Our ethnic identities help ground us and allow us to relate to others better. Having an ethnic identity to a considerable extent makes us an authority on that ethnicity. It provides a good jumping off point for cultural engagement and allows us a venue to direct difficult questions to (for instance, if someone is from group of people that at one point in history had a problem with your group.) If we don't address these types of questions and issues these issues just persist.

Change the title, I am not saying that ethnic identities are unethical, I am saying ethnic histories are unethical. The appropriate level of interpretative relevance of ethnicity is yet another thread, when I say ethnic history, it is part of a wider condemnation of other identity-based histories such as racial histories, religious histories and gendered histories. I am talking about the breaking apart of history into an "us" and "them" narrative along the lines of such distinctions.

If for example, someone is ethnically Korean but lives in Australia, and they identify as Korean and know their family came from Korea, that is perfectly okay. Maybe it depends on what an "ethnic identity" is, I'm not prepared to debate this, not clear on this term.

A separate but relevant issue is the notion of cultures belonging to ethnicities and the repercussions for inclusion/exclusion based on that criteria. I believe that for example, an Australian should be able to practice Australian culture, identify with Australian history and be every bit as Australian regardless of ethnicity, race, religion and so on.

What I don't think we can avoid is seeing history through a political lens, European settlers shouldn't be referred to as an ethnic group or racial group but a political faction, even though they were certainly racist. I don't have a problem with cultures having names or political/geographical groups proclaiming ownership of those cultures. "French" culture can exist but it can't belong to a specific French ethnicity, only the political "French" faction and membership to this faction could be demonstrated by, for example, French citizenship.

The only complexity I see for this topic is that certain cultures seem to rely on ethnic ties for their continued existence. If Aboriginal culture did not pass on to those of Aboriginal descent, I think its chances for survival, in the long run, would be significantly lower. However, to me, this just means that adaptation is needed, I don't think ethnic exclusive histories or cultures can be considered ethical.

Finally, to clarify, I am not saying that we can't look at the history of Aboriginals and learn about it, I am saying that the Aboriginals should be defined without relying on their ethnicity. Aboriginal culture was never supposed to be ethnically exclusive to begin with, it only became thus after colonialism.

Ethnic histories justify racism because they allow people to inherit grievances, fault and characteristics through their ethnicity. We can claim credit, responsibility and ownership of historical events based on our race or ethnicity. We are allowed to exclude or include on the basis of ethnicity and we are allowed to see political and cultural issues as disputes between ethnic groups. That's why I oppose them.

I see "ethnic identities" in the title, but then a reference to "culture" in the OP. I think there may be a difference. Anyway, I'll stick with the "ethnic identity" side of the question for now and say, the only reason to maintain it is genetic diversity that might see the species through some environmental or other change. Other than that, I say breed the differences out until we have a Heinze 57 mutt so people quit pointing fingers based on different ethnic appearances. Send me a bunch of ethnic beauties' and I'll get this ball rolling.

Now, as to culture. Hmmmm? As a good liberal, I'm always about respecting cultural differences, but only to a point. If you want to hold down a little girl and cut off her clitoris with a piece of broken coke bottle, then you can go to hell. But what about little boys and circumcision? That seems like BS too. Where do we draw lines? Informed consent? Do we have a right to stop others from violating the physical integrity of others just because our culture says certain things should not be done? Well, yeah, I guess so. If we've got the might to back it up. Women as chattel? Hiding faces? What if they want to?

I like the idea of Real Politick, but it has to be tempered with respect for human rights. So, the best avenue maybe an international (interethnic, intercultural) form of tribal ostracization. Cancel culture or consequences, if you will. Thus, we don't force anyone to stop anything or start anything. We just turn our back on and refuse to deal with anyone who is engaged in activities we find inimical to our sense of morality. They can keep it up, but not with our help. Why we even deal with Monarchs, like the House of Saud, or religious states, like Israel, or communists, like China, or strongmen like Putin, I don't know. It's that Real Politick thing, which is really just greed.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have much of a dog in this fight.

