Culture Is Not Genetic

Quoting guidance

For example if an orphan Asian child from china were placed with an american family that child will not be chines they would be an american. The only culture they would know is an american way of life. Their genetics would still make them Asian though.

From what I've observed with my own and other's children, children's temperament is established before they are born. They come out of their mothers already who they are. Those differences seem similar to others we expect to be passed down from family - eye or hair color, height, etc, i.e. there seem to be familial patterns of temperament. I assume, without specific objective evidence, that those differences are genetic.

If that's true, it seems plausible there might be differences in temperament between people from different genetically related groups which might lead a child born in China to react differently to American culture than one born here would.

Reply to guidance I think you may have misinterpreted the definition.

The OP is right, the Webster Dictionary definition of culture does indeed begin with this:

Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time.

I think what the OP is objecting to, is the use of the term 'racial', because the very concept of 'race' is generally nowadays deprecated - Wikipedia says that 'modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created to establish meaning in a social context.' (Interestingly, there is also a push to regard gender as similarly a 'social construction' rather than a biological given.)

So basically, I think the complaint is that the Webster dictionary definition of culture is politically incorrect.

Quoting Wayfarer

race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created to establish meaning in a social context

I agree with that. But given that race is not genetic, but is yet another socially constructed grouping like religion and "other social groupings" it does not seem politically incorrect to speak of a Samoan culture, Thai culture, Japanese culture. It's only if we reduce race to genetics that it would rightly be absurd, however, I don't think the definition is reducing race to genetics... or they would have used 'genetics' rather than race.

A racial group is just one kind of group. It takes a group to have a culture. So, the OP misunderstood.

Quoting bloodninja

given that race is not genetic

Say what? Did someone say that race is not genetically determined? So it's just a coincidence that people of African ancestry tend to have brown skins while people of Scandinavian ancestry tend to have white skins?

Not all white groups have the same culture even though they're all caucasoid. The same is true of negroid and mongoloid groups. Perhaps that point will be heard.

Reply to T Clark From Wikipedia:

Craig Venter and Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, Venter realized that although the genetic variation within the human species is on the order of 1–3% (instead of the previously assumed 1%), the types of variations do not support notion of genetically defined races. Venter said, "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

guidance:I looked up the word culture in the Webster dictionary and I was surprise to find race as a part of the definition. That does not make sense. A culture should be defined as a societies way of life not their genetics.

I agree with these points previously made by others:
1) "Race" is a social, rather than genetic, construct.

Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature (2004):Most scientists have long recognized that it is a futile exercise to try to define discrete human races. Such entities do not in fact exist.

In any case, it is too narrow a term to be used in a general definition of "culture".
2) All social groups develop their own culture.

Social Group: two or more people having cohesive social relations based on identified similarities, and affiliated under the terms and conditions of a social contract for a specific purpose (i.e., common goal).

Social Contract: an agreement between the members of a social group (either implicit or explicit) to achieve a specific purpose (i.e., common goal).

Culture: the collective mindset and consequent products of a social group.

So:
1) Culture is not limited to societies. For example, a sole proprietorship and multinational corporation will each have its own unique culture.
2) A culture could be defined in terms of genetics, as in the case of kin groups (e.g., bands, tribes, and clans).

Quoting bloodninja

Craig Venter and Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, Venter realized that although the genetic variation within the human species is on the order of 1–3% (instead of the previously assumed 1%), the types of variations do not support notion of genetically defined races. Venter said, "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

Thank you.

Quoting Wayfarer

So basically, I think the complaint is that the Webster dictionary definition of culture is politically incorrect.

Merriam-Webster does stick out from the other dictionaries (online) with referring to race. And it does in my view have a bit odd definitions about race too:

Definition of race

1 : a breeding stock of animals

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group

b : breed

c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.

Seldom have heard definition 2b.

Reply to ssu True. Suspect it was digitized from rather an old edition of the original text.

Reply to Wayfarer I think you are correct. The reason is very likely simply digitalization from an old text here. Merriam-Webster isn't updated in the fashion of Wikipedia, but likely some poor people have to crawl over words from time to time. After all, the first dictionary came out in the 1840s.

Doesn't make any sense that Merriam-Webster would be on purpose different here from all the other dictionaries.

