# different question about cultural assimilation



## edena

I know that there have been many threads on cultural assimilation, but I was wondering if people ever feel like they do not belong to either culture.

For example, I live in America, but came here with my parents from Russia. To preserve the culture, my parents made me and my sister speak only Russian at home, eat Russian food, etc. 

Eventually, we stopped listening to them and English won over. We also had Russian friends that we knew, but also lost touch with them. My parents are really traditional, but where I lived and went to school, my sister and I were the only Russians and we just wanted to fit in. 

So it was like we had a double life, Russian at home, and American outside. Now, I'm almost 20 and I realized that I really never belong to either culture fully. I'm too Russian to be fully American and too American to be Russian. 

I know that you don't have to choose which culture you are and everything, but I was wondering if anyone else struggles to keep up with two cultures or feels like they don't fit in with either.


----------



## vince

Some questions:

a.) What makes someone Russian/Turkish/Chinese/Philipino/etc?
b.) If one's parents are Filipino, are they automatically Filipino?
c.) Should ethnic group and genetics dictate what culture you should follow? Should you follow or preserve a culture because of your genes?
d.) If my parents are from Brazil but I "look" Japanese and I come to Canada, which culture should I choose? Canadian culture because that's where I was raised, Brazil because that's where my parents are raised, or Japan, a distant country I have never been to but whose culture I should follow because it's "where your ancestors are from"?
e.) What defines an ethnic group? Is it solely due to genetics, or due to culture? Why are Castilians and Catalonians considered separate ethnic groups, but northern Chinese and Taiwanese people (not including the aboriginals) are considered the same ethnic group? Both ethnic groups originated from the same parent "tribe", yet the latter are (debatablely) in separate countries.

f.) Is someone from Denmark of "Danish origin" less Danish than a Danish person of "Algerian origin"? Denmark is where they both live, but is the latter person's "homeland" Algeria, so she should preserve that culture? Whereas the other person does not need to worry about culture, since they are already in their homeland?

---
My view is that your culture is whichever one you have chosen to adopt. Don't feel pressured to adopt a culture you don't want to just because a couple of your ancestors were from a certain place. You are who you are, not who your parents are. Telling people that they have to follow certain customs and beliefs due to their skin color is just a masked form of racism.


----------



## justjukka

I have my ethnic background and culture (mostly of which is of Irish decent and compeletely Americanized), but I am 100% American.  However, on another level, I can somewhat sympathise with how you feel.  My father is a soldier in the Army, so we've had to move around a lot.

The places in which we've lived have had anywhere from a good number to a majority of military brats.  Living in such an environment, I've grown up with certain principals that we as a community have impressed upon each other and have learned as a whole.

Now, in college, I feel a little displaced.  When talking about my childhood, I can come across as arrogant for talking about the places that I've lived.  When sharing in a good laugh, sometimes the jokes that my friends may find funny will curdle my stomach.  They realize, afterwards, why I find it distasteful, but I try not to ruin the fun too much for them.

I suppose I had something of a culture shock moving from a military community to a civilian community.  I don't know if it's the same thing, but it has its issues.


----------



## vince

Keep in mind that all of our ancestors are all originally from Africa and the Middle East, our "immediate" ancestors just chose different places to settle. Your ancestors only lived in Russia/Ireland/China for a very insignificant portion of Earth's history, so it is invalid to call them your "homeland" any more than your country of birth is.


----------



## maxiogee

vince said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that all of our ancestors are all originally from Africa and the Middle East, our "immediate" ancestors just chose different places to settle. Your ancestors only lived in Russia/Ireland/China for a very insignificant portion of Earth's history, so it is invalid to call them your "homeland" any more than your country of birth is.




Well if you are going to bring earth's timescale into the reckoning then we are all living in the realm of the amoeba, the cockroach and the bacterium


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Well if you are going to bring earth's timescale into the reckoning then we are all living in the realm of the amoeba, the cockroach and the bacterium


 True, but they don't have a culture, do they?  Well, except the bacterium.


----------



## Zub

vince said:
			
		

> Some questions:
> 
> e.) What defines an ethnic group? Is it solely due to genetics, or due to culture?



I think edena wasn't talking about ethnics or genetics. I understood he was just talking about culture.


----------



## vince

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Well if you are going to bring earth's timescale into the reckoning then we are all living in the realm of the amoeba, the cockroach and the bacterium


Well they aren't people

and I don't think bacteria or most other living beings have culture in the anthropological sense of the word.