The only complexity I see for this topic is that certain cultures seem to rely on ethnic ties for their continued existence. If Aboriginal culture did not pass on to those of Aboriginal descent, I think its chances for survival, in the long run, would be significantly lower. However, to me, this just means that adaptation is needed, I don't think ethnic exclusive histories or cultures can be considered ethical. — Judaka

But I can say this is just the victory cry of the "winners". When your way of life won, and you did all the nasty things to get your way, you can start being "inclusive" and hand-wringing about your misdeeds after-the-fact. And then, in ultimate irony start being the social justice warriors on behalf of everyone else because you "learned your lesson". What you are failing to see is that perhaps the West IS an ethnic history of sorts. Since the 1400s, it can never NOT be tied to ethnic ties to their colonies. You could perhaps have had a point if the Enlightenment was self-contained in Europe and it became a melting pot of absolutely no ethno-nationalist history, but it didn't and just because WWII was so devastating, doesn't erase that it never really did. Europe and its colonies are not exempt from ethnic anything. They are not "above it" now like gods looking down on those poor ethnic people fighting each other because ya know WWII and all.

I like the idea of Real Politick, but it has to be tempered with respect for human rights. So, the best avenue maybe an international (interethnic, intercultural) form of tribal ostracization. Cancel culture or consequences, if you will. Thus, we don't force anyone to stop anything or start anything. We just turn our back on and refuse to deal with anyone who is engaged in activities we find inimical to our sense of morality. They can keep it up, but not with our help. Why we even deal with Monarchs, like the House of Saud, or religious states, like Israel, or communists, like China, or strongmen like Putin, I don't know. It's that Real Politick thing, which is really just greed.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have much of a dog in this fight. — James Riley

So how did the "West' play out in Europe prior to WWII? Now let's look at the colonies.. How did the "West" play out in North/South America, Pacifica, Africa, and parts of Asia? I believe that was outright exportation of one's "ethnic" culture to other areas. English, concepts of property, of religion, or work, of ways of life, of law, etc. etc. etc.

Life in the Northeast culture area was already fraught with conflict—the Iroquoian groups tended to be rather aggressive and warlike, and bands and villages outside of their allied confederacies were never safe from their raids—and it grew more complicated when European colonizers arrived. Colonial wars repeatedly forced the region’s natives to take sides, pitting the Iroquois groups against their Algonquian neighbors. Meanwhile, as white settlement pressed westward, it eventually displaced both sets of Indigenous people from their lands. — History Channel Website

When your way of life won, and you did all the nasty things to get your way, you can start being "inclusive" and hand-wringing about your misdeeds after-the-fact. — schopenhauer1

Racial and ethnic groups aren't to be talked about as if they were capable of making mistakes, winning battles or committing crimes. Are you still playing devil's advocate or are these your real opinions? I'm not trying to erase European history, I'm against characterising the history in racial and ethnic terms. I'm not denying European racism, I'm condemning it and blaming ethnic histories as being partially responsible for Western and non-Western racism. My condemnation of racism is meaningless unless I take these steps.

Any person, Western-born or not can look at Western history and say "ethnic histories in part led to such evil acts, we ought to condemn them". Are you are asking for the perpetuation of ethnic histories on the basis that you don't want to allow certain ethnic groups to "get off the hook"?

You want Western imperialism to be remembered and avenged someday? You want the "responsible ethnic groups" to feel guilt, shame, what? What exactly is your ideal scenario.

So how did the "West' play out in Europe prior to WWII? Now let's look at the colonies.. How did the "West" play out in North/South America, Pacifica, Africa, and parts of Asia? I believe that was outright exportation of one's "ethnic" culture to other areas. English, concepts of property, of religion, or work, of ways of life, of law, etc. etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

Answer: Real Politick and might-makes-right.

What I'm gleaning, though not said so openly and boldly, is this: "You, west, in your hypocrisy, and by your unclean hands and history, must now take a seat, and quit pretending to counsel up-and-comers like Israel, for doing exactly the same thing you did to become who you are today. You have no moral authority to any high ground; so stop with the self-righteous, sanctimonious 'human rights' shit. I don't want to hear it."

Got it. But I don't care. And neither does the rest of the west. While nation-states, new and old, still live, and do not die like their individual, mortal, human members with their short life spans, they are still composed of individual humans who perceive growth, change, progress, and MLK's arc of the moral universe, which is long, but which bends toward justice. Yes, those individual human members stand on a tall pile of bones, and they benefit from that pile. But they did not create it. If anyone wants to take them to task, it must be done with them, on their pile, with their state; and not by creating a new pile, or aiding or abetting another state in creating their own pile.

