Regional, National and Cultural Identity!

[Dazey]

Half Swedish/half Iranian? Half Swedish from my kids side and half Iranian from the Iranian immigrants kid. You get 50/50 from each side, you know?

Edit: I misread what you said. The kid would be all Swedish. There would be 100% Swedish origin.

Edit 2: I mean, how hard is it to understand what I mean? You may disagree with what I am saying all you want, obviously you do and so does the majority of the people out there, but there's no logic flaws in it and it's very easy to define. I know you're a smart guy, Dazey, don't pretend not to understand what I mean.

Oh I understand where you're coming from, I'm just trying to determine where people would say the cut off point is. I mean to me a cultural identity is defined by more than either your ethnicity or your country of birth. I mean what I'm trying to say is that no matter what your genetic background you can't help but assimilate elements of your host culture. My example was basically saying that to me I can understand how a child to immigrant parents could still be considered in the main a part of their parent's culture but that's why I asked about subsequent generations. I mean how many generations does it take to be accepted as part of another culture?

To me the second example was citing somebody who was born in a country and whose parents, though their parents were immigrants, were also born in that country. I don't think those kids could be considered 100% Swedish cos they've had no first hand experience of Swedish culture and nor have their parents. I mean look at Lenny (not for too long though, you'll have nightmares ), to me he's as English as anybody cos he's basically a product of our culture with a few extra bells and whistles and I think that to me nationality is more to do with acceptance of and integration with your host culture than it is to do with ancestry or skin colour. I think we're in agreement on some aspects cos I know your problem is with the refusal of people to integrate and I think you've got a point there but I'm wary of tarring everybody with the same brush. I mean one size doesn't fit all if you know what I mean?

Edited June 29, 2012 by Dazey

[st0n3r]

A Sweden with a population of 60% fully integrated non-swedes is not Sweden anymore. I think we can all agree on that. We should avoid this happening to our European countries at all cost.

Edited June 29, 2012 by st0n3r

[rock4eva]

Don't agree with that, Mum is English together with her family & Dad was Australian to Australian born family.

I was born in Australia which makes me Australian, not half English as I only spent a couple of months of my life in the UK.

You would still be half English. You can't escape from your origin. I am one forth Norwegian, but I call myself Swedish, for the same reasons as you do. But I am still partly Norwegian.

Yeah agree my origins are from England but I don't have any rights there to work, hold an English passport & I am an Australian citizen. Therefore I am Australian with origins in the UK.

I do see your point though as I married a New Zealander & considered my children as half Aust/NZ - but don't see it in myself.

[Dazey]

My origins are from England but I don't have any rights there to work or hold an English passport.

You actually do on boths counts, though fuck knows why you'd want to!

[rock4eva]

My origins are from England but I don't have any rights there to work or hold an English passport.

You actually do on boths counts, though fuck knows why you'd want to!

I thought there were age limits to work in England.

Yeah, why would I want an English passport? I have nothing to gain from it, once upon a time it was safer to hold an Australian passport but these days we are considered as much "infidels" as the Americans & the English.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Sorry, I didn't read your full post, I was doing some other stuff at the same time and only read the first line.

But I think Stoner answered it good.

Well not really because he's essentially saying that i should be defined exactly the same as people that are raised exposed to a different culture in a different continent to me, miles away. Don't get me wrong here, i ain't asking or even alluding to the notion that i should be considered English, i'm just saying i can't be considered Pakistani or Kashmiri either, so what am i? (apart from a cunt Dazey )

Y'know what? I think i'll have that actually, next time someone asks me i'm gonna say i'm a Cunt. A Cunt from Cuntistan that speaks Cuntish. Perhaps a pink flag with a giant minge on it. With Red White and Blue elements to account for the Union Jack and Green and white to account for the Kashmiri and Pakistani flags. No! I got it, a giant minge with one flap Union Jack striped and a half Moon and star in green and white on the other flap. On second thoughts, muslims might not like that, lose the half moon and star and just leave it green and white. With my head coming out the middle And Nevermind the Bollocks emblazoned over the pelvic region, in obligatory Sex Pistols-esque ransom note lettering

Edited June 29, 2012 by sugaraylen

[Dazey]

I thought there were age limits to work in England.

