Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Races do not have cultures of their own.

Brazil has the largest population of racial Japanese outside Japan.

In the 1980s the Japanese government started a policy of encouraging Japanese Brazilians to emiigrate back to Japan. However it was quickly found that the Brazilian Japanese did not have Japanese acculturation and behaved in a Brazilian fashion (late night samba parties, etc) which annoyed their native Japanese neighbours.

The problem was actually made worse by the fact that racially the Brazilians were pure blooded Japanese, as native Japanese people are used to silly foreigners making social cultural blunders but could not recognise the Brazilians as foreigners on sight.

If races didnt have a culture of their own, then music would not be divided so much by race lines.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If races didnt have a culture of their own, then music would not be divided so much by race lines.

Music is divided by racial lines because culturally different races have by and large tended to stay with their own.

It's not specifically a racial thing so much as a culture that has kept different races from better integrating with each other.

Remove those cultural boundaries, and I suspect that you would see far less division by race.

Race itself is a culturally determined phenomenon.

Going back a bit, I think we have hit the nail on the head with some of the issues in American culture today. For almost 2 centuries, "American Culture" was synonymous with "White Culture"... specifically, "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture".

Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If races didnt have a culture of their own, then music would not be divided so much by race lines.

How is music divided by race lines? Do you mean like Hip hop? That crossed the racial divide at least as far back as the Beastie Boys.

Or are we talkng about trad music like mariachi? I don't care much for hip hop, but I like most forms of "ethnic music" or "world music" I've been exposed to.

IME, music (at least generally speaking) is one of those things that help to cross cultures, rather than divide people.

 Psienesis wrote:
Going back a bit, I think we have hit the nail on the head with some of the issues in American culture today. For almost 2 centuries, "American Culture" was synonymous with "White Culture"... specifically, "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture".

Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

It bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your culture. And its not hypocritical to do so when your culture has borrowed ideas from others.

On the original Jeb Bush quote, well basically it's just a bunch of nonsense. I'm not sure if he doesn't understand multiculturalism, or is just playing up to people who don't understand multiculturalism. Multiculturalism doesn't say we are different, it says we are different in parts but also the same. Jeb Bush doesn't like that, he'd rather say we are the same, but with differences.

Bunch of nonsense.

 Psienesis wrote:
Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

Not only that, but a point that escapes almost everyone is that as another ethnicity comes in to power, their culture will adapt. The future hispanic majority, especially those in positions of power, will be far more alien to much of the current hispanic population than it will be to the future white minority population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your culture. And its not hypocritical to do so when your culture has borrowed ideas from others.

There's nothing wrong with it in a moral sense, but in terms of basic practicality it's very foolish idea.

Culture changes, and it changes because the people in that culture decide they want different things than what are offered right now. Trying to preserve culture is like trying to preserve the high tide.

 sebster wrote:
On the original Jeb Bush quote, well basically it's just a bunch of nonsense. I'm not sure if he doesn't understand multiculturalism, or is just playing up to people who don't understand multiculturalism. Multiculturalism doesn't say we are different, it says we are different in parts but also the same. Jeb Bush doesn't like that, he'd rather say we are the same, but with differences.

Bunch of nonsense.

 Psienesis wrote:
Now? Now WASPs are on the decline. Within a century, if current trends continue, they will no longer be the majority culture in the country, that will belong to Latinos, and Latinos have a number of cultural traits very different from the WASP norms.

Of course, many of those WASPs feel threatened by this, because, of course, what they perceive as theirs by right is losing relevance and "under attack", as if someone has planned to destroy it... not realizing that WASP culture has been taking ideas from other cultures and appropriating them for its own use.

Not only that, but a point that escapes almost everyone is that as another ethnicity comes in to power, their culture will adapt. The future hispanic majority, especially those in positions of power, will be far more alien to much of the current hispanic population than it will be to the future white minority population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your culture. And its not hypocritical to do so when your culture has borrowed ideas from others.

There's nothing wrong with it in a moral sense, but in terms of basic practicality it's very foolish idea.