The sincere critic should come to the west and talk of reparations, contrition whatever. Work to heal the wrongs they have wrought. But one dishonors and disgraces the involuntary price that was paid by victims when telling the changed-heart it can no longer speak, or hold a position on the contemporary wrongs of another. That's not only BS, it's illogical. Two wrongs don't make a right. And a second wrong can be prevented or, at least, objected to, no matter the evils of the past.

I want to hunt bison latifrons, on a north American savannah. But I can't. Tough shit for me. That doesn't mean I can slaughter white rhinos now, and tell mankind to take a seat. We must protect the white rhino, period, full stop.

We "discovered" fire. We invented vaccines. We've tried to honor human rights, as well as the rights of the individual. A cynic, or an apologist can argue any of these things, and a thousand others, are good or bad. But humanity has deemed them good and nobody gives a shit about the opinion of anyone who disagrees. That is, or should be, the new Real Politick. Didn't get your chance to colonize? Tough. You snooze you lose. Too late. Too slow, get back. Life's a bitch. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. Don't like it? Fight. But be prepared to lose. We can all only hope we have passed a tipping point, where the arc will never turn back. But it may be up to the perpetrator of past evil to ensure that it does not. That's okay by me. It's not about forgetting. It's not about forgiveness. It's about making sure it doesn't happen again.

End rant.

What I'm gleaning, though not said so openly and boldly, is this: "You, west, in your hypocrisy, and by your unclean hands and history, must now take a seat, and quit pretending to counsel up-and-comers like Israel, for doing exactly the same thing you did to become who you are today. You have no moral authority to any high ground; so stop with the self-righteous, sanctimonious 'human rights' shit. I don't want to hear it." — James Riley

NO, not really. Honestly, I don't have a horse in this race. I think creating new people is itself unethical to that new person who was created, and am used to being completely dismissed and criticized for that. I'll take a possibly unpopular side of an argument, cause I do think there is room for it.

My contention was with Judaka's idea that ethnic histories should not matter anymore. Not on whether Israel's violence is justified. It's a bit of a dick move to accuse me of that. For now, if you can, please get off the high horse. Rather, my point is simply that here is an example of an ethno-religion that indeed can be justified similarly to other ethno-bodies to have ties to real estate, and even have a pretty solid history to back it up. One of the oldest links in recorded history actually. In fact, their link to that land is older than Germanic peoples incursions into what is now Germany and the Franks moving into Celtic Gaul or the angles invaded Romano-Celtic Britain. In other words, they aren't blindly just plunking down on a map and selecting a random region. It does have significant historical ties to this ethno-cultural-religious group. This does not justify any killing of removal of other peoples.. So don't even go there with this. This came out of specifically a conversation with Judaka about ethnic groups in general, not on any particular justification for violence. So let's not steer the conversation into round 2 of the other thread where the goal posts kept moving from a specific incident to cyclical violence to everything related to the topic. Also, let's be clear, I would be more than happy if both sides hugged it out and became one nation with no particular ethnic group being the dominant, and having shared power. If that happens, the better. However, since that seems unlikely, I still think Israel is justified as an ethnically-characterized state with its own cultures and customs (similar to Britain, France, etc. having their own culture).

The sincere critic should come to the west and talk of reparations, contrition whatever. Work to heal the wrongs they have wrought. But one dishonors and disgraces the involuntary price that was paid by victims when telling the changed-heart it can no longer speak, or hold a position on the contemporary wrongs of another. That's not only BS, it's illogical. Two wrongs don't make a right. And a second wrong can be prevented or, at least, objected to, no matter the evils of the past. — James Riley

Okay, so one of my points was kind of nuanced, but what I was saying is that what is "The West" is also ethnocentric in many ways. Various nationalities vying for power, and exporting their culture and way of life. Taking the US as an example.. First it was an import from Europe, and then it was simply an import from East to West. If it wasn't ethno-centric, then how come the institutions of the Native Americans are pretty much reservation life? I mean, ethnicity is more than purely biology.. It's a culture, habits, behaviors, and a way of life.

