# Is there a word for this? Some form of patriot.



## Layzie

I stumbled upon an interesting question today. What would you call a child of immigrant parents that has more pride in his parents' country than the country he was born in?


----------



## ronanpoirier

A child who is proud of his/her origins! 

Sorry I can't think of a word. Not even in Portuguese.


----------



## vince

Haha I have studied this subject in depth for a while since it relates to multiculturalism. But I have yet to see a term in the field.

I have a few derogative names for this type of person:
"Multicultural Canadian" (multiculturalists happily call this person a Chinese-Canadian, but the person calls her/himself Chinese only)
"child of multiculturalism"
"Canadian-born Chinese/Indian/Russian" (i.e. born in Canada, Canadian "only" by citizenship, and is therefore Chinese/Indian/Russian)

I think the Canadian government, in its efforts to encourage Canadians to maintain their "cultural roots" (i.e. Canadian multiculturalism), is indirectly fostering such attitudes.

What I find often happens is that children grow up relatively indifferent to different cultures, happily accepting the culture of their birth as their own. But as they hit adolescence, many have a crisis of identity and become close-minded, and start to associate with a certain culture often not because of their merits, but because of their race/ethnic group. They become enamored with their parents' culture and country and their group of friends narrows to a monochrome one.

"Look at the color of your skin, you are Chinese! The only Canadians are Native Americans"


----------



## ronanpoirier

So I am a Brazilian-born Portuguese/German/Czech/French :-O


----------



## modus.irrealis

I'd suggest traitor .

But seriously, I don't think I've come across such a term, although I have met a few people like that.



			
				vince said:
			
		

> I have a few derogative names for this type of person:
> "Multicultural Canadian" (multiculturalists happily call this person a Chinese-Canadian, but the person calls her/himself Chinese only)
> "child of multiculturalism"


You think "multicultural" and related terms are derogatory?  Multiculturalism is one of Canada's best features in my opinion and nobody is prouder to be Canadian than me (not to say that there are not a lot of people who are equally proud).


----------



## vince

Traitor if they actually have more LOYALTY to that country than to Canada.

Multiculturalism leads to racism.

People keep their "own" culture, but don't experience others. And therefore develop prejudices and mistrust toward the other closed ethnic groups.

Surrounded by the voluntarily-segregated fob groups at U of T, I look with nostalgia toward my high school days of mixed-race friendships.


Multiculturalism would be a good idea if people, instead of being encouraged to "preserve their own culture" (which culture is that exactly?), were encouraged to share and participate in others.

What use is there for cultures to live side by side if they are not living together?

We end up with divided loyalties, sometimes even complete loyalty to a foreign country.

In multicultural Toronto, there are the Chinese, there are the Indians, there are the Russians, Koreans, and Filipinos, but where are the Canadians?
Multiculturalists say "they're all Canadians, just Chinese-Canadians, Indo-Canadians...". But ask these people themselves for what they call themselves and you'd get back to reality.

Why must we all be hyphenated Canadians? Why must we be grouped and categorized based on color and ethnicity, things we have no control over? Can I not just be  "Canadian"?

I may be a patriotic Canadian, but in the Chinese-"Canadian" community, I  have been called many names. Traitor, immature, in denial of one's roots and true identity, white-washed, etc. Which doesn't make sense because I am not Chinese anyway. Or am I, due to my race? Hence my signature below.


----------



## Layzie

I can relate vince, and I totally agree with you.


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> People keep their "own" culture, but don't experience others. And therefore develop prejudices and mistrust toward the other closed ethnic groups.


How can they experience other cultures if no one is allowed to preserve theirs? And what exactly is the alternative? What culture should we all have then?

It seems you and I have just had very different experiences, but I'll add that closemindedness has little to do with multiculturalism.

Edit (to reply to your edit):



> Why must we all be hyphenated Canadians? Why must we be grouped and categorized based on color and ethnicity, things we have no control over? Can I not just be "Canadian"?



I had no control over being Canadian either. Should I therefore not be grouped on that basis?


----------



## vince

The fact is, we have "multiculturalism", people are preserving their cultures and national identities (and along with this, national loyalties), but there is little cross-cultural interaction. There was a great Toronto Star op-ed about this from June 1, 2006 (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...827&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795 ). There was an Iranian-Canadian event of 1000 people. Tarek Fatah said: 


			
				Toronto Star said:
			
		

> When I asked friends at the table why there were no black, Chinese or Arabs at the event, I drew blank stares of bewilderment. Unsaid, but easily understood in the silence was the answer: "Why would a Chinese Canadian or an Indian Canadian be interested in an Iranian event?"