Reply to Wayfarer Reply to ssu The dictionary from which Google defines words (it's not attested--but it appears to be the Oxford-UK version) says:

race - second noun meaning
noun
noun: race; plural noun: races
each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
"people of all races, colors, and creeds"
synonyms: ethnic group, racial type, origin, ethnic origin, color
"students of many different races"
a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
"we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then"
synonyms: ethnic group, racial type, origin, ethnic origin, color More
the fact or condition of belonging to a racial division or group; the qualities or characteristics associated with this.
"people of mixed race"
synonyms: ethnic group, racial type, origin, ethnic origin, color
"students of many different races"
a group or set of people or things with a common feature or features.
"some male firefighters still regarded women as a race apart"
BIOLOGY
a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies.
"people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct"
(in nontechnical use) each of the major divisions of living creatures.
"a member of the human race"
literary
a group of people descended from a common ancestor.
"a prince of the race of Solomon"
archaic
ancestry.
"two coursers of ethereal race"
Origin

early 16th century (denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin.

The Merriam Webster on-line version that I checked is close to the one you read:

: a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
b : breed
c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

The Oxford US version has several inclusions:

race2
NOUN

1Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

Oxford Dictionary US:[b][i]Although ideas of race are centuries old, it was not until the 19th century that attempts to systematize racial divisions were made. Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination, exploitation, slavery, and extermination. Theories of race asserting a link between racial type and intelligence are now discredited. Scientifically it is accepted as obvious that there are subdivisions of the human species, but it is also clear that genetic variation between individuals of the same race can be as great as that between members of different races
[/i][/b]

‘people of all races, colors, and creeds’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 The fact or condition of belonging to a racial division or group; the qualities or characteristics associated with this.
‘people of mixed race’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
‘we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.3 A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features.
‘the upper classes thought of themselves as a race apart’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.4Biology A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies.
‘people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct’
More example sentences
1.5 (in nontechnical use) each of the major divisions of living creatures.
‘a member of the human race’
‘the race of birds’
More example sentences
1.6literary A group of people descended from a common ancestor.
‘a prince of the race of Solomon’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.7archaic Ancestry.
‘two coursers of ethereal race’

[b]Usage
In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts (race relations, racial equality), it is now often replaced by other words that are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community

[/b]

Origin
Early 16th century (denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin.

Reply to guidance At the not inconsiderable risk of being warned and being banned, I would like to say a word on behalf of "race".

"Race" is genetic. I do not "happen to be white"; I am white because both my parents, and most (at least) of their ancestors were white. Xi Jinping doesn't happen to be asian. He is asian because both of his parents were asian. Jesse Jackson or Oprah don't "happen to be black". I happen to live in Minnesota, however. That was a choice. Sort of, anyway.

Race is generally (not always) recognizable at a glance. Blacks, whites, Asians, and aboriginals tend to have certain common visual features: skin color; hair shape (flat, oval, or round hair); a higher, narrower, flatter, or broader nose structure; thinner or fuller lips, a slight difference in eye lid That said, there isn't any inherent advantage of one nose shape over another, though. Depending on where you live, there are advantages to differences in skin color. (Darker skin reduces the incidence of skin cancer for people who live nearer the equator. Light skin enables Scandinavians living closer to the arctic circle to make enough vitamin D.)

There appear to be some subtle biological differences. Blacks, asians, whites, and aboriginals sometimes have varying reactions to specific medications, which though not extreme, can have an effect on treatment outcomes.

Race (and ethnicity) has been sufficiently obvious to various people at various times that they could consistently either favor or disfavor specific groups of people belonging to racial or ethnic groups. Europeans were quite consistent in enslaving black people. They didn't mistake Norwegians for Nigerians.

The word "race" seems to be OK in discourses about racial prejudices, racial discrimination, racial conflict, race-baiting, and racism. Discourses about racial accomplishments, racial pride, racial characteristics (when and where co-incident with culture) ... probably verboten. White pride bad, black pride good. White lives matter bad, black lives matter good.

The appropriate attempt to eliminate "racism" by restricting and policing the use of the word "race" is mistaken, because the word "race" and the basic reality behind the existences of "races" isn't the cause of racism. "Racism" as the British and Americans practiced it, was first a cover for ruthless and total economic exploitation in the form of enslavement of Africans. Enslavement needed the cover of inferiority and otherness--both. Subhumans could be mistreated as readily as beasts. "Humans" deserved protections and rights.

