Quote:
Originally Posted by
SolipsismX 
Sure. Race is defined as each of the major divisions of humankind but we are all very much indentical genetically. We're all
Homo sapiens sapiens (extra
sapiens being used for subspecies to differentiate from Neanderthal (
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) which is genetically close enough to have allowed for crossbreeding).
We made these artificial divides based on physical characteristics. This is the basis for racism. We don't separate people as different races based on being left or right-handed, or having free or attached earlobes. We do it on mostly color and other features that we have deemed distinct as a way of showing they are not like 'us', whatever that may be.
At one point in the not too distant past this really did have a huge bearing on the likelihood of the culture we came from which would also likely lead to other stereotypes that were likely true. These assumptions no longer hold true in a world that is connected by machines that can move people and data so quickly. You can't look at someone who looks a certain way and assume they are have a certain culture. Location is still very important as nurture plays a primary role in how we see the world and what we find comfortable but our culture is almost completely irrelevant to the nature of our physical characteristics that only vary as a way to adapting to the variety of environments this planet has to offer.
We see more variety within a single "race' than we see within a
syntype across all "races." I know a girl in Brazil. Her parentage is 100% Japanese. Her parents were born in Brasil and they are also 100% Japanese. She is 2nd generation Brasilian speaks, only Portuguese and English, and so her culture is Brasilian and American (by the nature of the US being such a powerful source of media and entertainment). There are surely cultural aspects she has that originate from her parents and her grandparents but that dwarfed by the other cultural influences in her life. She doesn't identify with the Japanese culture because she is not Japanese, she is only a recent decedent of Japanese.
I don't see how her being of Japanese decent means that her nature would naturally be aligned with Japanese culture. It seems to me the environment plays a huge role in how we shape our culture. The term environment also includes technology since it exists within the environment.
Just on this forum alone I interact with people from all over the world and what I assume are different ethnic backgrounds, cultures and religions. I can't imagine anything more wonderful than a world that gets increasingly more connected.
PS: I find it interesting that I can go to anywhere in the United States and be able to speak the same language and dialect but I traveling in the UK I find this to be much more difficult over a much smaller area.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I've been traveling.
You raise some GREAT points, although, at the end of the day, it's somewhat impressionistic and based on your personal experience, not data-driven. The clincher (for me) is when you claim "We see more variety within a single "race' than we see within a syntype across all "races" and then go on to justify it with an example of a person of Japanese descent that you know in Brazil.
First, Brazil (and perhaps even Latin America, more generally) is a poor example, since over generations, it has become more of a multi-ethnic mix than most places (although not entirely). With the exception of certain counties that have a high proportion of native populations (Bolivia, Peru), this is true of LatAm more than anywhere else.
Second, consider parts of the world with huge populations: China (1.3B, Han descent), India (1.1B, Negroid/Caucasian/Mongoloid/Aboriginal descent), Europe (600M, largely white), Japan (130M, ?? descent), Indonesia etc. These are all fairly ethically homogeneous countries at this point. To claim that the variety among whites within Europe is greater than the variety in 'those in poverty' across these countries is questionable. Perhaps in a strictly economic sense, but not when it comes to a whole additional bundle of attributes that need to be factored in, such as language, religion, food, dress, looks, non-verbal communication cues, entertainment etc. For example, Manmohan Singh is likely much closer to a poor Indian on all those dimensions than he is to Barack Obama or David Cameron.
I think what you're saying is perhaps true is a small minority of highly educated, highly well-off socio-economic across most countries (in that they like their PCs and good cars and washing machines and Polo LR and Hollywood and Coca Cola), but I don't think it applies to a vast majority. I think you're over-generalizing.