Multiculturalism in Canada mainly manifests itself in the political elite (mostly whites) attending ethnic events. There is very little cross-ethnic involvement, only closed communities.

In my opinion, it would be better if this idea of multiculturalism was eliminated, and replaced with a melting pot approach. The melting pot's flavor represents our Canadian culture. That should be the culture for all Canadians, regardless of race.


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> Multiculturalism in Canada mainly manifests itself in the political elite (mostly whites) attending ethnic events. There is very little cross-ethnic involvement, only closed communities.


What does white mean in this context? Most "ethnics" in Canada would be considered white nowadays. But again, maybe my experiences have just been different. And I notice that Fatah calls for a return to the original spirit of multiculturalism, not its abandonment.



> In my opinion, it would be better if this idea of multiculturalism was eliminated, and replaced with a melting pot approach. The melting pot's flavor represents our Canadian culture. That should be the culture for all Canadians, regardless of race.


And what culture will this be? That's the issue here. And who will judge which aspects of my culture our Canadian enough and which aspects I have to forego?


----------



## vince

Not any specific culture! That is not how a melting pot works:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=1107504&postcount=25


----------



## coconutpalm

Vince, it seems that you're a descendant of Chinese. May I ask you a question? 
Generally, if we meet another person that's a descendant of Chinese in a foreign country, we will get very happy and probably say such words: "We're all descendants of Emperors Yan and Huang" (我们都是炎黄子孙) or "We're all Chinese!"------ here Chinese is more referred to the origin rather than the nationality.
Suppose you 're confronted with such a situation, will you feel offended?


----------



## vince

Usually Chinese people ask me, "Are you Chinese? Do you speak Chinese?"
to which I reply "No, I am Canadian"

and they usually ask, "but your parents, they are Chinese?"

I used to just answer "yes", but I found that this would just lead to them classifying me and assuming things about my personality and tastes, and therefore start talking to me about things that "only Chinese people can understand".

So now I just say "they're from somewhere around, I don't know".

Here's some food for thought:

Maybe the ancestors of Emperors Yan and Huang once remarked to the ancestors of the kings of Europe: "we are all descendants of Adam and Eve!"

We are all human, and divisions based on race such as Chinese/Indian/Arab are all artificial.


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> Not any specific culture! That is not how a melting pot works:
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=1107504&postcount=25


What that melting-pot vision means to me is that I should become an Anglo-Saxon (not that there's anything wrong with that) in everything expect maybe I could serve baklava during my afternoon teas. I'm sure you don't see things this way, but this seems to me to be the only end result. A common attitude that I find is that newcomers are "allowed" to contribute fringe aspects of ethnicity like food and fashion, but any tolerance stops if you try to bring a new point of view that has developed in a culture that sees the world differently (and this from both left and right wingers). But food is not the be-all and end-all of culture; ideas are.

And anyway, I doubt your melting pot is anything but theoretical. What will the religion of this one culture be, or maybe it will have none? If you say it will have many religions then you already have a mosaic. And there's a number of issues like religion.


----------



## vince

Yes, religion is an issue, but there are fewer problems if most people are moderate in their religiousness.

Your assumption that you would become an Anglo-Saxon is incorrect. The contribution of each immigrant culture to our overall culture would depend on how strong the immigrant wave is from each country.

Look at mainstream American culture. You cannot say that that is British culture. Only that Britain was the founding influence.


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> Yes, religion is an issue, but there are fewer problems if most people are moderate in their religiousness.


But what does moderate mean except leaving aside those beliefs that don't fit in with "mainstream" culture? That is just assimilation pretending to be tolerance.



> Your assumption that you would become an Anglo-Saxon is incorrect. The contribution of each immigrant culture to our overall culture would depend on how strong the immigrant wave is from each country.


So if you belong to a community with few members, it's what? Too bad, you have to assimilate? And of course it would be Anglo-Saxon, because in the end it's not a matter of numbers but of power, and the elite in this country are solidly Anglo-Saxon. The goal in my opinion should be for people to break into this elite while preserving their culture and this has occured with some groups, especially the Québécois.



> Look at mainstream American culture. You cannot say that that is British culture. Only that Britain was the founding influence.


I have very little first-hand experience with mainstream American culture, but I don't see all that many influences from other cultures, except what it borrowed from African-American culture (music e.g.). I wouldn't call it British (because I'd use that term for modern British culture and the US has naturally evolved differently) but I wouldn't hesitate to call it Anglo-Saxon.