The English treated their poor fellow Brits (exported as often as possible to the colonies as detailed in White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America? by Nancy Isenberg) pretty much like vermin. No surprise that the Lords of the Manor didn't have much regard for the humanity of slaves. At least some English Protestant religious traditions held Native Indians to be unsouled savages, along with Africans. The Catholic Portuguese, French, and Spanish practiced slavery too, with the difference that they at least usually thought their slaves were fully human (but were enslaved, none the less).

So, yes: I think we can talk about race and culture. Excluded racial groups, excluded ethnic groups--hell, excluded sexual deviants--are going to develop cultural features unique to their excluded racial/ethnic/sexual group. After all, INCLUDED racial groups, like White Anglo-Saxon Protestants developed unique cultural practices. The imprint of WASPish/up-market white culture is pretty deep. So are other people's up-market or down-market race/culture combos, like black culture for instance.

So, if I get banned... so long; it's been good to know you.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Race is generally (not always) recognizable at a glance. Blacks, whites, Asians, and aboriginals tend to have certain common visual features: skin color; hair shape (flat, oval, or round hair); a higher, narrower, flatter, or broader nose structure; thinner or fuller lips, a slight difference in eye lid

This is so wrong this is good. It shows why "race" should be done away with. The simple fact that you are tempted to use "white" as a racial category just undermine everything else.

Quoting Akanthinos

The simple fact that you are tempted to use "white" as a racial category just undermine everything else.

And why does it undermine everything else for you? What is your problem?

And what is the matter with using "white"? The last time I checked, "white" was a racial group, like American Indians. You didn't object to black, asian, or aboriginal. I think of myself as white. I grew up in a Minnesota county that is still 98% white--German, Scandinavian, a few Brits, and some Hmong,

Granted, race and culture don't always match. A volunteer in the local Finnish school is Somalian but grew up in Finland. She knows continental Finnish first hand in the way the blond Finns don't (for the most part).

Surely talking about race is required for coming to acceptable terms with the history of racism.

What our friend Bitter is saying could also be said by a racist. Doesn't make Bitter one, does it?

Quoting Akanthinos

The simple fact that you are tempted to use "white" as a racial category just undermine everything else.

Typical of white people to do that. >:)

When one passes judgment upon an entire group of people based upon the acts of only a few, s/he has dipped a toe into racist ground. It's a bit sandy, but not in a good way.

Quoting Bitter Crank

And why does it undermine everything else for you? What is your problem?

And what is the matter with using "white"? The last time I checked, "white" was a racial group, like American Indians. You didn't object to black, asian, or aboriginal. I think of myself as white. I grew up in a Minnesota county that is still 98% white--German, Scandinavian, a few Brits, and some Hmong,

As I discussed in a previous thread, 'race' as a scientific category only makes sense in relation to subjects of breeding. It doesn't apply to species of beings that have not been subjected to controled and arbitrary reproductive selection. Because of this, it is perfectly appropriate to speak scientifically of races of dogs, cats, horses, hogs, bovines and probably a lot others.

Now, this can be put to debate, but I think that it is not meaningful to frame the selective pressure that act upon humans for sexual partnership as breeding. We don't look to maintain or select traits, and while we can sometimes reduce our criterion to materialistic conditions, they are often external, like income and prestige, which cannot mean anything racially.

For 'race' to be useful, we would have to work out categories derived from population mouvements over the last 2000 years. which pretty much none of us can do. I've got French, English and Métis blood in me, in absolutely impossible percentages to work out. I can trace back my French ancestry back to the 1500s, and deduce some stuff about them back to the Crusades, but nothing relevant about their genetic makeup. I can get back about 200 years for the two others. And yet, I am "white". Everyone who sees me and thinks in common 'racial' categories will think either "white" or "caucasian". It means absolutely nothing relevant whatsoever.

Reply to Akanthinos Scientifically, race is complicated enough that we ought to leave the defining (or debunking) of it to the actual biologists and geneticists. If you want to communicate a hard scientific understanding of why race is meaningless, you've got to go through the scientific models underpinning genetics that reveal why there is no underlying meaning to the term (no easy task).

But when most people speak of race, they're doing so unscientifically. In some cases it's short hand for loose regional ancestry (i.e, blacks have ancestors in Africa, whites have ancestors in Europe, "asians" have ancestry in.... Asia...).

