ForestBoard

Novian Republics wrote:

With all that said, I would like to ask you all for your thoughts on the matter, as well as how you self-identify.

Even when Asian is used as a term to identify a minority it varies with context. In Britain it would usually refer to people with roots in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh whereas my impression is that in the US and Australia it would be more likely to refer to people with roots in China, Japan and Southeast Asia. That's just because of who settled where in greater numbers, but it shows that even when we think in terms of very broad stereotypes there are multiple distinct cuisines, architectures, musics, visual/material cultures and ethnicities with visible differences. Include the people of the various central Asian republics and the Asian part of Russia and Asian does seem to be a pretty unhelpful term.

I suspect that Europe is less diverse than Asia. In New Zealand you'll find references to European cooking or culture as contrasted to Maori or Polynesian traditions. "European food" might admittedly cover anything from moussaka to haggis, but that doesn't stop people talking about "Chinese food" when that's just as varied. Personally I do identify as European, which has been made relevant here through the questions of European federalism and Brexit, and I feel that culturally the various nations of Europe do have something in common that is not shared with the English speaking New World, though the UK is pulled in both directions by the common language. This is very much a cultural rather than an ethnic thing - genetic measurement would almost certainly make the UK appear closer to the US than to Portugal, for instance.

At a lower level I have a slightly complicated and shifting self-identification as I'm an English person who has lived nearly his whole adult life in Scotland and now feels more at home here, without expecting to ever be entirely Scottish. Again this isn't really an ethnic question because it doesn't involve different ethnicities, and Scottish nationalism is a civic left-leaning thing that's not about blood and soil (though this is tediously lost on English politicians and commentators endlessly going on about "divisive" nationalism as if the use of the n-word makes this comparable to Serbia or Trump's America.)

Right, I'm British because I live and was raised in Great Britain.
I'm Chinese, because that's my family's cultural identity.
I'm not English, despite having lived in England all my life, as English is a specific cultural identity. On the other hand, I might describe that I do things the English way, or have an English way about me, and describe a sense of affinity with England. However, very few British-born Chinese identify as English.
I'm not Asian, because even though China is in Asia we use the word Asians in the UK to mean Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, not Chinese.

However, despite being British Chinese and not English Asian, I don't feel any loyalty to China at all, and in an England vs China war I'd be on the side of England. Likewise, I don't feel any affinity with British people beyond shared culture -- I place no greater value on the life or wellbeing of a British person than I do on the life and wellbeing of any other human on the planet.

Meanwhile my wife, who was born in Vietnam and who spent her entire life in England, she self-identifies as Hakka, or at a push, as just Chinese. She's been resident in the UK for all but the first 3 months of her life, but she feels like an immigrant, because her family and her cultural context don't place her as British.

Me, I'd never heard of the Hakka till I met my wife, but there's 120 million of them worldwide, so they're hardly a fringe ethnic group in global terms. Comparable, in fact, to the numbers of the English and their diaspora, including the USA. Look at it that way, and clumping "Asians" together in one group seems astoundingly silly.

The distinction between ethnicity and culture is always an interesting topic of discussion, and I think it gets even more complicated when a loaded third term like "race" gets added in. In my own personal experience, people in the US tend to use the term "ethnicity" to refer to a fairly specific genetic heritage which often ties in with a national identity, while the term "race" is a much less specific and tends to be based on visible phenotypic characteristics. For example, if asked what race I am, I would reply that I am white. If asked what ethnicity I am, however, I would probably respond with a mix of English, Irish, German, Dutch, and Italian, as I can readily track my ancestors directly back to all of those. The US is extremely funny about this however, and I know Americans are notorious in some parts of the world for saying things like "I'm Irish" when what we mean is that one great-great-great-grandfather immigrated from Ireland at the age of 15. The word "culture" in familiar usage here has nothing to do with genetics, and is entirely about your voluntary traditions and practices - at least on its surface.

Since I do a lot of genealogy and enjoy studying and thinking about such topics, it has crossed my mind how silly it is for many Americans to identify our ethnicities the way we do. My most recent ancestor born outside North America is 4 generations back (in 1859), on my mother's father's side, and on every other grandparent's side it's at least 5 or 6 generations to find somebody not born in the US or Canada. In at least one sub-line, we've been here 14 generations. At what point is my ethnicity now simply "American" as opposed to the numerous countries my family came from before the American Revolution? Other than the distinctive origins of some family surnames, there would be nothing to suggest any connection with most of those countries. I can say ok, I have x% of English ancestry, but why stop there? If I keep following it back, many of the "Englishmen" themselves derive from French lines that rode with William I, and on the one of those that I can trace farther, it goes back to Merovingian Alsace. Should I be claiming my ethnicity as a Frankish tribesman? The fact that that seems utterly absurd starts to argue for "ethnicity" blending back in to the term "culture" again, which leads to a whole different set of challenges.