----------



## vince

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But what does moderate mean except leaving aside those beliefs that don't fit in with "mainstream" culture? That is just assimilation pretending to be tolerance.


I'm not advocating tolerance here. If the mainstream culture judges certain values to be backwards, those values won't be absorbed into the mainstream culture. Contrast this with multiculturalism, where most cultures are viewed as equal. Races are equal (because I believe they don't exist), but cultures aren't.



> So if you belong to a community with few members, it's what? Too bad, you have to assimilate? And of course it would be Anglo-Saxon, because in the end it's not a matter of numbers but of power, and the elite in this country are solidly Anglo-Saxon.


It will basically be assimilation, even though the small group does contribute a little (due to its small size) to the overall culture. But I would much prefer assimilation than having a small segregated enclave.



> The goal in my opinion should be for people to break into this elite while preserving their culture and this has occured with some groups, especially the Québécois.


This is hard without an us-vs.them mentality. The anglos vs. the pure-laine, the Indo-Guyanese vs. the Afro-Guyanese. There must be a culture that is determined independent of the person's race/ethnic group.



> I have very little first-hand experience with mainstream American culture, but I don't see all that many influences from other cultures, except what it borrowed from African-American culture (music e.g.). I wouldn't call it British (because I'd use that term for modern British culture and the US has naturally evolved differently) but I wouldn't hesitate to call it Anglo-Saxon.


What is Anglo-Saxon, then? The reason why you can't call it British is that the U.S. and the UK have diverged in culture, so you must find a new more broader term to accomodate the differences.


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating tolerance here. If the mainstream culture judges certain values to be backwards, those values won't be absorbed into the mainstream culture. Contrast this with multiculturalism, where most cultures are viewed as equal. Races are equal (because I believe they don't exist), but cultures aren't.


So you're advocating an enlightened racism (in the broad sense, replace with "culturalism" if you prefer). Instead of a tolerant democracy where differing opinions are debated openly you would have some views socially castigated as backwards and create ghettoes for those who refuse to abandon them?



> It will basically be assimilation, even though the small group does contribute a little (due to its small size) to the overall culture. But I would much prefer assimilation than having a small segregated enclave.


Except that those are not the only two options.



> This is hard without an us-vs.them mentality. The anglos vs. the pure-laine, the Indo-Guyanese vs. the Afro-Guyanese. There must be a culture that is determined independent of the person's race/ethnic group.


I mention Québécois and you say pure laine? What's that all about? But anyway, there already is a ethnic-group-independent culture in Canada. People are not locked in to a single culture, or at least they don't have to be -- that is what multiculturalism is based on.



> What is Anglo-Saxon, then? The reason why you can't call it British is that the U.S. and the UK have diverged in culture, so you must find a new more broader term to accomodate the differences.


Anglo-Saxon is just a useful term that refers to the roots of American culture, as well as a bunch of other cultures. I don't see the problem.


----------



## Layzie

Ironically, assimilation on such a scale would kill diversity(culturally and racially), which is what we're trying to preserve?


----------



## coconutpalm

I asked that question not to offend you, just being curious, Vince.
I see your point anyway. Thanks for kindly answering my question.

However, I have some disagreement with you:


			
				vince said:
			
		

> Maybe the ancestors of Emperors Yan and Huang once remarked to the ancestors of the kings of Europe: "we are all descendants of Adam and Eve!"


Never Adam and Eve, but Nv Wa and Fu Xi  



			
				vince said:
			
		

> We are all human, and divisions based on race such as Chinese/Indian/Arab are all artificial.


I don't think they are artificial. The fact that we are discussing/debating over such an issue proves that it is of valid, tangible exsitence. 
Not all people are open-minded, or willing to be open-minded. On the other hand, open-minded to what extent? Who determines that? In many cases, we are FORCED (whether consciously or subconsciously) to assimiliate into the "mainstream".


----------



## danielfranco

Layzie said:
			
		

> I stumbled upon an interesting question today. What would you call a child of immigrant parents that has more pride in his parents' country than the country he was born in?


 
Interesting question. I cannot think of a formal term in either English nor Spanish to describe such a person. Perforce it must be a pejorative term, no? I mean, it's not precisely a regular or normal state of affairs, is it?
I guess I would call such a person a "dislocated patriot", or a "locally-challenged nationalist", or a "potential traitor" (depending on the political relationship between the countries in question, no?).
I just don't know, but whatever epithet fits, it sounds to me like someone needs either a reality check, or a U-Haul van.
Laters!