Culture changes, and it changes because the people in that culture decide they want different things than what are offered right now. Trying to preserve culture is like trying to preserve the high tide.

Preserving culture essentially involves picking a particular arbitrary point in a country's history and saying 'this one was the best, lets not change it', and then watching with a growing anger as everything around you changes anyway.

Is American culture playing a bunch of sports people (other than Canada) in other countries don't actually care about, and then having things like a "world series" when it's actually just the same teams as the regular season and still in the US?

Please don't hurt me.

TBH, that sounds about right.

Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

edit: nah, nothing important

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Is American culture playing a bunch of sports people (other than Canada) in other countries don't actually care about, and then having things like a "world series" when it's actually just the same teams as the regular season and still in the US?

Please don't hurt me.

I think it's fair to call it a World Series if the best players in the world are playing in the league hosting the World Series. If the best baseball players in the world, ones from North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Japan, South Korea, etc. are playing in Major League Baseball then the best team in MLB is probably the best team in the world.

Ultimately every championship can be called in to questions because there are always qualifiers that limit participation. The World Cup is globally inclusive but still has qualifying criteria. The best 32 futbol/football/soccer teams aren't necessarily the ones that qualify for the world cup because the talent pool is distributed evenly, you could make a case that a team that didn't qualify from one region is better than a team that did qualify in another region. Unless you just have one giant tournament with everyone participating then the World Cup champion isn't really the best national team in the world, it's just the best team from those in the tournament (which can still be argued against because of the different strengths of the groups).

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

Indeed. I find soccer extremely boring to watch. Its like watching televised tag, made worse by the announcers always being way too excited.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

Indeed. I find soccer extremely boring to watch. Its like watching televised tag, made worse by the announcers always being way too excited.

Then I would suggest you don't watch it. It's not US culture anyway.

The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, most of the world thinks soccer is "exciting" and "entertaining". It's not our fault they haven't been exposed to sufficient freedom in their lifetime.

Indeed. I find soccer extremely boring to watch. Its like watching televised tag, made worse by the announcers always being way too excited.

Then I would suggest you don't watch it. It's not US culture anyway.

Soccer is actually a HUGE part of US culture. Just not the watching of it. Organized soccer is probably one of the most common sports played in the US by children.

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

Except baseball isn't boring. There is always something of consequence happening. Plus it can be described completely with audio as its more of a set piece where all the players are in designated locations.

Golf has a similar deal. You're trying to find the best swing angle and club to deal with the environmental hazards on the field. I don't find it enjoyable personally but I can see why someone would find it interesting. You can sort of participate by thinking what you would do.

Soccer on the other hand is a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth, and maybe a couple times a game hitting it into a net.

Cricket is another game where there is always something happening, perhaps the no.17 bus passing outside the stadium, or a new cake being brought in to the commentary box.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

Except baseball isn't boring. There is always something of consequence happening. Plus it can be described completely with audio as its more of a set piece where all the players are in designated locations.

Golf has a similar deal. You're trying to find the best swing angle and club to deal with the environmental hazards on the field. I don't find it enjoyable personally but I can see why someone would find it interesting. You can sort of participate by thinking what you would do.

Soccer on the other hand is a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth, and maybe a couple times a game hitting it into a net.

So based on that answer it seems evident that you don't know a lot about the actual rules and tactics of soccer, which would explain why you find it boring to watch.

If you don't know the rules and tactics and don't understand why players are doing the things that they are doing, then soccer will be boring to watch, just like baseball and golf. If you understand the rules and tactics and know why players are doing the things that they are doing, then soccer will be interesting to watch, just like baseball and golf.

If you don't understand soccer, then it's just a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth. If you understand soccer then you understand the lead-up to plays, the tactics in use, the importance of tactical fouls, why a team is happy to sit on a one goal lead or if they need to score an extra goal because of their situation on the league table, the decision about substituting your star player because he is sitting on a yellow card, the decisions being made when an additional card results in a suspension, player selections based on the opposing teams strength and weaknesses.