Not on whether Israel's violence is justified. It's a bit of a dick move to accuse me of that. — schopenhauer1

If it wasn't you, I apologize. I must have conflated this thread with the Israel thread and other threads where some wag kept harping on the the idea I laid out, above. Something like "it was okay then, but now, all of a sudden, it's a no-go." I took my stated implication from that. Again, if it wasn't you, my bust.

I still think Israel is justified — schopenhauer1

No more justified than those they oppress. Just so we're clear.

I mean, ethnicity is more than purely biology.. It's a culture, habits, behaviors, and a way of life. — schopenhauer1

I'm not arguing with that. An ethnicity could be war-like, slave-owning, clitoris-cutting, pillaging, burning and raping. Or it could be all touchy-feely, lovey-dovey, kumbaya. I guess, outside of my response to what I mistakenly thought you were saying, what's the point here?

If it wasn't you, I apologize. I must have conflated this thread with the Israel thread and other threads where some wag kept harping on the the idea I laid out, above. Something like "it was okay then, but now, all of a sudden, it's a no-go." I took my stated implication from that. Again, if it wasn't you, my bust. — James Riley

Right, this thread. Stick to it for now. Start another thread on that subject if you want to broaden it to that.

Here's why I thought it was you:

I find it funny that "Western" nations only accept other nations as long as they participated in the idea of "nations with a state" (nationalism) that persisted from the 1600s-1900s. Any peoples outside this time lost their window to do this. Also odd. — schopenhauer1

My response goes to why that is not funny or odd.

I'm not arguing with that. An ethnicity could be war-like, slave-owning, clitoris-cutting, pillaging, burning and raping. Or it could be all touchy-feely, lovey-dovey, kumbaya. I guess, outside of my response to what I mistakenly thought you were saying, what's the point here? — James Riley

That Western history is no different than other "ethnic" history. It IS "ethnic" history. And we can argue all day on ethnic vs. national, if you want. When one culture is definitely "different" than another we can talk about ethnic differences for sure.. We can rename it "national policy" if you want. Doing that would be very ethno-centric though :D.

My response goes to why that is not funny or odd. — James Riley

Right, nations with a state.. not nations being violent, that's all.

That Western history is no different than other "ethnic" history. It IS "ethnic" history. And we can argue all day on ethnic vs. national, if you want. When one culture is definitely "different" than another we can talk about ethnic differences for sure.. We can rename it "national policy" if you want. — schopenhauer1

Right, nations with a state.. not nations being violent, that's all. — schopenhauer1

We must be talking past each other. I fail to see how the distinction between an ethnicity or nation with a state is a relevant difference from those without a state. Being a state, with or without a monolithic ethnicity or nation vs simply being a stateless nation or ethnicity makes no difference in my mind with respect to the analysis I provided. The ethical/moral implications of action or failure to act are the same.

We must be talking past each other. I fail to see how the distinction between an ethnicity or nation with a state is a relevant difference from those without a state. Being a state, with or without a monolithic ethnicity or nation vs simply being a stateless nation or ethnicity makes not difference in my mind with respect to the analysis I provided. The ethical/moral implications of action or failure to act are the same. — James Riley

Yes we are talking past each other. First read the back and forth in the OP, and if you can, rephrase in your mind what you think the main contention is. Again, not really to do with violence in the Israeli/Palestinian thing.. In fact I should have stricken that third point because of this kind of confusion. However, I will keep it as I think it still informs the case and we are already discussing it.

First read the back and forth in the OP, and if you can, rephrase in your mind what you think the main contention is. — schopenhauer1

I had originally done just that, and just did it again. I don't have an argument with any or it, from you or Judaka. Had I an issue, I would have argued it. My only issue was point 3 and what I perceived to be my rephrasing of it, which you objected to.

I had originally done just that, and just did it again. I don't have an argument with any or it, from you or Judaka. Had I an issue, I would have argued it. My only issue was point 3 and what I perceived to be my rephrasing of it, which you objected to. — James Riley

Then there's no issue. The main point was me trying to point out that "the West" is basically an ethnic history as well. There is no The West and "ethnic history". He used Australia as a bastion of universal humanity.. But it is first and foremost originally a colony of Britain and all the habits, behaviors, mores, and worldviews come from being this. I mean, yeah the Romans eventually also accepted peoples into their empires hundreds of years after they conquered them and people just "accepted" the way things are.