----------



## Sallyb36

It is someone proud of their heritage.


----------



## maxiogee

We Irish have no concept such as the one being discussed.

What we do notice is that the offspring of Irish emigrants (often at several generations remove) can have a totally misguided and downright wrong concept of the island.
Much of the most rabid support for the IRA came from abroad. People who had not acquainted themselves in the slightest with current Irish events beyond their "brutish British" and the "poor downtrodden Irish" point of view. These people with their Hollywood "Oirish" view of us were sitting ducks for targetting by IRA fundraisers.


----------



## vince

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> So you're advocating an enlightened racism



What we have in Canada right now is enlightened racism.

In most countries, people are judged purely by the color of their skin, and categorized as such.

In Canada, instead of being judged by the color, they are put into ethnic groups that are subdivisions of this color.

In some countries, Asian immigrants often don't interact with white immigrants. In Canada, the Koreans don't interact with the Chinese. And neither of these two groups interact with the white ethnic groups.

Everyone has their own elevated sense of national identity instead of a racial identity. But it is still racism because this national identity always falls along racial lines. (i.e. I can't be Latin American here because my skin color and "ancestors" say I am Chinese).



> (in the broad sense, replace with "culturalism" if you prefer).


IMO, culture is independent of skin color. So how can racism exist if we no longer think of race as anything but artificial? Can you not admit that cultures like Anglo-Saxon or French culture are inherently more advanced than tribal cultures that are sufficient for small communities but not adaptable to modern industrialized life? This does not imply racism toward people of aboriginal "descent", because culture is independent of race and these individuals can adopt and help form whatever culture they participate in.

So you cannot call what I advocate to be "enlightened racism" because it is not racist, it is actually the farthest you can get from racism: race-blindness. I would call it "enlightened culturalism". Actually, to call this "enlightened culturalism" a form of racism is to be racist, because you would be associating every culture with a race.



> there already is a ethnic-group-independent culture in Canada. People are not locked in to a single culture, or at least they don't have to be -- that is what multiculturalism is based on.


By and large, there isn't. They are locked (okay, "strongly encouraged") into a culture by their race and "ethnic origin". Of course theoretically, people are free to associate with any culture. But go to a Tamil-Canadian event and you will stick out like a sore thumb.

I go into some Pakistani restaurant this week and a random guy at another table comes over and was like "Are you Bangladeshi?" - "No, I am Canadian." - "You are Chinese? And you like this food?"

I suck at using chopsticks, so this guy (he is "white") who is into Asian culture tries to teach me how to use them. A Chinese guy goes, "there is something wrong with this picture!"

How many white Tamils (by culture) do you know of? How many Asian French? How many black Russians?



			
				coconutpalm said:
			
		

> I don't think they are artificial. The fact that we are discussing/debating over such an issue proves that it is of valid, tangible exsitence.


Yes they are. What defines an ethnic group?

Taiwan is a separate state, are the people who migrated there from China since the 1600's a separate ethnic group than China?

No? Then why are the Jamaicans considered a different ethnic group from Africans and Native Americans?

Why are Ukrainian people considered a different ethnic group than Russia? 1000 years ago they were the exact same people with the same culture and same language. When do you draw the line in history to divide 2 ethnic groups?


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> In Canada, instead of being judged by the color, they are put into ethnic groups that are subdivisions of this color.


 No, ethnicity has nothing to do with colour or race. It's about self-identification. Race is similar in that aspect but it has no causal relation to ethnicity. For example, some members of my family could be from Moscow while others could be from Sri Lanka, but they all identify with the same ethnicity. Since most members of an ethnicity will usually have genetic roots in the same part of the world, they accidentally will have similar racial characteristics, but this doesn't have to be the case. What about Jews and their ethinicity?


> In Canada, the Koreans don't interact with the Chinese. And neither of these two groups interact with the white ethnic groups.


 My Canada and your Canada seem to be two very different places. I'm honestly at a loss to explain how our experiences in the same city can be so different.


> IMO, culture is independent of skin color. So how can racism exist if we no longer think of race as anything but artificial?


 Both ethnicity and culture are independent of race, so if one can lead to racism, so can the other. Ethnicity and culture are more similar to each other than either is to race. If anything, I'd categorize ethnicity as a kind of culture.


> Can you not admit that cultures like Anglo-Saxon or French culture are inherently more advanced than tribal cultures that are sufficient for small communities but not adaptable to modern industrialized life?