Yeah, why would I want an English passport? I have nothing to gain from it, once upon a time it was safer to hold an Australian passport but these days we are considered as much "infidels" as the Americans & the English.

I may be mistaken but to the best of my knowledge you can apply for dual citizenship if you have an English parent and once you have that you can come live and work here if you want. Again, I have no idea why anybody from Oz would want to but still.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

Well, culturally you're probably just as English as the average James or whatever other common name you have in England (that would be an equivalents to average Joe or Bob or whatever they say in America ), but you'll still always be that Pakistani guy. Call yourself English if it makes you happy, but some people define things differently. I obviously do. You yourself said that you didn't feel all comfortable in calling yourself English, no?

[rock4eva]

I thought there were age limits to work in England.

Yeah, why would I want an English passport? I have nothing to gain from it, once upon a time it was safer to hold an Australian passport but these days we are considered as much "infidels" as the Americans & the English.

I may be mistaken but to the best of my knowledge you can apply for dual citizenship if you have an English parent and once you have that you can come live and work here if you want. Again, I have no idea why anybody from Oz would want to but still.

No you might be right.

England is nice but a tad too cold, however I'd like to meet Noddy Holder before I die. Wonder if getting a British passport will shorten the flight between us

[Dazey]

Well, culturally you're probably just as English as the average James or whatever other common name you have in England (that would be an equivalents to average Joe or Bob or whatever they say in America ), but you'll still always be that Pakistani guy. Call yourself English if it makes you happy, but some people define things differently. I obviously do.

Well that's absolutely the point of this thread. I'm trying to determine how people make these distinctions and based on what criteria.

[Ketan]

I define someone's nationality from their origin.

Most researchers agree that mankind spread out of Africa starting about 50,000 years ago,

Read Article

going by your logic we are all Africans. i dont think it's right to define somone's nationality like that.. if someone's grand parents had migrated to America from Sweden to settle down in the early 20th centuary, would you still call him a Swedish national even if he has never been to Sweden?

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

I gave a quite straight answer.

I define someone's nationality from their origin.

Most researchers agree that mankind spread out of Africa starting about 50,000 years ago,

Read Article

going by your logic we are all Africans. i dont think it's right to define somone's nationality like that.. if someone's grand parents had migrated to America from Sweden to settle down in the early 20th centuary, would you still call him a Swedish national even if he has never been to Sweden?

Going by your logic we aren't humans, we're monkeys.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Well, culturally you're probably just as English as the average James or whatever other common name you have in England (that would be an equivalents to average Joe or Bob or whatever they say in America ), but you'll still always be that Pakistani guy. Call yourself English if it makes you happy, but some people define things differently. I obviously do. You yourself said that you didn't feel all comfortable in calling yourself English, no?

Damn right, yeah, i'll always be that Pakistani guy but what i'm saying is that thats not accurate...and neither is English. So that leaves me in a curious position, no? And quite frankly, i don't really wannabe a part of either culture either, or nationality or ethnicity, i mean, why would i, why would you want to be accepted somewhere where you're not readily welcomed?

The point i'm trying to make is certain people defy accurate definition when it comes to nationality. You can't seriously call me an Englishman anymore than you can a Pakistani, i simply am not the complete article in terms of either. This is something that a lot of far right groups that people might define as racist say about people like me, that we are the end product of "evil" multiculturalism, these ethnically confused beings that aren't accepted anywhere and don't belong to anything and are essentially like, cultural mongrels.

I don't even fit the stereotype of people of the same parentage as me that were born here, i don't act/talk/walk/behave like them, don't have the same interests or values or anything, i pretty much grew up waaaayy outside of my own community with a bunch of white people that, bless their hearts, i'm not saying this with a grudge or nothing, they were only kids and so was i, made it VERY clear what nationality i was...constantly But then on the flipside of it, when i got expelled from my school and found myself in a community that was predominantly Pakistani it was even worse cuz of my accent and the way i talk, i was getting fucking whiteboy digs

The point of my explaining all that shit to you is to explain to you that...OK, you subscribe to a way of thinking because it is logical and practical and it bears application to reality...otherwise whats the point in it? And your notions of ethnicity and it's role in defining a person are inaccurate because they just do not bear practical application to reality because concepts of nationality and cultural behaviour effect these things. Otherwise i could slot right into the Pakistani community by virtue of my skin colour but i can't because, whether in the Pakistani communities in England or in Pakistan itself, i'm considered to be something of an oddball. An anomoly and these things inform whether or not you are accepted by a particular group. It will never be as easy as just blood.