The main point was me trying to point out that "the West" is basically an ethnic history as well. There is no The West and "ethnic history". — schopenhauer1

I tried parsing that and can only say you must be saying the first is conjunctive and the second disjunctive, with the first being correct and the second not? Okay. I can see why I have a hard time understanding you. But that's on me.

The rest is just that Real Politick I was talking about, especially this:

after they conquered them and people just "accepted" the way things are. — schopenhauer1

The rest is just that Real Politick I was talking about, especially this:

after they conquered them and people just "accepted" the way things are.
— schopenhauer1 — James Riley

Yes, but do you get the point of how the West is also part of ethnic history? Australia is no an exmplar of non-ethnic history, for example, as Judaka contends. And he will point to the idea that they let in various nationalities and such.. That doesn't exempt them from being ethnically based (on a British system and history/backbone) and even pushing out other ethnicities to do so (the Aborigines). Now, this isn't an Israeli/Palestinian point, but just more evidence that Western nations are ethnic identities fighting other ethnic identities. I further don't buy that British are a "nation" and not an "ethnicity".. It has a shared culture, history, (somewhat of) ancestry, etc. It is butting up against other ethnicities (other people in places they are sending their people to). And further, back to Rome.. yes they let in others, that doesn't make it not based on an original ethnic system that others can share in.

I would also add: Israel, having the benefit of history, may be hoping that the Palestinians will eventually just "accept" the way things are. But the Palestinians likewise have the benefit of history and are probably hell-bent on making sure that doesn't happen.

Second, regarding "conquering" nations/ethnicities/states, it should be remembered that they often incorporate a lot of the blood and culture they "conquer". Out where I'm at, Spanish, Mexican and Native American culture and blood are integrated into much of American culture and blood, just as western-European blood and culture is into them. It's kind of a melting pot. Even the laws out west (community property states) have Spanish/Mexican history. Don't get me started on food and place names and dances and holidays and etc.

I heard one time that the Christmas Tree and some dates were just Rome bending to the locals up north, and here we are, thinking Jesus was born on December 25th. So it's not an either/or situation.

I would also add: Israel, having the benefit of history, may be hoping that the Palestinians will eventually just "accept" the way things are. But the Palestinians likewise have the benefit of history and are probably hell-bent on making sure that doesn't happen. — James Riley

This I can agree with. Unfortunate situation.

Out where I'm at, Spanish, Mexican and Native American culture and blood are integrated into much of American culture and blood, just as western-European blood and culture is into them. — James Riley

Hell, people in Australia play digeridoos.. People in Rome also intermingled and took on other culture's gods.. Isis and Dionysus.. But you better not fuckn rebel and reclaim your land/power, gods help you!!

I heard one time that the Christmas Tree and some dates were just Rome bending to the locals up north, and here we are, thinking Jesus was born on December 25th. So it's not an either/or situation. — James Riley

True, December 25th itself was to replace the debaucherous holiday of Saturnalia, which actually lasted a week (and is a much better holiday).

Again, ethnicity is a relatively fluid thing. Similar to the Australia and Rome thing..it's more about a "backbone" that others can marry into, bring their own elements, etc. But the dominant ideas, cultural practices, and worldviews persist from that backbone.

So you intend to use the racist philosophies of the past as a compass to guide you as to the correct ways to do things now? When does the West get to shed its skin of its past mistakes? Why do the people born today bear the sins of crimes committed long before they were born?

I claim that belief in ethnic histories helps to inspire hate, and here you are, holding ethnicities accountable for crimes based on group membership, justifying tribalistic and racist views. Make no mistake, it is possible to view the world through the lens of ethnicity and race, as has been done in the past, whether by the West or others. That's not the question here, it's about whether it's unethical to do it and whether it should go away, as you put it.

I don't support embracing Australia's racist history and making it an important part of how we see ourselves going forward. Should you choose to view contemporary Australians as just the latest line in a continuous white British-European history then you can spin this objective into something insidious. It is a ridiculous way of seeing things, unpragmatic and foolish, just like the practice of using ethnic and racial histories in general.