Sometimes we're really just referencing skin color and facial features. "Is an albino african "Black"?

I really don't get why race is such a polarizing issue. One side borders on segregationist racialism from "race realism" while the other side offers a full blown denial of race and racial differences by insisting it's a "social construct"... It's all uneducated bologna...

Quoting VagabondSpectre

One side borders on segregationist racialism from "race realism" while the other side offers a full blown denial of race and racial differences by insisting it's a "social construct"... It's all uneducated bologna...

I offered a way out of this full blown denial. The fact that this way out is not a path we are capable of walking down the whole way is completely out of my hands. I've looked up my ancestry, and I derive a great pride from their accomplishments and struggles both in America and Europe. But I'm proud of things that I know, that I can attribute to real people, not to some conjured common ancestry that never existed in the first place. Frenchmen two centuries ago would have started a war at the suggestion that they were the same race as Bulgarians!

Genetic populations would have the advantage of being more factually accurate than common categorization of 'races', but then they would lose all the political meaningfulness left in the term from the ancestral use of 'race' as 'people'.

And, in the end, it's just creepy. Just talk about cultures. Common habits and goals shared by people, that's what has always been more important. For example, it was easier (although not really easy either sadly) for a Catholic African man who spoke French well to integrate and prosper in Renaissance France than for many Jewish families who maintained their own seperate practices.

Thank you all for replying. I saw many people jump to black and white even though I was talking about Chines culture and american culture. The only race I mentioned was Asian and didn't mention a race for America. The talk about cultures clashing was more about differing ways of life like the Kurdish and Iraqi who both have various genetics, but live and die over their way of life. It seems different here in american it's like we struggle with racial assumptions and generalizations, but can accept a different cultures or ways of life.

After reading through the responses I did see some points where people are looking for clarity. When it comes to the word race I'm not looking for political correctness in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I'm looking for correctness in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Races of humans should be described by their genetic variations, that makes sense to me. It's fine for all people to have and celebrate their differences including race, but the problem comes when someones race is connected to their culture, ideals, personality, or way of life. These traits are not genetic and the only reason people believe they are is because that's what they've been taught to believe. The studies that have information claiming different races have different temperaments, personalities, and IQ's are based on people who are already grown or in their teens, around the time when you'll form your way of thinking for the rest of your life. These studies often leave out the environment / culture those people are coming from and how they may have formed that individuals behaviors and beliefs. I also rarely see the questions being asked or how a behavior is identified through these studies.

A better way to find out if different races are in some way incompatible with different cultures is to have studies either from birth or using orphans no older than 3 months. Placing children of various races and genders with caregivers who are from cultures that differ from where they are born. Seeing if those children grow up to reject or accept their caregivers, environment, and the way of life where they are placed can give real insight. The key would be to find out if they reject or accept the way of life they are presented with based on their own perception of the genetic differences or just because the people around them accepting or rejecting them. Different stimuli from peers to media can affect the way a child perceives who or what they should be especially when the media is not digested with critical thought of what they are being presented with.

To those who believe even babies already have a personality at birth, I reject that belief. You can't have a personality until you understand the people and culture around you and are able to express yourself verbally. At birth their just starting to figure it out. How do you know a child is crying due to growing pains, food, or irritation?

I appreciate all the discussion.

The best way to sum up what I'm saying is learned behavior overrides any beliefs of genetic predisposition to living one way or another. Learned behavior can come from media, caretakers, parents and peers. The culture we follow and become a part of depends on where we feel most accepted. We are all products of the information we get from our environment and how we make meaning of that information.

Quoting guidance

but the problem comes when someones race is connected to their culture, ideals, personality, or way of life.

Quoting guidance

The best way to sum up what I'm saying is learned behavior overrides any beliefs of genetic predisposition to living one way or another.

Did you think the definition that you mentioned was saying that race (or genetics as you understand it) somehow determines culture? I think you have slipped that idea in there on your own buddy.

The Webster definition reads that culture is "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group."

