What is more life-defining: race or ethos?

[Eastwest404]

I have met a person online which has debated me on this question. He cited the argument, that a race is a generalization and an amerimutt's political construct, that people should be categorized through their ethnic or linguistic group more (germanics, slavs, italics), rather than being molded into the single "race" entity.
I disagreed, because it seems kind of weird with this race-denying talk we're so close to leftist rhetoric about the "social constructs" or Dugin's eurasian bullcrap. There's alarmingly low count of whites on earth and pretending, that we don't have any simular interest except of our tribe-nation interest would hurt, especially when browns, asians and blacks are more racially conscious.
Discuss

 

[nihilum]

I believe in race.

 

[Hoodpreet]

race is a generalization and an amerimutt's political construct

Dk why this talking point is so common when it’s completely asinine. Carl Linnaeus, a Swede, was the first person behind modern scientific racism as we understand it. Blumenbach, a German, is the “godfather” of modern physical anthropology. America wasn’t even the only society to codify race-based laws regarding slavery, etc.

To answer your question, though – race is by and large the more important category when it comes to genetics and biology, because an ethnicity is a cultural group first and foremost. But ethnicity obviously should supersede race when it comes to personal identification. That said, believing in ethnicity while not believing in race is cucked, because, by that logic, a physical and genetic foreigner “assimilated to your culture” may as well be a member of your ethnicity

 

[Hoodpreet]

Discuss

This is gay nigga. You’re not some teacher or thought leader. We’re losers on a forum for losers

 

[Hoodpreet]

Dk why this talking point is so common when it’s completely asinine. Carl Linnaeus, a Swede, was the first person behind modern scientific racism as we understand it. Blumenbach, a German, is the “godfather” of modern physical anthropology. America wasn’t even the only society to codify race-based laws regarding slavery, etc.

To answer your question, though – race is by and large the more important category when it comes to genetics and biology, because an ethnicity is a cultural group first and foremost. But ethnicity obviously should supersede race when it comes to personal identification. That said, believing in ethnicity while not believing in race is cucked, because, by that logic, a physical and genetic foreigner “assimilated to your culture” may as well be a member of your ethnicity

A Dane can assimilate into Dutch culture, a Korean can assimilate into Japanese culture, so on and so forth, due to the low genomic distance as well as the shared broader cultural-civilizational template.

A pajeet like Rishi Sunak otoh can never become English, a nig can never become Swedish, a brownoid or white can never become Japanese, so on and so forth, because virtually nothing meaningful is shared in common

 

[hly_thmst]

I have met a person online which has debated me on this question. He cited the argument, that a race is a generalization and an amerimutt's political construct, that people should be categorized through their ethnic or linguistic group more (germanics, slavs, italics), rather than being molded into the single "race" entity.
I disagreed, because it seems kind of weird with this race-denying talk we're so close to leftist rhetoric about the "social constructs" or Dugin's eurasian bullcrap. There's alarmingly low count of whites on earth and pretending, that we don't have any simular interest except of our tribe-nation interest would hurt, especially when browns, asians and blacks are more racially conscious.
Discuss

Race is more life defining as you’ll be predisposed to certain behaviours or curses (curse of ham for example) because of your race. Also ethnicities exist around races, they can generally be considered as subgroups of races

 

[autisticandugly]

I believe in race.

 

[kevkon]

I have met a person online which has debated me on this question. He cited the argument, that a race is a generalization and an amerimutt's political construct, that people should be categorized through their ethnic or linguistic group more (germanics, slavs, italics), rather than being molded into the single "race" entity.
I disagreed, because it seems kind of weird with this race-denying talk we're so close to leftist rhetoric about the "social constructs" or Dugin's eurasian bullcrap. There's alarmingly low count of whites on earth and pretending, that we don't have any simular interest except of our tribe-nation interest would hurt, especially when browns, asians and blacks are more racially conscious.
Discuss

I understand both sides, I do think ethnic could be more important because it narrows down your heritage a lot more while race seems more arbitrary. I mean Europeans and Latin Americans can both be “white” because they can both pass as white when you look at some of them but it doesn’t actually tell you anything about that specific heritage if the person.

However I do think race is important. I don’t think it’s some social construct. Race is real and it matters, and race is where you're able to see the largest and most cohesive differences among each other as opposed to comparing differences between ethnic groups.

 

[kevkon]

Dk why this talking point is so common when it’s completely asinine. Carl Linnaeus, a Swede, was the first person behind modern scientific racism as we understand it. Blumenbach, a German, is the “godfather” of modern physical anthropology. America wasn’t even the only society to codify race-based laws regarding slavery, etc.

To answer your question, though – race is by and large the more important category when it comes to genetics and biology, because an ethnicity is a cultural group first and foremost. But ethnicity obviously should supersede race when it comes to personal identification. That said, believing in ethnicity while not believing in race is cucked, because, by that logic, a physical and genetic foreigner “assimilated to your culture” may as well be a member of your ethnicity

The way I look at it is,

race is better when you want to make broad generalization type statements that can be quantified and demonstrated.

Ethnicity is better when you want to look at a specific heritage or bloodline, or when it comes to your identity I think ethnicity is more important because it’s more personal to you.

Obviously both exist and are real but if the question is what matters more or “what’s more important” I don’t think it’s a simple answer. They both have value.

 

[Hoodpreet]

The way I look at it is,

race is better when you want to make broad generalization type statements that can be quantified and demonstrated.

Ethnicity is better when you want to look at a specific heritage or bloodline, or when it comes to your identity I think ethnicity is more important because it’s more personal to you.

Obviously both exist and are real but if the question is what matters more or “what’s more important” I don’t think it’s a simple answer. They both have value.

That’s roughly what I said. I think we more or less agree. Ethnicity is your civilizational and cultural heritage; race is your genetic/biological heritage that affects looks and behavior

 

[Hoodpreet]

Europeans and Latin Americans can both be “white” because they can both pass as white

European ancestry is a measurable and quantifiable thing. Aside from criollos (who are more or less pure Iberian descendants) and immigrant groups such as German Mexicans/Brazilians, the vast overwhelming majority of “white” Latinos cluster further away from Europeans than West Asians (and even some North Africans) do thanks to indigenous East Eurasian-derived ancestry