[Ketan]

I gave a quite straight answer.

I define someone's nationality from their origin.

Most researchers agree that mankind spread out of Africa starting about 50,000 years ago,

Read Article

going by your logic we are all Africans. i dont think it's right to define somone's nationality like that.. if someone's grand parents had migrated to America from Sweden to settle down in the early 20th centuary, would you still call him a Swedish national even if he has never been to Sweden?

Going by your logic we aren't humans, we're monkeys.

i am sorry i did not quite get it. Are you disputing that humans have evolved from apes or are you calling all africans monkeys?

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

i am sorry i did not quite get it. Are you disputing that humans have evolved from apes or are you calling all africans monkeys?

The same evolutionary theory that say that we origin from Africa say that we origin from monkeys. I just took it a bit longer.

I am talking about generations, while your analogy reached 50 000 years back. Don't you see how stupid that gets?

Edit: Not to mention that they within these generations they might mate with someone native to the country, which would make their kids half of each origin. If they do it again and again and again, it will be 25%, 12,5%, etc.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Satanisk_Slakt

[DirtyDeeds]

I define someone's nationality from their origin.

Most researchers agree that mankind spread out of Africa starting about 50,000 years ago,

Read Article

going by your logic we are all Africans. i dont think it's right to define somone's nationality like that.. if someone's grand parents had migrated to America from Sweden to settle down in the early 20th centuary, would you still call him a Swedish national even if he has never been to Sweden?

I can only go by how we see things, or at least how I interpret that we see things in America. In most of America, your national origin is important, you continue the culture as much as you can within the overall American culture, and identify yourself and others as that nationality, while everyone is still American. There are some caveats to this. In the South, there is very little identifying with your national origin. Everyone is pretty much so homogeneous white people, black people, or Mexicans (which covers pretty much all Latinos/Hispanics). there are hardly any Asians in the South. Also, it seems that people who are not white or black are more likely to be identified most strongly by their family's origin than as Americans, but that's just the ethnocentrism of white people.

So, here, yes you are American, but you are also Italian, Irish, Polish, Japanese, etc.

[Johnny Drama]

I think I need a wall to bash my head against here. Everyones trying to amalgamate the concepts of ethnicity and nationality here. They are separate issues and you also can be two different things.

I think I need a wall to bash my head against here. Everyones trying to amalgamate the concepts of ethnicity and nationality here. They are separate issues and you also can be two different things.

[Ketan]

i am sorry i did not quite get it. Are you disputing that humans have evolved from apes or are you calling all africans monkeys?

The same evolutionary theory that say that we origin from Africa say that we origin from monkeys. I just took it a bit longer.

I am talking about generations, while your analogy reached 50 000 years back. Don't you see how stupid that gets?

Glad you cleared that up

i was drawing your attention to the definition of the word "origin". i agree with you that this is actually very stupid to go so far back to determine somebody's origin. which brings me back to my original point: if somebody's grand parents where from Sweden and had settled down in America, it is bizarre to call that person Swedish and not American. for all we know he would probably fit all major american stereotypes if you were to trace his lineage you would find that his grandparents were born and brought up in Sweden and probably their grand parents were born in some other country... and if we keep going back all the way we will eventually find that someone in his family had actually traveled from africa.

there.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

I added this part to my last post:

Edit: Not to mention that they within these generations they might mate with someone native to the country, which would make their kids half of each origin. If they do it again and again and again, it will be 25%, 12,5%, etc.

Also, America is obviously very special, as almost nobody there actually have origins from America. They all came from Europe and almost exterminated the native population and they brought slaves from Africa. It's not a very good example for what I'm trying to say. Take European countries instead.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Satanisk_Slakt

[Ketan]

I define someone's nationality from their origin.

