is being ethnocentric the same ass being racist?
Both political correctness and minority pandering need to go.
That would go under "Cultural Relativist crap."
Here's my 2 cents
1 The Irish (also Scots and Welsh) are Celtic people, while the English are Anglo-Saxons. So technically they ARE different races. And they do look different, although their skin tone is the same or very similar.
2 In America you can get scholarships or bonus college admissions points for being African-American. Yet there is no test or criteria to determine who qualifies. You just decide for yourself and check the appropriate box. Now, since most scientists agree that humankind originated in Africa, I see no reason why ALL Americans should not check the box that will give them the greatest advantage.
Not entirely true. I'm not so sure classifying people by their ancestral language is so good to begin with (the origin of the Celtic languages is actually Spain), but more importantly The English aren't all Anglo-Saxon. There was a significant influx of "Germanic" genetics when Germanic speakers invaded, but I believe the English remain fairly closely related to the Irish and everyone else in the British Isles.
Now, the Irish are very distinct from the Germans who I believe actually make up more of America than the English do genetically. At least patrilineally, The Germans are more Indo-European R1a haplogroup y chromosomes while the British Isles are Old European haplogroup R1b.
Although, really, 'race' isn't real per se to begin with, so quibbling about race within such closely related populations is pretty silly IMO.
They are very similar. The difference is just semantics.
To break it down: Racism is the ascribing of a persons cognitive content (his character, intelligence, mode of conduct) by his genetic make up.
Ethnocentrism is the ascribing of a persons cognitive content by his geographical location.
It is the same logical error, just with a different focus.
Regarding the Celts
I wasn't talking about language differences, I was talking about genetic differences. At one time, Celtic peoples inhabited what is now England, but were pushed north and west by the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. Hence, they now inhabit Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. They are not only different from the English in terms of culture, but also in terms of biology. For example, there are certain genetic illnesses that are mostly found among those of Celtic origin. In the US we tend to think of race in terms of different skin colors; in other parts of the world this is not always so.
In Anthropology, ethnocentrism is the idea that one culture is better than another. Specifically, that the observer's culture is superior to the one being observed. You'll find this view in the works of Tylor, Morgan, Spencer, and other early anthropological theorists.
In reality, everyone is ethnocentric to a certain degree, but deliberate ethnocentrism is something to be avoided in scholarly research. Some early scholars for example criticized foragers (like the !Kung/San) as primitive and wasteful and felt that the industrialized, Western way of doing things was more efficient; in reality, the !Kung spend less time attending to subsistence needs than the average American (assuming ~40 hour work week).
Ethnocentrism = My culture > your culture
Cultural Relativism is the reverse; acknowledging that different cultures have different ways of accomplishing things (like subsistence strategies), different worldviews, and different lifestyles. It doesn't mean that you should ignore an injustice simply because people from different cultures have different backgrounds.
The application of Cultural Relativism in Anthropology is very different from what I've seen described here. It's simply important to acknowledge that there are different ways of doing things and that your way is not the only correct way to do them simply because it's the way you do them.
I wasn't talking about language differences, I was talking about genetic differences. At one time, Celtic peoples inhabited what is now England, but were pushed north and west by the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. Hence, they now inhabit Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. They are not only different from the English in terms of culture, but also in terms of biology. For example, there are certain genetic illnesses that are mostly found among those of Celtic origin. In the US we tend to think of race in terms of different skin colors; in other parts of the world this is not always so.
Celt and Celtic refers to a group people who spoke one of several related languages. It's often inappropriately used to describe the descendants of the people who spoke those languages.
In reality, everyone is ethnocentric to a certain degree, but deliberate ethnocentrism is something to be avoided in scholarly research. Some early scholars for example criticized foragers (like the !Kung/San) as primitive and wasteful and felt that the industrialized, Western way of doing things was more efficient; in reality, the !Kung spend less time attending to subsistence needs than the average American (assuming ~40 hour work week).
Ethnocentrism = My culture > your culture
Cultural Relativism is the reverse; acknowledging that different cultures have different ways of accomplishing things (like subsistence strategies), different worldviews, and different lifestyles. It doesn't mean that you should ignore an injustice simply because people from different cultures have different backgrounds.
The application of Cultural Relativism in Anthropology is very different from what I've seen described here. It's simply important to acknowledge that there are different ways of doing things and that your way is not the only correct way to do them simply because it's the way you do them.
BS, did you get this s**t from an elementary school student?