			
				Zub said:
			
		

> I think edena wasn't talking about ethnics or genetics. I understood he was just talking about culture.



The problem is, for many people ethnicity and genetics imply culture. I.e. Having Indian ethnicity means a duty to preserve Indian culture. Which I believe is wrong because it is a type of masked racism.

So my post is very relevant to what is going on.


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> True, but they don't have a culture, do they?  Well, except the bacterium.



Not by a human definition of the word - but then again, does anything non-human have things which are human concepts?
Do fleas fall in love?
Do worms seek justice in their dealings with other worms?
Do mayflies believe in re-incarnation?
Do dolphins believe they are here for a 'porpoise'? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one!)


----------



## Zub

vince said:
			
		

> The problem is, for many people ethnicity and genetics imply culture. I.e. Having Indian ethnicity means a duty to preserve Indian culture. Which I believe is wrong because it is a type of masked racism.



I could agree with you, but I still think this wasn't the subject.
But maybe I'm wrong, of course.


----------



## djchak

Max is just joking. 

Anyway, the actual question...do people feel like they belong to 2 cultures at the same time.....

Yes, I used to, and still sometimes do....

But that's the thing about places like the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc...

When people migrate here, and aren't forced to emulate to the host culture 100%  ..... this gives them freedom, but can also cause confusion...becuase inside your parents house it's the "russian" way, but outside the rules are completely different.

But it's the price you have to pay for living in a society like this.


----------



## Maria Maya

I think it can be a nice thing, i mean, i am from brasil and my parents are from spain and portugal. In fact i enjoy it a lot. And that is what gives me identity.

But there are some things to consider: 1) my parents are not that tied to their mother "ways" of being, so i care about things of their home countries because i like it; 2) Brasil is a very opened country to foreign people, in fact  here difference is embraced much more than any other place, i think... Whoever feels like correcting me, please, you may speak.

Also i think a person who is living in a "laboratory culture" (russian home in usa is like a small russia inside a laboratory) one day will see that the laboratory country is no longer like the real country. One day, when people come back to their countries, they realize things changed. Unless they keep in close thouch with home country and people.


----------



## vince

Maria Maya said:
			
		

> Also i think a person who is living in a "laboratory culture" (russian home in usa is like a small russia inside a laboratory) one day will see that the laboratory country is no longer like the real country. One day, when people come back to their countries, they realize things changed. Unless they keep in close thouch with home country and people.



I agree. I don't understand why countries like Ireland and Japan allow people of "Irish"- and "Japanese"- descent to have citizenship and encourage them to "come home". They are essentially letting in foreigners that have no connection to their country. They should be screening these people for suitability just like they do for any other immigrants. Somehow their "blood" makes them better people and able to fit into the culture?


----------



## maxiogee

vince said:
			
		

> I agree. I don't understand why countries like Ireland and Japan allow people of "Irish"- and "Japanese"- descent to have citizenship and encourage them to "come home". They are essentially letting in foreigners that have no connection to their country. They should be screening these people for suitability just like they do for any other immigrants. Somehow their "blood" makes them better people and able to fit into the culture?



If you think along lines where "blood" makes people "better" or "able to fit" then you don't understand Ireland at all.

We haemorrhaged people in the century-and-a-half following the Irish famine. That lost is keenly felt by both the people and the national psyche of Ireland. We are desirous that their descendants would wish to "return". There is no 'better' involved.


----------



## vince

I understand that that was a very difficult time for Ireland with many people starving to death.

But these people who Ireland wants "back" are not Irish. They are American, Canadian, etc. The Irish people who left Ireland during the potato famine are long dead. Most are just as Irish as I am (i.e. nothing at all).

Unless of course, "blood" is what makes you Irish.


----------



## Outsider

edena said:
			
		

> So it was like we had a double life, Russian at home, and American outside. Now, I'm almost 20 and I realized that I really never belong to either culture fully. I'm too Russian to be fully American and too American to be Russian.


I think that's a normal feeling for children of immigrants. Your own children will probably feel more American. Meanwhile, can't you think of it as having the best of both worlds?... 
Also, at 20, you are still fairly young. Give it some more time, and you may feel more American as your life settles down.


----------



## fenixpollo

vince said:
			
		

> I understand that that was a very difficult time for Ireland with many people starving to death.
> 
> But these people who Ireland wants "back" are not Irish. They are American, Canadian, etc. The Irish people who left Ireland during the potato famine are long dead. Most are just as Irish as I am (i.e. nothing at all).
> 
> Unless of course, "blood" is what makes you Irish.


