LOL she's smart.

Wow, Menu, if I was one of those Westerners(whose history and culture has been ignored btw), I would be embarrassed listening to you, like how I was embarrassed when William Hung was on the American Idol.

Edited by King Kang of Mu - 16-Sep-2008 at 19:57

Originally posted by King Kang of Mu Wow, Menu, if I was one of those Westerners(whose history and culture has been ignored btw), I would be embarrassed listening to you, like how I was embarrassed when William Hung was on the American Idol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qkas9mlMgE

Don't be; it's a healthy sign when a person doesn't take himself too seriously. Personally I admire William Hung for his guts. If we're going to be ashamed of anyone, we should be ashamed of those who are so insecure of themselves that they can't open up and dare to be a little silly now and then.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim What you may notice though, and which annoys me personally as well, are the double standards applied to modern people based on what their ancestors did. So you'll find that in America a Black person can talk about how he/she is proud of her "Black" or African-American heritage and harvest some acclaim for it, while as a White person you won't garner much credit by declaring how proud you are of your "White" or European-American (if you will) heritage. Either both parties should be able to express themselves this way or neither should, you can't discriminate against modern people based on what their great-great-grandparents may have been involved in. Yep your right, I'll tell you why though. North European cultures don't have a strong family connection, or a strong connection to history. It is an indiviualistic culture, where a son is a separate and independent person from the father, who wants a separate life and to make his own mistakes or successes. Most other cultures* have strong ties to their history and family. They are cooperative rather than individualistic, and keep track of family history. The first group wash themselves of their ancestors history - responsibility died with that generation - and can't understand why they are blamed for it. The second group hold tight to their ancestors history and seek to avenge or make ammends for it in their lifetimes. So in your example the "whites" let pride in their history slip them by, while the "blacks" take their pride and expand it. *all of Asia, North & subsaharen africa at least. South Europe is a blend.

Sorry but that's just nonesense.

I fail to see how an African American is somehow any more or less individualistic than a "white" American. Your hypothesis also ignores the fact that by the third generation after immigration most people in the US are thoroughly immersed in American culture and behave in a manner highly similar to the European ethnic core of the USA.

The idea that "white" people are somehow more willfully ignorant of their history and fail to learn from it, that they are somehow so irresponsible that they just "wash their hands of it" is just another attempt at stereotyping "white" people. If anything, "white" people have some of the most extensive knowledge of their geneologies of any people on the planet - thanks to a generally superior standard of education, higher rate of urbanisation and a higher level of record keeping over the past several centuries.

I can trace my mother's maiden name back to a geographical feature in her English village going back 800 years, and my father's surname to German career soldiers going back 700. The most extensive geneological studies on the web today usually concern Europeans or their colonial descendents.

Trying to depict Europeans and their colonial descendents as somehow willfully ignorant and apathetic of their geneology flies in the face of a vast amount of evidence. It reminds of the discussion where you tried to depict Australians are somehow more secretly hateful and paranoid of other peoples on a pathological level, yet when your hypothesis was subjected to closer examination you were not able to demonstrate how Australian xenophobia was in any way substantially different than that of other people on the planet (except the fact we both acknowledged that Aussie's anxieties and fears of other people are generally more prone to easily subside after a small amount of exposure to said peoples).

I will agree that "whites" (I would prefer the term Westerners) are more individualistic than most other cultures. But claiming this results in willful ignorance and irresponsibility is again pure supposition. And it contradicts the evidence that so many Westerners are acutely aware of their geneology and history. The vast amount of record keeping and archiving has also preserved so much of this, where as many other cultures on the planet lose track of their history and geneology when key knowledge holders in the family die without passing on that information or recording it.


Edited by Constantine XI - 20-Sep-2008 at 11:57

I fail to see how an African American is somehow any more or less individualistic than a "white" American. Your hypothesis also ignores the fact that by the third generation after immigration most people in the US are thoroughly immersed in American culture and behave in a manner highly similar to the European ethnic core of the USA.