 Inherently? No. To be honest I'm not sure what inherently better means here since there's no one thing to measure cultures in order to determine which is better. In some areas, I'd say its self-evident that Western cultures are better, but certainly not in all.


> By and large, there isn't. They are locked (okay, "strongly encouraged") into a culture by their race and "ethnic origin". Of course theoretically, people are free to associate with any culture. But go to a Tamil-Canadian event and you will stick out like a sore thumb.


 But again culture is more than eating some different food or learning a new dance. I compare it to language. You can't just declare you speak Tamil and you can't just declare yourself culturally Tamil. If you're not born into the culture, it's like learning a second language, but much harder.


----------



## vince

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> No, ethnicity has nothing to do with colour or race. It's about self-identification. Race is similar in that aspect but it has no causal relation to ethnicity. For example, some members of my family could be from Moscow while others could be from Sri Lanka, but they all identify with the same ethnicity.


Really? In most situations, people from Moscow would identify themselves as "Russian" ethnicity, and people from Sri Lanka usually of "Tamil" or "Sinhalese" ethnicity.

I think we are confusing ethnicity and nationality here. Ethnicity is a theory that people can be grouped into "ethnic groups" by descent. i.e. it cannot be chosen.

Nationality is conferred through citizenship. People of Russian nationality can be of Russian, Kazakh, Chechen, Turkic, etc. ethnicity.

Culture is more flexible, someone who ethnologists would classify as "Chinese" can be of Latin American culture. Though many multiculturalists and racists would not classify this person as preserving their "own" culture, but rather an adopted culture.



> Since most members of an ethnicity will usually have genetic roots in the same part of the world, they accidentally will have similar racial characteristics, but this doesn't have to be the case. What about Jews and their ethinicity?


 Jews, by ethnologists' definitions, are ethnically Jewish. These people say that Albert Einstein isn't ethnic German, but an ethnic Jew. I disagree, he was born and brought up as a German, therefore he is German.

As you can see, I don't believe in Zionism because I don't believe in ethnic homelands, for Jews, Palestinians, Chinese, or anyone.



> My Canada and your Canada seem to be two very different places. I'm honestly at a loss to explain how our experiences in the same city can be so different.


Toronto, right? Look at the people who multiculturalists herald as exemplary multicultural citizens: those who preserve their culture and language. Most of the time they only interact with people outside their ethnic group for business or work reasons. Not for friendships. I look around Toronto and I am shocked and (pleasantly) surprised every rare time I see two adults of different "ethnic groups" talking as friends. From Scarborough to Etobicoke, from North York to downtown, there are few examples where people of different "ethnic groups" associate freely as friends.



> Both ethnicity and culture are independent of race, so if one can lead to racism, so can the other. Ethnicity and culture are more similar to each other than either is to race. If anything, I'd categorize ethnicity as a kind of culture.


The only thing is, ethnicity (if you believe it exists) is hereditary, something one cannot choose. You are whatever ethnicity society accepts you as. There are no white ethnic Chinese. There are no black ethnic Croats. To tie culture to ethnicity is racism. To say that my culture is Chinese "because you are ethnically Chinese" is racist.



> Inherently? No. To be honest I'm not sure what inherently better means here since there's no one thing to measure cultures in order to determine which is better. In some areas, I'd say its self-evident that Western cultures are better, but certainly not in all.


Good, Western cultures are far from perfect, but in many respects they are above those from tribal societies. Cultures that mutilate women and stone gays should not be allowed to "celebrate" their culture just for the sake of multiculturalism.



> But again culture is more than eating some different food or learning a new dance. I compare it to language. You can't just declare you speak Tamil and you can't just declare yourself culturally Tamil. If you're not born into the culture, it's like learning a second language, but much harder.


Of course, culture is a whole mindset. You have to completely self-identify with a culture to be considered one of them. The only problem is whether you will be accepted as one of them if you aren't of the right ethnic group.


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> Really? In most situations, people from Moscow would identify themselves as "Russian" ethnicity, and people from Sri Lanka usually of "Tamil" or "Sinhalese" ethnicity.


 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm basically saying that there are some really white skinned people in my family and some really dark skinned people, but no difference in ethnicity.


> I think we are confusing ethnicity and nationality here. Ethnicity is a theory that people can be grouped into "ethnic groups" by descent. i.e. it cannotbe chosen.
> ...
> Jews, by ethnologists' definitions, are ethnically Jewish. These people say that Albert Einstein isn't ethnic German, but an ethnic Jew. I disagree, he was born and brought up as a German, therefore he is German.