When does the West get to shed its skin of its past mistakes? — Judaka

I can argue that it's not even an answerable question. The ways of life are already long gone. It's not a matter of shedding skin.

Why do the people born today bear the sins of crimes committed long before they were born? — Judaka

The point was that ethnic conflict was part of Western history. I'm not taking the bait on these red herrings. I never said this is the case.

I claim that belief in ethnic histories helps to inspire hate, and here you are, holding ethnicities accountable for crimes based on group membership, justifying tribalistic and racist views. Make no mistake, it is possible to view the world through the lens of ethnicity and race, as has been done in the past, whether by the West or others. That's not the question here, it's about whether it's unethical to do it and whether it should go away, as you put it. — Judaka

What does "go away" mean though? Default to.. What? I mean I get it.. Universal Peoplehood of Earth. But what are you trying to say, that some Platonic form of what is universal peoplehood will bestow humanity? I mean, "progress" could just be one culturo-ethnic region dominating the point where nothing else remains.. That too is Universal Peoplehood of Earth. That seems to be your point. We are getting there.. End of History.. Francis Fukayama and all that.

I don't support embracing Australia's racist history and making it an important part of how we see ourselves going forward. — Judaka

Of course not.. It's easy to say when you're already in the green zone, buddy. How convenient. You can't go back in time, no.. But to proclaim "But we eximplify blah blah because NOW there is no conflict".. Not sure I buy it.

Should you choose to view contemporary Australians as just the latest line in a continuous white British-European history then you can spin this objective into something insidious. It is a ridiculous way of seeing things, unpragmatic and foolish, just like the practice of using ethnic and racial histories in general. — Judaka

Wait, are you denying that British-European empires in the course of history did basically take control of Australia?

The point was that ethnic conflict was part of Western history. I'm not taking the bait on these red herrings. I never said this is the case. — schopenhauer1

When your way of life won, and you did all the nasty things to get your way, you can start being "inclusive" and hand-wringing about your misdeeds after-the-fact. And then, in ultimate irony start being the social justice warriors on behalf of everyone else because you "learned your lesson". — schopenhauer1

What "nasty" things did I do? Are you not referring to crimes inherited by my ethnicity? You talk in such ways often, it is clear you are not talking about my citizenship.

Of course not.. It's easy to say when you're already in the green zone, buddy. How convenient. You can't go back in time, no.. But to proclaim "But we eximplify blah blah because NOW there is no conflict".. Not sure I buy it. — schopenhauer1

If Australians are practising ethnic histories then they can't condemn others for doing it, when they stop they can't condemn others because it's just too "convenient". Knowing that every large nation has a history of using ethnic histories, are you just suggesting that nobody can condemn it? I really don't understand your angle, maybe there isn't one and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Wait, are you denying that British-European history did basically take control of Australia? — schopenhauer1

I've explicitly acknowledged it multiple times.

What "nasty" things did I do? Are you not referring to crimes inherited by my ethnicity? You talk in such ways often, it is clear you are not talking about my citizenship. — Judaka

Your way of life relies on it. You personally didn't. It's not even a matter of shedding the past. It's simply part of the history of how we got where we are.

If Australians are practising ethnic histories then we can't condemn others for doing it, when they stop they can't condemn others because it's just too "convenient". Knowing that every large nation has a history of using ethnic histories, are you just suggesting that nobody can condemn it? I really don't understand your angle, maybe there isn't one and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. — Judaka

Yes I'm saying it's a great "just so" story. It's comfortable and easy as the dirty stuff already happened. I'm not saying you're responsible, just that you can never disconnect from the "benefits" to the ongoing generations. I'm also saying that just because a society allows a multi-ethnic state, doesn't mean that it is not an ethnic history. Rome took over regions, and only late in the empire, let them become citizens.. But of course that was because most of those regions by this time were not considered enemies to keep subjegated.. They accepted the Romanization. By that time, it was a matter of course of Rome. It was still an ethnic group taking over everyone else. One can say the same thing about the Pax Mongolia of Ghengis Khan's descendants.

I've explicitly acknowledged it multiple times. — Judaka

Fair enough.

What is an "ethnic history"?

What is an "ethnic history"? — Judaka

This started from here:

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking? — Judaka

So you brought it up first. You made it seem that the West is somehow separated from ethnic histories..