In reality, everyone is ethnocentric to a certain degree, but deliberate ethnocentrism is something to be avoided in scholarly research. Some early scholars for example criticized foragers (like the !Kung/San) as primitive and wasteful and felt that the industrialized, Western way of doing things was more efficient; in reality, the !Kung spend less time attending to subsistence needs than the average American (assuming ~40 hour work week).
Ethnocentrism = My culture > your culture
Cultural Relativism is the reverse; acknowledging that different cultures have different ways of accomplishing things (like subsistence strategies), different worldviews, and different lifestyles. It doesn't mean that you should ignore an injustice simply because people from different cultures have different backgrounds.
The application of Cultural Relativism in Anthropology is very different from what I've seen described here. It's simply important to acknowledge that there are different ways of doing things and that your way is not the only correct way to do them simply because it's the way you do them.
BS, did you get this sh** from an elementary school student?
Sources? If you're going to engage in polemics, it's helpful to have sources. If you'd like, I can provide you with a bibliography composed largely of articles and books written by the relevant theorists. It would also help if you could articulate what specifically you find to be BS? You wont find many anthropologists who disagree with my summaries of the concepts of ethnocentrism or cultural relativism, although you will find several valid critiques of the concepts as a whole.
well, thats where you're wrong, as*hole.
Again, sources? You're being quite churlish, and it's not adding anything to the discussion. Race is a semantic category that is socially constructed. A black person isn't always black because that happens to be the color of their skin. Definitions of race are highly dependent on your culture.
UncleBeer
Veteran
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland
Alex believes that anyone who'd dare post a picture of Dutch Santa's helper Piet, must be a racist (of course, not the Dutch themselves though...).
And you're all racists now for having viewed the photo.
I wasn't talking about language differences, I was talking about genetic differences. At one time, Celtic peoples inhabited what is now England, but were pushed north and west by the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. Hence, they now inhabit Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. They are not only different from the English in terms of culture, but also in terms of biology. For example, there are certain genetic illnesses that are mostly found among those of Celtic origin. In the US we tend to think of race in terms of different skin colors; in other parts of the world this is not always so.
There are genetic differences in the British isles, this is true. But a strict English-everyone else dichotomy goes above and beyond the ordinary absurdity of distinct races. The English are mixed "Celtic"-"Germanic". Frequency of the R1b haplogroup y chromosome remains in the ~65% range in England (it's <50% in Germany, and dramatically lower in Scandinavia). From what I'm reading, there is a very significant degree of Germanic descent in England, but this is variable and still hovers at less than 50% of the population. The absolute highest seems to be in York and Norfolk where the splits are 60-40 viking-native. Consequently, the idea that the English are in any way "distinct" is a gross oversimplification. Likewise, depending where in Scotland you are, there is also a fairly high degree of Germanic descent.
The English aren't different from everyone else in the British isles. They are at least as close to the Welsh as they are the Germanics. Everything I have read recently has suggested that there was a fairly even mix of Germanics and Celts. The English just don't want to own up to be related to the rest of us
A long time ago, I heard on tv or in a college class that people in Northern Ireland can tell the difference between a Catholic (mostly Celtic/native Irish) and a Protestant (mainly of English descent) simply by looking at them. It sounded ridiculous to me at the time.
Now, having lived 2+ years in the Irish Republic, I can tell you that there IS a racial/genetic difference. Irish people LOOK different. There is a certain slant to the eyes, a common type of nose, etc. that most of these people share. If you line up ten white people, I can pick out the ones whose last name starts with "Mc"
(Yes I realize not all Irish people have "Mc" in their names...blah blah etc disclaimers)
In reality, everyone is ethnocentric to a certain degree, but deliberate ethnocentrism is something to be avoided in scholarly research. Some early scholars for example criticized foragers (like the !Kung/San) as primitive and wasteful and felt that the industrialized, Western way of doing things was more efficient; in reality, the !Kung spend less time attending to subsistence needs than the average American (assuming ~40 hour work week).
Ethnocentrism = My culture > your culture
Cultural Relativism is the reverse; acknowledging that different cultures have different ways of accomplishing things (like subsistence strategies), different worldviews, and different lifestyles. It doesn't mean that you should ignore an injustice simply because people from different cultures have different backgrounds.
The application of Cultural Relativism in Anthropology is very different from what I've seen described here. It's simply important to acknowledge that there are different ways of doing things and that your way is not the only correct way to do them simply because it's the way you do them.
BS, did you get this sh** from an elementary school student?
Actually, I would agree with Celery for the most part. We could expand it and qualify what he said or nit-pick various points, but overall, it makes sense.