The definition does not say that culture has anything to do with a genetic predisposition, or more importantly, that race determines culture in some contradictory and weird genetic way (after all the definition EXPLICITLY suggests that culture is ONLY social and learned e.g.,"customary") . It is ONLY YOU who is adding to this definition that "genetics" somehow causes or determines culture. The definition does not say this at all. Race is but one example of a GROUP of people who happen to generally share similar social practices that are grounded in their shared history. Similarly religion is but one example of a GROUP, as are various other social forms examples of other GROUPS.

Reply to bloodninja It's not about the definition saying it's only related to race. My argument is that it's not related to race at all let me clarify. Culture is social ideology. Race is genetic. race shouldn't be in the definition at all.

Reply to guidance What do you mean by "not related to race"? It is time to get clear...

Reply to bloodninja Do people of the same race all have a shared culture?

Reply to guidance If they did not then we couldn't speak of a Maori culture, or a Samoan culture for example. It would be unintelligible what we mean by these terms if they were not generally shared. Merely arguing that different Maoris partake in Maori culture to differing degrees or maybe not at all is just irrelevant. Is that your argument?

Reply to guidance What do you mean by "related"? This is extremely ambiguous

Reply to bloodninja "related" "tied to" "defined by" pick one. The definition of culture has nothing to do with race. You just spoke about cultures that can have many different variations of genetics depending on who is born where the culture is practiced. A person born in the culture does not have to have the same genetics as everyone else to be completely tied to that culture being what they were raised around. There are people who have the same genetics all around the world, but even though they look similar their cultures are different all the way down to language and way of life. Race should not be in the definition of culture.

Reply to guidance I still dont know what you mean. By "defined by" i take it that you mean determined by. But the definition doesn't say that race determines culture. You are misreading the definition. All it means is that, generally speaking, a group of people who share a race generally also share common customs, social practices and material traits. GENERALLY SPEAKING. In other words, people who share the same race generally also share a common culture.

Quoting guidance

The definition of culture has nothing to do with race. You just spoke about cultures that can have many different variations of genetics depending on who is born where the culture is practiced. A person born in the culture does not have to have the same genetics as everyone else to be completely tied to that culture being what they were raised around.

I think you need to distinguish between race and genetics Race is social, genetics is science. Moreover, the definition does not mention genetics once.

Quoting bloodninja

Craig Venter and Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, Venter realized that although the genetic variation within the human species is on the order of 1–3% (instead of the previously assumed 1%), the types of variations do not support notion of genetically defined races. Venter said, "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

Reply to bloodninja The word general is not in that definition. The definition sates that culture is based on race among other things, not generally based on race and other points, the definitions says it is based on race and other factors. Race is the small variation. It's small, but it's there and just because Venter and Collins want to ignore and down play our differences instead of address how the word race is used it doesn't mean you should. Race is used in to identify people who look different disregarding any of their social qualities. Since race is not used to discuss social behavior it's used to differentiate between people by the way they look. Once again race should not be in the definition of culture.
Merriam-Webster also defines race (towards the bottom of the page) as: any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits. I know you don't agree with this definition. Should the definition of race be changed?
I ask this question because dictionary's should be books of fact not contradictions.

Quoting guidance

The definition sates that culture is based on race among other things, not generally based on race and other points, the definitions says it is based on race and other factors.

You have it back to front. The definition is not saying that culture is based on race, only that distinct racial groups have a shared culture. Are you wanting to deny that there is a Maori culture? You do not have to be a Maori to share in Maori culture, and similarly some Maoris will be indifferent to their own race's culture. Being "genetically" Maori is neither necessary and nor is it sufficient for the culture. The definition does not even suggest or imply this.

Again the definition: Culture is "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group."

A particular Maori might not share their Maori people's customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits. They thus wouldn't share in Maori culture even though they are Maori. The Maori race is the Maori group of people not an individual Maori person. This is why it is general, because they are referring to a racial group e.g. the Maori people, and not somebody's individual genetics.

I don't have a problem with that definition of race...

Reply to guidance Maybe it would be interesting if you gave your view of how we even speak of Maori culture if culture is not related to race? Maori is a race. Putting Maori before culture to get 'Maori Culture' is relating race and culture is it not?

Reply to bloodninja The way you presenting your argument is that Maori cannot be both a race and seprately a culture that has a core location.

Reply to bloodninja We disagree on material traits of racial groups. Can you explain to me what those words mean to you. What are material traits of racial groups if not physical distinctions?

