look convincing enough.  Would you agree?

 

 

Remember her?  Do you object to what she did and is still doing, or are you fine with it?  I'm really curious what your thoughts are on this.

 

Black culture also usually reffers to culture of black affricans living in the united states, not all dark skinned people worldwide.

 

As an aside, I personally think the idea of cultural appropriation is nonsense.  I don't see anything bad about adopting elements of another culture, and I don't think it is oppressive in any way.  However, I do think it is nonsense to change your appearance and claim that you are black when you were born white.  Should we now divide racial identity between birth and the way someone chooses to identify, the same way feminists pushed for the division of gender identity from the actual physical sex of a person?  Can a person be "trans racial" like they can be "trans gender"?  I'm just looking for your thoughts on this, as someone who appears to have adopted social justice views.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

You have an incredibly shallow understanding of what a social construct is and what that means in this context. That's not really the point of this thread though.

[Heated Bread]

You have an incredibly shallow understanding of what a social construct is and what that means in this context. That's not really the point of this thread though.

So you're declining to answer.  I guess I'm not surprised.  Oh well.  I disagree with your apparent reason for refusing to respond to my questions (I think you're saying it is too far off topic, right?), and I do think it's relevant to the topic, but if you don't want to respond, then I can't force you to.

[Professional Map Painter]

http://www.eu4wiki.com/Culture#List_of_culture_groups

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Culture#List_of_Cultures

 

Anglo-Saxon culture is not the same as English culture or even "white culture". Are the Spanish still called Visigoths? No. It's like the Norman conquest never occurred. Quite a few of the settlers over in America were Scots-Irish anyways.

 

I'm pretty sure 99% of people who use the term "black culture" are only referring to African Americans and don't realise that their African cousins still exist.