The young ur wrote:

The Ur wonders the reason for so many of our good Foresters vote against commending Apulita?

Shalotte is not party to the WA and is thoroughly unconcerned with anything and everything about it (except getting that elusive endorsement from McClandia Doge 2).

I've looked at the proposal and near as I can tell, it reads as "Apulita has been a delegate for longer than anybody else in the region and we think they're really good at it". Which I'm sure is true, but... how's that help anybody outside of the region?

When Ransium got one it was for those reasons plus all of the other work, the benefits of which extended beyond Forest. That's the kind of commendation I'd vote for.

If Shalotte cared about such things, of course.

With the exception of that endorsement anyway.

Auphelia wrote:

Ha! As if I would call someone a "silly goose". A blithering idiot, perhaps. A right proper fool, even. But what is a silly goose? Thinking of it, I would rather like one. Not too silly, but a goose with a sense of whimsy.

They do have a certain way with words, I must admit. However, I have neither the inclination nor the dedication to keep a nation like that alive. Puddles and my alter egos (the ever stoic, kind, and silent Not auphelia and the middle ground that is Maybe auphelia) are more than enough to keep track of.

To think!

Me!

In forest!

Posting!

Outrageous!

Then who are we supposed to hate? You really need to think these things through, darling.

To not hate anyone.

Also don't just call people a blithering idiot either.

Why do you keep on posting in Forest even though you live in the South Pacific?

Candlewhisper Archive, the government of Ur has just read your stupendous guide to highlighting national disasters (OOC: Issues). We acclaim this guide as a treasure. (For those looking for it it’s here: viewtopic.php?p=32581709#p32581709.)

Darths and Droids wrote:

Until a Summon Bigger Fish falls atop you. That's a common hazard round Forest nowadays.

Ooh, lunch! How exciting. You had better Summon Bigger Fish again, seeing as you have company over.

I don't suppose you have any way to Summon Bigger Ice Cream, do you? Roll well, my dear.

Darths and Droids wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's a neat spell.

Oh, I had hoped it would be a cantrip.

At least my diet will survive.

Octopus islands wrote:

Who needs Summon Bigger Ice Cream when you have Goodberry? That spell is totally broken, basically replaces the entire benefit of Ranger in one 1st level slot!

Or Create Food and Water, it's responsible, but much less cool, older brother!

McClandia Doge 2 wrote:

Awwww thank you! Its fun to interact with people from other regions too!

{Edit} You know that The Forest Olympics region that failed miserably that I created. It got raided by Lily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I went to their RMB and someones peaceful region got raided and he got ejected and banned from his own region and I feel like just peaceful regios just get taken over by these fanatic military organisations and countless nations get ejected from their own regions by military organisations.

It was tagged, meaning they probably looked at your region's page for just about thirty seconds total. There was no ejecting and no banning. All they wanted to do was jump in at the right time and switch up your WFE. You're an active founder, so they know you'll be changing it right back anyway.

Lily is not an evil raiding organization, really.

The young ur wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive, the government of Ur has just read your stupendous guide to highlighting national disasters (OOC: Issues). We acclaim this guide as a treasure. (For those looking for it it’s here: viewtopic.php?p=32581709#p32581709.)

Thanks. It's not actually my work though, I just took over curation of the thread, then updated some of the advice. So about 30% of it is me, the rest I just inherited.

Cameroi wrote:

the three major forms of aggressiveness are biggotry, belligerance and greed, all motivated by narcisstic ego.

Darling, it's not greed if I deserve it, and it's not narcissism if I'm naturally superior!

"Some faithful often ask me if traditionally 'negative' feelings are bad. [...] Is greed bad? Is rage a terrible thing? No, of course not. Why would the Illuoch-taer have imbued us with the capacity for greed and rage if they were inherently bad? […]

A smith's hammer can be used to forge a shovel, or it can be used to crush a man's head. It's not the hammer that's at fault if it's used for the latter.

Greed can drive you to hoard and steal, it's true. But it is also what compels us to seek not just survival, but prosperity - which may drive you work for the greater prosperity of your settlement, so that everybody can have plenty. Unchecked anger may compel us to do terrible things, or it may compel us to fight injustice and crime.

Duená gave us these tools, and Raena gave us the capacity to use them wisely, if we so choose."

- Understanding the Gods - Arch-Draér Fennica of Freth, 1866