Reply to bloodninja The Maori race is the genetic side. The Maori culture is the location, way of life, social norms etc witch people of various genetics can be apart of if allowed. The main argument I'm still sitting with is the way Merriam-Webster has defined both race and culture. You didn't answer about your thoughts on the way race is defined.

Quoting guidance

We disagree on material traits of racial groups. Can you explain to me what those words mean to you. What are material traits of racial groups if not physical distinctions?

'Trait' has different meanings. It is a distinguishing characteristic of some kind. A material trait as concerns culture refers to the style of the material cultural features. For example, different cultures have unique architecture, tools, churches, art etc. By material trait they cannot mean 'physical distinctions' since they are also claiming that religious and social groups also have material traits.

Quoting guidance

The Maori race is the genetic side. The Maori culture is the location, way of life, social norms etc witch people of various genetics can be apart of if allowed.

But why 'Maori Culture'? If race is not related to culture then why call it Maori culture???

Reply to bloodninja

different cultures have unique architecture, tools, churches, art etc

Exactly cultures have those things not entire races of people. So the word race should not be applied to the definition of culture. Entire races of people share many different cultures. Why do you feel like there must be a different word to separate the Maori culture from the Maori race. A blue hammer and a blue wrench are not the same to you are they? The way you continue to duck the definition of race in the dictionary makes it obvious this conversation was over a long time ago. Now we are just echoing statements we've already made. Have a good night.

Reply to bloodninja Reply to guidance It would help if we included "ethnicity" and culture, not just race and culture.

There is a genetic relationship (not overwhelming, but detectable) between Jews named Cohen, Kahn, and Kahane. Why would that be? How would such a thing get started? Before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans (the Abomination of Desolation), the priesthood of the Temple was hereditary. The families became Cohen, Kahn, and Kahane in the diaspora, and they intermarried often enough to maintain a genetic connection.

Similarly, the Phoenicians. Whatever happened to the Phoenicians? Where did they disappear to? Well, they didn't go anywhere -- they are still in Palestine, the original Palestinians, and they are genetically related. The same is true for Samaritans, another group that has been in Palestine for a long time.

Phoenicians, Samaritans, Jews and more are probably all related if one goes back a thousand years BC.

Families that survived the Great Plagues in Europe, the Black Death, did so partly because of peculiarities in the immune systems. Over the years, the plague survivors interbred often enough to maintain the variant. It is not common now, but descendants of several small European populations that survived the Black Plague are also highly resistant to HIV -- it's the same genetic trait.

Culture doesn't derive from race, ethnicity, or genetics -- or race, ethnicity or genetics from culture, but they all have this much in common: they are passed down through time from parents to children. Why would 4 and 5 year old white children in North America play "ring around the rosie? Because it's been passed on from generation to generation since the plague, when "ring around the rosie" was invented by children surrounded by people sick and dying of the plague.

One might say there are too many generations for the past to survive that way. Not really -- since Christ there have been only about 65 +/- generations; far fewer since the plague.

So, Maori culture has lasted for a long time because the Maori people have been busy reproducing themselves and their culture. Ditto for Tibetan culture, Zulu culture, Jewish culture, and Anglo-Saxon culture. Where family (genetics) and culture get separated more often, one sees a lot more drift -- such as in the United States. Many Americans are cut off from old-world culture and interbreed quite readily with other ethnicities. One of the results of this is that Jews, for instance, are losing cultural continuity--especially among the reformed and conservative Jews. This is less so among the Orthodox, who have (mostly) maintained old-world culture in the US.

Quoting guidance

Why do you feel like there must be a different word to separate the Maori culture from the Maori race.

I don't. You do because you say race is not related to culture and then you go and use race to describe a kind of culture. The Maori culture is related to the Maori race in the way that Bitter describes:Quoting Bitter Crank

Culture doesn't derive from race, ethnicity, or genetics -- or race, ethnicity or genetics from culture, but they all have this much in common: they are passed down through time from parents to children.

The reason why it is Maori culture and not corporate culture is because race is significant in this instance. And this is what the definition is saying. I cannot believe you cannot see that

Reply to bloodninja I thought I was agreeing with you. You don't think that race (genes) produce particular cultures do you?

Reply to Bitter Crank No way I don't think that. I think you and I agree. All I have been trying to do is to show that the Webster definition is not suggesting this, that race (which is more complex that simply genes) produces particular cultures.