Most researchers agree that mankind spread out of Africa starting about 50,000 years ago,

Read Article

going by your logic we are all Africans. i dont think it's right to define somone's nationality like that.. if someone's grand parents had migrated to America from Sweden to settle down in the early 20th centuary, would you still call him a Swedish national even if he has never been to Sweden?

I can only go by how we see things, or at least how I interpret that we see things in America. In most of America, your national origin is important, you continue the culture as much as you can within the overall American culture, and identify yourself and others as that nationality, while everyone is still American. There are some caveats to this. In the South, there is very little identifying with your national origin. Everyone is pretty much so homogeneous white people, black people, or Mexicans (which covers pretty much all Latinos/Hispanics). there are hardly any Asians in the South. Also, it seems that people who are not white or black are more likely to be identified most strongly by their family's origin than as Americans, but that's just the ethnocentrism of white people.

So, here, yes you are American, but you are also Italian, Irish, Polish, Japanese, etc.

ok i can see what you mean... but woudnt people born in America to parents from a different country be called by both nationalities? like italian-american etc? in this terminology you accept both, someone’s nationality as well as his origin and that is a totally different thing then saying that no matter where you were born and brought up if your parents were outsiders so are you.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

ok i can see what you mean... but woudnt people born in America to parents from a different country be called by both nationalities? like italian-american etc? in this terminology you accept both, someone’s nationality as well as his origin and that is a totally different thing then saying that no matter where you were born and brought up if your parents were outsiders so are you.

Doesn't a lot of Americans actually do that? They call themselves African-American, Italian-American, Irish-American, etc., etc..

[Ketan]

I added this part to my last post:

Edit: Not to mention that they within these generations they might mate with someone native to the country, which would make their kids half of each origin. If they do it again and again and again, it will be 25%, 12,5%, etc.

Also, America is obviously very special, as almost nobody there actually have origins from America. They all came from Europe and almost exterminated the native population and they brought slaves from Africa. It's not a very good example for what I'm trying to say. Take European countries instead.

hmm but what if they dont get married to the natives? in India there are many parsi (Persians who had fled to escape persecution) families who only marry among themselves but they have been living in India for generations. According to you should they be considered Persians and not Indians? i

[Guest Len B'stard]

Also, America is obviously very special, as almost nobody there actually have origins from America. They all came from Europe and almost exterminated the native population and they brought slaves from Africa. It's not a very good example for what I'm trying to say. Take European countries instead.

Thats the point though, these definitions have to be applicable to all or else they are redundant.

[Crash Diet]

Okay so I appear to have started something of a debate in Arnold's drink thread so I'll start a new one here.

How do you define yourself as regards cultural identity? As a Brit I don't think of myself as remotely European and that seems to be the case as far as my experience of most people in this country goes.

In Europe itself I'm not sure how that works though clearly you have factions like the Basques and Catalans in Spain wanting independence from their parent country and in the US Texas isn't too happy as part of the Union.

How does this shit work where you are? Are you English, French, Spanish, European? Scots/Irish/German/Californian or just plain American?

What defines you as a distinct identity?

I'm a Hungarian.

and Balcanian

and European (sometimes i feel i don't deserve to be European, because of the other fucktard Hungarians)

But my first identity: Human. Plain and simple.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Crash Diet

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

hmm but what if they dont get married to the natives? in India there are many parsi (Persians who had fled to escape persecution) families who only marry among themselves but they have been living in India for generations. According to you should they be considered Persians and not Indians? i

If they choose not to be apart of their new country, more than to live there, then yes, they would still be Persian or Iranian, whichever is more correct. They choose not to intermarry and blend in or to mix their cultures, so why shouldn't they be called something else? It's like in Sweden, up north, we have these guys that are kind of like our Indians (American Indians that is) called Sami people and they don't really have anything to do with Sweden other than that they live up there. They identify themselves as "Sami people" and they live up there by themselves, have their own culture, their own language, etc.. I see no reason for why they should be called Swedish.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Satanisk_Slakt