CULTURES are different, by their very definition. Anyone who has travelled extensively has surely witnessed that. But it just so happens, that many –not all– cultures are divided by geographical barriers, national boundaries known as a countries. And that’s when the generalisations begin…
I T’S generally fair to say that the majority of Japanese people are very reliable & punctual. Likewise, if I were to say that Tongan people are very friendly, stress-free & relaxed, that comment would also be acceptable to most people. Why are these statements accepted? Because they’re positive cultural observations.
I’ve visited more than 42 countries in the last 15 years, and I’ve noted their cultures and customs are all very different indeed. In my past job, I dealt with many different European cultures. An act that is seen as polite in one culture (slurping soup in Japan), will almost certainly offend people in Spain (where I lived for eight years). Even the many individual island cultures of the pacific are all quite unique from each other.
My observations:
People from Germany tend to be very exacting, punctual, and like everything to be perfect, with no room for excuses. They are not always polite, but I think they see it as a kind of high state of efficiency. People from poorer countries tend to be more understanding and patient if things aren’t 100%. They have less to lose and sometimes risk more (that’s why they don’t value insurance quite so much!).
I’ve noticed that the real problem arises when you make a generalised negative comment about a particular culture. What if I said, for example, that Tongans don’t respect time and are usually running late. Or that the Japanese are inflexible with their appointments? Yes, now I’m being totally critical of both countries, by comparing them directly to each other. Even though these statements are for the most part very true indeed –just look up any Lonely Planet guide– I’m likely to be called a racist! I’ve also noticed that people living in multicultural societies such as Australia, USA and the UK are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of “you’re a racist!” comments. Is it a fair assessment? No. I think the confusion stems from my use of the words “culture” and “race”. But I also think the definitions of racism are often vague and inconsistent.
Nurture vs Nature.
In the case of Tonga and Japan, I’m talking about the culture of people, not the race of people. To clarify this point, I’m certain that if a Japanese born person was raised their entire life in Tonga, they’d behave almost 100% like a person of Tongan descent because of their cultural upbringing and despite the fact that they are of Japanese descent (let’s ignore for the moment that they may be the victim of racist comments by other Tongan people because of their Asian appearance and thus be exposed to a slightly different upbringing than the majority of islanders). Phew! So obviously it is not fair to label all races the same, because some races can be born in one culture and raised in another.
What is a culture?
Before I get into trouble, I’ll explain my definitions of races and cultures further. A culture is a peculiar set of traits, traditions, customs and rules of a particular group of people. Sometimes a culture is also defined by it’s religion or ethnic group (rightly or wrongly). People from different cultures (they may encompasses all or part of a country as well) have different priorities. No one is necessarily ‘smarter’ than another and therefore we must respect other cultures not just our own. They’re just different and that’s what makes travel so interesting. What a boring world it would be if everyone belonged to the same homogeneous culture.
Normally, citizens are defined by the country in which they were born and inhabited. I am Australian, because I was born and raised in Australia. So people are defined by their country of origin. But what actually defines a country? Is it their constitution, or is it their geographical borders? Take a look at any political atlas, and you’ll see many clearly defined borders separating individual countries. Sometimes they are straight lines, in which case it’s probably a political boundary. Other times these borders follow local rivers or mountain ranges, in which case it is the geography separates the two countries. Cross the hypothetical line and you’re in another country, another culture, and sometimes even another race of people.
The border between Italy and France is a good example, or that of USA and Mexico. It’s convenient to refer to French, Italian, Mexican and American people. Some “borders” are hazy, ill-defined or often disputed. Whenever a minority doesn’t feel well represented by the majority, sometimes they can even want their own new borders. But for the most places, it’s easy to delineate certain regions on a map and call them countries. No one can say that two countries have exactly the same culture. No one can say that. It would even be deemed offensive. In summary, these national borders are essentially what divide entire cultures.
Some cultures closely resemble others. Australia and New Zealand are in fact quite similar, whether we both like it or not (probably that’s why we have a go at each other so much, because we’re actually more alike than we’d like). Take again my extreme examples of two island countries: Japan and Tonga. Both can be considered very “intact” cultures, very isolated from outside influences because they don’t share any borders with anyone. There are also more cultural regions and borders than there are countries. Both Japan and Tonga have separate islands and states, represented by different local laws and government policies.