Yet often maintain surprisingly different values. Besides, African American behavior is better modelled by what Reginmund said in the last post.

The idea that "white" people are somehow more willfully ignorant of their history and fail to learn from it, that they are somehow so irresponsible that they just "wash their hands of it" is just another attempt at stereotyping "white" people. If anything, "white" people have some of the most extensive knowledge of their geneologies of any people on the planet - thanks to a generally superior standard of education, higher rate of urbanisation and a higher level of record keeping over the past several centuries.

I am talking about cultural trends, not individual people. I am not implying any irresponsibility, or superiority of either. If you read that then you have misunderstood what I am saying. It is a cultural characteristic of North Europeans (not westerners) to be less attached to their history than another culture is attached to theirs. I am not saying that this isn't a characteristic partly caused by other factors such as wealth, it may well be, but at this time in these circumstances it is true.
Both the bad AND the good are less valued. It is highly unlikely that, for example, a NE culture will try to resurrect a country (Israel) that hasn't existed for over 2500 years as the Jewish people have done (accepting that the Jews have the opposite cultural extreme).

This characteristic in many respects is a good thing. It means that it was possible to radically change the culture (for the better) in a small period of time. From exclusiveness to inclusiveness in one generation.

I can trace my mother's maiden name back to a geographical feature in her English village going back 800 years, and my father's surname to German career soldiers going back 700. The most extensive geneological studies on the web today usually concern Europeans or their colonial descendents.

Congratulations. That's irrelevent. I'm not saying Northern Europe doesn't have historians.
FYI, My ancestors are in the old testament, and I can trace my Scottish ancestory back 800 years as well.

Trying to depict Europeans and their colonial descendents as somehow willfully ignorant and apathetic of their geneology flies in the face of a vast amount of evidence. It reminds of the discussion where you tried to depict Australians are somehow more secretly hateful and paranoid of other peoples on a pathological level, yet when your hypothesis was subjected to closer examination you were not able to demonstrate how Australian xenophobia was in any way substantially different than that of other people on the planet (except the fact we both acknowledged that Aussie's anxieties and fears of other people are generally more prone to easily subside after a small amount of exposure to said peoples).

Which was another thread where you totally misunderstood what I was saying, and I explained as much to you in the thread - I had thought you understood what I was actually saying by the end of it. The exact opposite to your claim above. But if you want to restart that discussion lets continue in the other thread.

Originally posted by Reginmund Must it be one or the other? It should be possible to have a strong emotional connection to your history and family without letting either decide your own course in life, it should also be possible to be proud of your ancestors without necessarily condoning their every act. In fact I think most people, regardless of culture, will find themselves somewhere between the two extremes you laid out.

Ideally your right. I'm only commenting on trends.

This isn't the only reason though. Europeans have throughout what is defined as European history been an expansive force in the world, perhaps especially these last 500 years and following the industrial revolution in particular. There is hardly a single culture or ethnicity on the planet that hasn't had its toes stepped on by the Europeans at some point, so that when a European or European-descended person says "I am proud of my heritage" what non-Westerners hear is "I am proud of how my ancestors exploited your people". While when an African-American says "I am proud of my heritage" it is implicit that he/she is proud of it in spite of what they suffered, and so it becomes an act of courage, like a gay person coming out of the closet, while when Europeans say the same it's perceived more like gloating.

Yep, I totally agree. Europeans don't need to talk about the positive aspects of their history, because they have won over so completely that they are accepted implicitly. Many other people will then talk up their ancestors achievements in order to differentiate themselves, and get credit for advances often considered European.

Yes, good points from JanusRook. Even though the trends Omar points to are more or less prevalent, they are not a defining feature of North European history until modern times. The industrial revolution played an important part in particular, as industrial workers were far more independent from their family unit than farmers, traders or craftsmen, all of whom usually ran their businesses as family enterprises.

Funny, 'cause from my experience at work or at school, Westerners of European descent are quite compatible with eachother as a team. Whereas I feel it's the Asians that are more individualistic.


Edited by babyblue - 22-Sep-2008 at 11:57