I'm assuming by ethnic we mean a common definition or similar:
From Google search on ethnicity: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
From Wikipedia: An ethnic group or ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion or social treatment within their residing area.[1][2][3] Ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism, and is separate from, but related to the concept of races.

So the history of these various groups, how they migrated, built their cultures, interacted with other cultures, etc.

I don't quite get what this thread is about.

It seems to me that there are no major disjointed periods in history: No new age has dawned where very different rules have come into force; where things that used to happen (200, 2000, 4,000 years ago) are just not imaginable anymore. World War I, II, and the Cold War (with it's potential for global nuclear annihilation) shows us that the 20th century is no more civilized than previous centuries. The five centuries of European expansion (colonization, imperialism, genocide...) are not radically different than previous periods of population movement anywhere on the globe. Whether things as bad may happen in the future is unknown.

After all the butchering of WWI and WWII, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War (which, by the way, has only lessened; it did not disappear) the major economies of the globe have been intentional about keeping a lid on conflict. We should be grateful that a lid is being kept on the kettle, but it isn't because of the arc of justice that this is so. It's caution about unleashing highly disruptive wars. "They" have calculated that war, at this point, would probably not be worth it. (Talking big wars, not little ones.).

Ethnicity and culture are basic building blocks of community. We are not one big Heinz 57 multiculti puree. The impression that we are (a puree) is an elite creation to help suppress inconvenient friction. That will work until material shortages arise (not enough food, water, energy, etc.). Then "WE" will become much more important than "YOU" and business will proceed in the usual and customary warlike way.

I'm just having a hard time understanding you and so I thought maybe we might be using different definitions. I'm not denying that people with ethnicities did things. What I'm against is people identifying with history through their ethnicity. I'm against people like bitconnect saying that Jews today have a right to land because Jews inhabited the land thousands of years ago. I'm against talking about people talking about their ethnic group as an actor in history that they identify with. I'm against people talking about their ethnic group as "we" and others as "them".

You stepped in and defended Jewish culture (at least for bitconnect) being ethnically exclusive, utilising and identifying with ethnic histories by saying that "the West did things". I said Australian culture is ethnically inclusive, Australian history can be identified with by Australians of any ethnicity and you started talking about our history as a colony.

Well, I don't get you at @schopenhauer1, I don't get what the two things have to do with each other. As I said, to begin with, the West is just exporting criticism it often levies at itself to other nations. If nothing I said cleared up any misunderstanding, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree, I cbf debating whatever ideology you're working with.

I'm against people like bitconnect saying that Jews today have a right to land because Jews inhabited the land thousands of years ago. I'm against talking about people talking about their ethnic group as an actor in history that they identify with. I'm against people talking about ethnic groups as "we" and others as "them". — Judaka

Cool, but that's not the world we live in.. whether it's Australia or Israel. I'm sorry, it's just not. The closest thing to what you're saying is a sort of Marxist remaking of everything.. But ya know that ends up with dictatorships which start telling people who they must identify as, etc. My contention is right now if the Aborigines somehow had some weird quasi war all of a sudden, you might be talking differently. Let's say reparations and integration wasn't what they wanted. rather they want the damn land back. But conveniently, that's not the case for Australia.. Phew. You can say Pax humanity.. but my point was Pax humanity is usually at the end of empires controlling everything and settling everyone down to go along with the arrangement... Integration to some point, but mainly just trade is good enough and not being a nuisance. Europe is fine with the arrangement for now too. They have the US backing the world military basically so that they can fund more social programs and historical sites, and rail against the US every once in a while when they blunder (which is often). But what makes Britain, Britain? No one is contending for it and so it's legit. What makes France France? No one is contending for it, so it's legit. At what point were these countries legitimate? After WWI? After WWII? When Woodrow Wilson proposed the League of Nations? The United Nations? Bretton-Woods? UN? 1600? When there was no conflict? Why shouldn't France be English and English be French? Ethnic history doesn't matter right? I mean Napoleon thought so. The English were "gentlemanly' only disrupted other regions outside of Europe for their expansion. If they fought France, it was usually in proxi-wars in colonies or the peoples originally in those colonies. Unlike France and Germany and to some extent Russia who actually took over major parts of Europe.