 I'm sorry, but ethnicity is about self-identification. It's not up to you to decide what someone else's ethnicity is.


> From Scarborough to Etobicoke, from North York to downtown, there are few examples where people of different "ethnic groups" associate freely as friends.


 Maybe I'm just one of the lucky few then.


> The only thing is, ethnicity (if you believe it exists) is hereditary, something one cannot choose. You are whatever ethnicity society accepts you as. There are no white ethnic Chinese. There are no black ethnic Croats. To tie culture to ethnicity is racism. To say that my culture is Chinese "because you are ethnically Chinese" is racist.


 I think we're operating under very different definitions of ethnicity, you stressing (overstressing in my opinion) its "racial aspects" and I its cultural aspects. Still, I cannot see how ethnicity is tied down to race when few, if any, ethnic groups are "racially pure," especially if you consider the movement of various peoples throughtout history.


> Of course, culture is a whole mindset. You have to completely self-identify with a culture to be considered one of them. The only problem is whether you will be accepted as one of them if you aren't of the right ethnic group.


 I have seen people accepted. In my family, some non-Greeks who have married can speak the language very well and have no problems "fitting in." Again, closemindedness is not caused by the existance of ethnicity -- it's human nature and can exist with or without ethnicity, race, etc.


----------



## vince

I get the impression that you aren't understanding me.



			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm basically saying that there are some really white skinned people in my family and some really dark skinned people, but no difference in ethnicity.
> I'm sorry, but ethnicity is about self-identification. It's not up to you to decide what someone else's ethnicity is.
> Maybe I'm just one of the lucky few then.
> I think we're operating under very different definitions of ethnicity, you stressing (overstressing in my opinion) its "racial aspects" and I its cultural aspects. Still, I cannot see how ethnicity is tied down to race when few, if any, ethnic groups are "racially pure," especially if you consider the movement of various peoples throughtout history.


This is not my interpretation of what ethnicity should be. That is how ethnicity is defined. An individual has no choice over what their ethnicity is, anymore than they have choice over who their parents are. I don't like the definition, in fact I disagree with this whole concept myself.

Ethnicity is a racial concept in that it tries to group people with common ancestors into a single group. People generally tend to accept an ethnic group if it has a.) a distinctive culture and b.) common genetic roots

As you brought up, most of today's ethnic groups have mixed with people who wouldn't be considered of the same group, and this is one of the reasons that prove the whole concept of ethnicity's arbitrariness, and one of the reasons I don't believe it exists.

But the fact is, most people believe in ethnicity, and the people of whom the subject of the thread is, are those who are allying with a culture and country for ethnic reasons, not because of cultural affinity.

Perhaps this confusion with what ethnicity is is what's causing you and many others to link ethnicity to culture, when in fact one's ethnicity should have nothing to do with one's culture? My opinion is that some cultures are inferior to others, and since I believe one's culture should not be tied to one's ethnic group, there is no possible way to construe my opinion as racism, in fact to say otherwise would be racist, since you would be implying that calling, say, Nigerian culture inferior to Anglo-Saxon culture (this is just a hypothetical example!) would be racist against people who have ancestors who lived in Nigeria, thereby assigning them a culture.

I ask you this: Multiculturalism encourages people to preserve their "own" culture instead of assimilating to another one.

How, then, being born in Canada, do I determine what "my own" culture is? Many generations of my ancestors lived in China, does that make it "my own"  culture? But I was born into mainstream Canadian culture, does this mean I have assimilated, even though I know no other culture? If I HAVE assimilated, from what culture did I assimilate from?


----------



## mytwolangs

So, someone who was bonr of a country, but tries to act and identify with his parents nationality? 
Depending on how the act, it is one of many things that makes a person a "wanna be".


----------



## ireney

Hmmm a "wanna be"? I don't know how we'd call such a person but let's say that someone is born of immigrant parents and feels really proud in his parents' country(ies) of origin. Let's suppose (it has happened) that a war breaks out in this country and this someone enlists in this country's army to fight. Is he a "wanna be"?

I'd say he has (whether officially or just in his/her heart) double nationality and is proud and feels a patriotic duty towards both countries and hope like heck these two don't ever come to blows.


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> I get the impression that you aren't understanding me.



Yeah, if only I understood you, then I'd have to agree with you.  We just disagree, on a lot of things evidently.


----------



## vince

I don't think so,

I think you are not interpreting the same definition of ethnicity and nationality as I am, take a look at my previous post.


----------