Cultures are very different & at the same time very strong indeed, because people are brought up in their specific environments, and that behaviour overrides any racial personality traits they’ve inherited. You cannot expect people to “unlearn” these traditions and customs & expectations of an environment in which they were brought up in. That might mean we have to make allowances from time to time and not treat everyone the same way.
What is a race?
A race is determined by your bloodline. In other words, your genetics and hence your general appearance. For example, the Scandinavian race of people are usually very fair. Most Chinese people have black hair. Most people of African decent have dark skin, etc. Naturally there are exceptions, such as albino chinese people. Let’s just say you can’t change the colour of your skin (forget Michael Jackson for a moment). You can’t swap your DNA for someone else’s. It’s inbuilt.
I should point out that to label an entire race is most definitely racist, whether it be a positive or a negative comment. If a black basketball player says: “white men can’t jump”, that’s a racist comment. But by that logic, when a white person proclaims: “white men jump so high!”, that too is racist. Or if I said: “African American Olympians can run faster over 100m than their Caucasian counterparts”, that’s still very racist, regardless of whether it is true or false (although I must confess it seems to me an awful coincidence that 9 out of 10 athletes that line up for the 100 metre sprint have dark* skin).
What is culturalism?
Perhaps if you did a study of 100,000 American Citizens, you might find that the average African American can in fact run faster than the average Caucasian person, but I think you’d need to look more closely at the many cultural reasons for those results. Like for example the tertiary education gap, employment and wage levels, rates of imprisonment, fast-food eating habits, exposure to regular exercise, ultimately leading to a gap in fitness level of the two races. That kind of result (were it to be thoroughly researched, and found to be correct) isn’t because one race is physically or mentally superior to another. Maybe one day we’ll find out that it’s all to do with the size of your nostrils. Saying that, even if it is true, does not mean that small-nostrilled people want to take over the word and enslave a sub-race of large-nostrilled people.
However, people shouldn’t use the word race and culture interchangeably. They’re most definitely not the same thing. Perhaps 99% of people living in Japan are of Japanese decent, and 98% of people living in Tonga are of Tongan decent -OK so I don’t know the exact numbers of Japanese people living in Tonga (and vice versa)- I could look into it, but to be blunt, I don’t have the time or energy. My point is, people tend to make generalised statements about entire countries, if only because it’s easier to ignore the minority race. When you say that all Tongans are lazy or all Japanese are sticklers, you’re forgetting about Mr Yamada Hanako San who grew up living his entire life in Nuku’alofa. But can I please be forgiven for making interesting cultural comparisons without being labelled a racist?
What is racism?
Delving into this further, I looked up numerous definitions of racism from a whole bunch of online dictionaries. Here’s what I found:
- Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
- The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
- Dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions
Here are my thoughts. Is racism merely being prejudiced? Or discriminating? Or antagonising? Or being hostile? Or is it thinking and/or acting superior to another race? Because these are not the same thing. Everyone, to a certain extent, discriminates. It’s perfectly acceptable to have discriminating tastes, for example. One can also be prejudiced to start with and then choose not to discriminate. That’s not racist. That’s what I call “having a memory, forming an opinion and being open minded”. And one can discriminate without even being prejudiced. That’s what I call “being an ignorant arsehole”. And one can do either of these things and not antagonise or be violent.
Note that according to the first definition, you can’t be labelled as racist if you think the other race is superior (not your own). It wouldn’t even be good enough to mention the word ‘inferior’ at all in the definition of racist because that automatically implies the antonym ‘superior’ about the other race(s). So straight away you wouldn’t be allowed to say that Asians make such good table tennis players because everyone else would be up in arms. Where I think the problem lies is the fact that racism can lead to the third point, dislike or hostility, which is what we don’t want. That’s what I think most people’s gripe is all about. We just don’t want another genocidal war or racial catastrophe and that’s why people bandy the word “racist” about all the time.
* I did a search for the proper term “black” and the term “African American” isn’t really good enough to describe a race because if I were Jamaican or Ethiopian, I’d wouldn’t want to be labelled anything American. So that’s why I chose the word “dark” and not “black” or “negro”.
Leave a Reply