If you don't understand baseball it's just a bunch of people standing around in the grass while one guy is trying to hit a ball as hard as they can and every now and then one of them will hit it, but other than that it's just a bunch of guys wasting time. If you understand baseball it goes back to tactics, walking players that could hit a home run, matching pitchers against certain hitters, batters trying to hit or punt. I don't follow baseball and really don't know all the rules, but I know that there is tactics involved that make it interesting.

Same with golf again. If you don't understand golf it's just a bunch of people trying to hit a ball with a funny stick. If you understand golf then it is a very tactical game where players are having to take the current standings of everybody else in consideration to determine how much risk they need to take, weighing the different possible approaches, trying to decide if they should take the safe layup or try to go for the green, etc.

In the end it's not that people don't care about certain sports because it is boring. Sports are boring because people don't care about them.

Heck, I am in a curling league. Talk about a game that is slow enough that we can drink beer on the ice, but it's also a very tactical and exciting game.

 jasper76 wrote:

Soccer is actually a HUGE part of US culture. Just not the watching of it. Organized soccer is probably one of the most common sports played in the US by children.

It might be second, certainly behind basketball but possibly ahead of baseball; definitely ahead of American football. This is because soccer, like basketball, is pretty much unisex until puberty sets in. Baseball could also be unisex until that time, but Little League and Legion have decided that girls can only hit softballs.

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that baseball is the national past time and somehow always manages to be shown on TV, as well as the fact that somehow people manage to sit through hours of golf, makes "soccer is boring" seem like a silly excuse.

I'm willing to compromise and say Soccer (football) and Baseball are equally boring.

Can I say all sports that are not boxing are boring.

I agree with hotsauce but also want to add mix martial arts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Cricket is another game where there is always something happening, perhaps the no.17 bus passing outside the stadium, or a new cake being brought in to the commentary box.

10/10, would exalt again.

Seriously, that post cracked me up. Cricket sounds exactly like baseball to me!


It is interesting how common soccer is at young ages in the US and how unpopular it is as a professional sport. I wonder if our foreign brethren would be surprised at how much soccer is actually played in the US? Most of the people I know in my generation played soccer as a kid, even kids who didn't grow up to play any other sport.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Is American culture playing a bunch of sports people (other than Canada) in other countries don't actually care about, and then having things like a "world series" when it's actually just the same teams as the regular season and still in the US?

Please don't hurt me.

Dude. That's unfair. We also suck down enormous amounts of unhealthy food from non-biodegradable containers while doing it! Not to mention the mandatory discharge of weapons into the air if we win (which we do, because they're all US teams)!

-Gets on Dakkadakka
-Finds political thread

Lol what?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except baseball isn't boring. There is always something of consequence happening. Plus it can be described completely with audio as its more of a set piece where all the players are in designated locations.

Golf has a similar deal. You're trying to find the best swing angle and club to deal with the environmental hazards on the field. I don't find it enjoyable personally but I can see why someone would find it interesting. You can sort of participate by thinking what you would do.

Soccer on the other hand is a bunch of people running around kicking a ball back and forth, and maybe a couple times a game hitting it into a net.

Oh for God’s sake. It’s okay to sometimes admit that another person has a point. Don’t go inventing weird reasons for why some slow sports are okay and others are bad, especially when the best you can come up with is that baseball is okay because the audio is enough to understand the play, and that golf is okay because players can try to figure out what they’d do in that situation (as if that weren’t true of every single sport on earth).

People who grow up with a sport, any sport, will learn to appreciate and enjoy the complexities of the game, even when people aren’t scoring. That doesn’t mean you have to like that game, but it does mean you’re being very silly when you claim a sport loved by a couple of billion people is a bad game.

And I don’t even like soccer. But I just really don’t like bad reasoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Cricket is another game where there is always something happening, perhaps the no.17 bus passing outside the stadium, or a new cake being brought in to the commentary box.

I was about to argue with this, but the commentators do spend a lot of time talking about what they're eating.

I'd rather watch soccer. I'd really rather be playing almost anything than watching a screen with colors moving on it, but that's pretty unpopular nowadays.