 No, it's attitude... and if you talk to many Irish-Americans and ask them about their heritage, they'll tell you "I'm Irish".  They won't say "I'm Irish-American" or "I'm American".  Many descendants of Irish immigrants -- even if they are 5th or 6th generation -- still identify themselves with their Irishness, even if they have no idea what Irish culture is.  So there are thousands and thousands of Americans who ARE Irish.


----------



## vince

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> No, it's attitude... and if you talk to many Irish-Americans and ask them about their heritage, they'll tell you "I'm Irish".  They won't say "I'm Irish-American" or "I'm American".  Many descendants of Irish immigrants -- even if they are 5th or 6th generation -- still identify themselves with their Irishness, even if they have no idea what Irish culture is.  So there are thousands and thousands of Americans who ARE Irish.



So these people, if you ask them, "Are you an American?" They will say, "no, I'm not American, I'm Irish"?

I mean it's typical for people to answer "I'm Irish" when people ask them "what's your background?" but I wouldn't expect them to say they're Irish first. I'd only think this would happen in segregated neighborhoods like 1860's NYC where people feel in a sense that they're part of a separate group from everyone else.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If you think along lines where "blood" makes people "better" or "able to fit" then you don't understand Ireland at all.
> 
> We haemorrhaged people in the century-and-a-half following the Irish famine. That lost is keenly felt by both the people and the national psyche of Ireland. We are desirous that their descendants would wish to "return". There is no 'better' involved.


Geeze I love paddies and the whole inclusive attitude so often displayed.
Blood has nothing to do with heritage.  Intelligence will outwit instinct at every turn.
.,,
According to many the most beautiful form of English is that spoken in Ireland.


----------



## fenixpollo

vince said:
			
		

> So these people, if you ask them, "Are you an American?" They will say, "no, I'm not American, I'm Irish"?
> 
> I mean it's typical for people to answer "I'm Irish" when people ask them "what's your background?" but I wouldn't expect them to say they're Irish first. I'd only think this would happen in segregated neighborhoods like 1860's NYC where people feel in a sense that they're part of a separate group from everyone else.


 Please re-read my post and find the word "heritage", and you'll see that I wasn't saying that, at all.


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> No, it's attitude... and if you talk to many Irish-Americans and ask them about their heritage, they'll tell you "I'm Irish". They won't say "I'm Irish-American" or "I'm American". Many descendants of Irish immigrants -- even if they are 5th or 6th generation -- still identify themselves with their Irishness, even if they have no idea what Irish culture is. So there are thousands and thousands of Americans who ARE Irish.


Hello fenixpollo,
Is this just with those of Irish decent?
If someone asks me of my heritage I will assume that they know that I am Australian by birth so I will respond that I am French/Scottish/English/Irish and I will leave out the Australian-French or Australian-Scottish because it sounds clunky.


.,,


----------



## maxiogee

vince said:
			
		

> I understand that that was a very difficult time for Ireland with many people starving to death.
> 
> But these people who Ireland wants "back" are not Irish. They are American, Canadian, etc. The Irish people who left Ireland during the potato famine are long dead. Most are just as Irish as I am (i.e. nothing at all).
> 
> Unless of course, "blood" is what makes you Irish.



We are not giving out citizenship to just anyone and it is not the 'blood' which matters, we are giving it to those who are of Irish ancestry, who wish to "come home" - this is just acknowledging their ancestry. They do, despite what you say, have a connection with Ireland which others do not.

Do you really believe that the son or granddaughter of an emigrant has no connection to the "old" country - be it Poland, Vietnam or Ireland? 
Why then are black people still called "African American"?


----------



## maxiogee

. said:
			
		

> Geeze I love paddies and the whole inclusive attitude so often displayed.


Except when they're excluding people - witness the exclusiveness in Northern Ireland.




> According to many the most beautiful form of English is that spoken in Ireland.


You will have noted that those 'many' _all_ speak with an Irish accent!


----------



## natasha2000

vince said:
			
		

> I agree. I don't understand why countries like Ireland and Japan allow *people of "Irish"- and "Japanese"- descent to have citizenship* and encourage them to "come home". They are essentially letting in foreigners that have no connection to their country. They should be screening these people for suitability just like they do for any other immigrants. Somehow their "blood" makes them better people and able to fit into the culture?


 
Actually Spain does this, too....


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why then are black people still called "African American"?


 
Because they want to be called like this.

There are many descendants who really do not have anything to do with the ansestor's country. If someone is for example, Russian -  third generation of some Spaniard or Irish, or whatever nation's descendant, they really have little to do with Spanish or Irish culture or whatever country is in question. They speak, think, breathe like Russians. It is nice way to immigrate legally, though


----------



## fenixpollo

. said:
			
		

> Is this just with those of Irish decent?


 No, but I only mentioned the Irish because they were the only ones being discussed. I know lots of people with Italian, Mexican, Swedish (and the list goes on) ancestors who will respond similarly.


----------



## justjukka

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Do dolphins believe they are here for a 'porpoise'? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one!)


 
Very punny...   But as far as dolphins go, each pod has some sort of individual characteristic.  For example, each pod uses different hunting techniques.  Source: Discovery Channel.  Many believe they are sentient beings.  Now if only they had thumbs...
Bringing culture into the picture, I don't know they feel as though they've lost anything if they're born in one pod and join another as humans do.


----------



## vince

maxiogee said:
			
		

> We are not giving out citizenship to just anyone and it is not the 'blood' which matters, we are giving it to those who are of Irish ancestry, who wish to "come home" - this is just acknowledging their ancestry. They do, despite what you say, have a connection with Ireland which others do not.



Ancestry implies "blood" , i.e. "Irish blood flowing through your veins". Not in the biological sense of the word.



> Do you really believe that the son or granddaughter of an emigrant has no connection to the "old" country - be it Poland, Vietnam or Ireland?
> Why then are black people still called "African American"?



Perhaps sons and daughters, that's why many countries allow the children of citizens to get citizenship. Because there is often a direct connection to the parents' home country. But when the criteria becomes "ancestry" (a.k.a. "blood"), then it starts to become racist since it is unlikely that 3rd or 4th generation Americans/Canadians have any connection to the country where their grandparents and greatgrandparents came from, other than saying, "Yeah, I'm of Irish background." If they go to Ireland it will be a foreign land with a foreign culture to them.


----------



## maxiogee

vince said:
			
		

> Ancestry implies "blood" , i.e. "Irish blood flowing through your veins". Not in the biological sense of the word.


Yes I know that. My point was that it is not just their ancestry which makles them Irish, it is in their wanting to be Irish. If they have had a heritage at home, in their upbringing, and if they feel that this is something which feels 'right' to them, then so be it.




> But when the criteria becomes "ancestry" (a.k.a. "blood"), then it starts to become racist since it is unlikely that 3rd or 4th generation Americans/Canadians have any connection to the country where their grandparents and greatgrandparents came from, other than saying, "Yeah, I'm of Irish background." If they go to Ireland it will be a foreign land with a foreign culture to them.



I'd agree and disagree with you.
First the disagreement. I have relatives in several parts of Canada whose children and grandchildren have been to Ireland on several occasions, and seem to like the place. Not enough to want to live here - yet, but who knows. Emigration is not as 'final' as it was in my parents' time, when the ones emigrating across the Atlantic were not expected to ever set foot in Ireland again. Travel is cheap right now - and may not be for very much longer - and entire familes can cross the Atlantic for a holiday, something unthinkable when I was a child.

Now the agreement. The point you make about racism is very valid, but you don't go far enough. _All_ "nationality" is racism. What else can it be that marks an Irishman from a Canadian? or which distinguishes a Belgian from a Walloon? It's all about what you call "race" - but there aren't that many races, are there? Is there really an Irish race? I don't think so.
I don't know what "makes" an Irishperson, I do know that I probably couldn't pick one out of a crowd of 100 people. What you call racism is what I would term "nationalism" and, like almost all other "~isms", it leads to horrendous deeds and actions being done in its name.


----------



## vince

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Yes I know that. My point was that it is not just their ancestry which makles them Irish, it is in their wanting to be Irish. If they have had a heritage at home, in their upbringing, and if they feel that this is something which feels 'right' to them, then so be it.



I agree that if they feel Irish themselves and try to adopt Irish culture, then they are Irish.

But (hypothetically) what if economic conditions go bad in Canada. And people from Canada start emigrating. Some may choose to go to Ireland. What if some get preferential treatment just because they have "Irish ancestry", even those that didn't even consider themselves Irish before then. And what if some get turned away, even if they took the initiative to learn about Ireland and get involved in its culture, mainly because they were not "of Irish ancestry"? Would that not be racism?

That's what happened in Brasil a while ago. Economic conditions went bad. Many Brazilians wanted to emigrate. Some wanted to go to Japan. But Japan only let the Brazilians "of Japanese ancestry" get automatic citizenship. The other Brazilians, even if they admired Japanese culture, were shut out based on their genetics. This is racism.



> Now the agreement. The point you make about racism is very valid, but you don't go far enough. _All_ "nationality" is racism. What else can it be that marks an Irishman from a Canadian? or which distinguishes a Belgian from a Walloon? It's all about what you call "race" - but there aren't that many races, are there? Is there really an Irish race? I don't think so.
> I don't know what "makes" an Irishperson, I do know that I probably couldn't pick one out of a crowd of 100 people. What you call racism is what I would term "nationalism" and, like almost all other "~isms", it leads to horrendous deeds and actions being done in its name.



The problem is with ethnic nationalism. I do not believe in ethnicity, I think it is an artificial concept, in many cases arbitrary. There is no such thing as Irish, Chinese, or Russian descent. We all came from the same place - Eastern Africa and the Middle East. But I do believe in nationality: people of all physical appearances and genetics should be equally eligible to become citizens of any country. And once a citizen, they should be viewed at the same level as all other citizens. They should not be mistrusted as having additional loyalties to other countries / cultures unless they give an indication that they do. The country of their citizenship is their only homeland unless they choose to say otherwise.


----------



## Brioche

vince said:
			
		

> I agree. I don't understand why countries like Ireland and Japan allow people of "Irish"- and "Japanese"- descent to have citizenship and encourage them to "come home". They are essentially letting in foreigners that have no connection to their country. They should be screening these people for suitability just like they do for any other immigrants. Somehow their "blood" makes them better people and able to fit into the culture?


 
The Irish extend citizenship only to the grandchilden. If you have a grandparent born in Ireland, then you can apply for Irish citizenship.

Those 5th generation "Irish"-Americans cannot claim Irish citizenship.

I don't think Irish governments actually encourage those "overseas" citizens to come home, they just want them to visit, and take home lots of Irish goods. If everyone with Irish ancestry returned to Ireland to stay, the place would sink under the weight! 

The Italians are far more generous with citizenship. If you can trace your ancestry back to Italy, you have Italian citizenship. There is no limit to the generations on the paternal line. Through the maternal line, the ancestor has to have been born in Italy on or after 1 Jan 1948. 

The Greeks also follow a jus sanguinis system.


----------



## groggy

Brioche said:
			
		

> The Irish extend citizenship only to the grandchilden. If you have a grandparent born in Ireland, then you can apply for Irish citizenship.


What about if you had grandparents born in Ireland when it was still part of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland), but in the region which is still part of the UK?


----------



## groggy

groggy said:
			
		

> What about if you had grandparents born in Ireland when it was still part of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland), but in the region which is still part of the UK?


Because if those people are also able to apply for citizenship of the Republic of Ireland (i.e. anyone who had grandparents born in (what is now) Northern Ireland, pre-1927) then that would mean that even Ulster loyalists from the Shankill Road, who probably have no cultural or "blood" connections with Eire could also become R.O.I. citizens (presuming that their grandparents were also born in Belfast).

Edit: Okay, I've investigated it a bit more and it seems that *anyone* born in the island of Ireland before 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship (even people from the Shankill Road, it would seem)...interesting!


----------



## panjabigator

> but I was wondering if people ever feel like they do not belong to either culture.



Very much so.  I think I have commented a lot on this topic.  I never feel like I fit in...I'll add more after I come back from work.


----------



## maxiogee

groggy said:
			
		

> Edit: Okay, I've investigated it a bit more and it seems that *anyone* born in the island of Ireland before 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship (even people from the Shankill Road, it would seem)...interesting!



We are a welcoming people 

Come on down, panjandrum


----------



## .   1

groggy said:
			
		

> Okay, I've investigated it a bit more and it seems that *anyone* born in the island of Ireland before 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship (even people from the Shankill Road, it would seem)...interesting!


This is the whole point for me.
It would appear mathematically improbable to think that everyone who lives in Shankill Road thinks the same way and it is quite possible that some people or their decendants from Shankill Road may very well want to move south peacefully once given the opportunity.

An added bonus would be that those living in Shankill Road as well as their counterparts living in whatever is the southern equavilent would soften their attitude as each group became more homogenous.

.,,
It is hard to hate your enemy if the enemy looks and sounds like a friend.


----------

