>
I think this article goes through a lot of micro-exercizes and micro-corrections and semantics to avoid the obvious conclusion that Japan is mostly honogenous, and to a far more degree than the US or a lot of European countries.It depends on what one looks at.
The U.S.A., culturally, most famously treats race as if it be an ethnicity. As such, in their perspective what they call “African-American" and “European-American” are very different.
From where I stand, they are all “Anglo-Saxon”, and further subdivisions seem rather minute and trivial. They all live in a similar culture, having grown up with English as a native language, and tend to have very similar Anglo-Saxon cultural sensibilities that are shared with say Australia and the U.K.. that often seem uniquely and recognizably Anglo-Saxon to me.
I do not really think that the color of a man's skin, having grown up in a very similar environment, speaking the same language, practicing the same traditions, and being influenced by the same values, makes him all that different and worthy of a different “ethnicity”.
Many countries actually have a large population of recent immigrants. Did you know that Polish is spoken more in Ireland than Irish as of this moment for instance? These Polish immigrants have grown up speaking a different language, exposed to a different culture, eating different food and practicing different traditions. — they might be as “white” as the Irishman as a stereotype, but there is a greater difference to be had here than between the Anglo-Saxons of different colors.
And, to note, the only Polishman I have ever had a good conversation with was quite dark skinned, but nevertheless Polish was his native language. He lived in the Netherlands but was a recent immigrant from Poland and quite catholic. Apparently both his parents were immigrants as well, but he was born in Poland and spoke Polish as a native language.
It depends on what one looks at.
The U.S.A., culturally, most famously treats race as if it be an ethnicity. As such, in their perspective what they call “African-American" and “European-American” are very different.
From where I stand, they are all “Anglo-Saxon”, and further subdivisions seem rather minute and trivial. They all live in a similar culture, having grown up with English as a native language, and tend to have very similar Anglo-Saxon cultural sensibilities that are shared with say Australia and the U.K.. that often seem uniquely and recognizably Anglo-Saxon to me.
I do not really think that the color of a man's skin, having grown up in a very similar environment, speaking the same language, practicing the same traditions, and being influenced by the same values, makes him all that different and worthy of a different “ethnicity”.
Many countries actually have a large population of recent immigrants. Did you know that Polish is spoken more in Ireland than Irish as of this moment for instance? These Polish immigrants have grown up speaking a different language, exposed to a different culture, eating different food and practicing different traditions. — they might be as “white” as the Irishman as a stereotype, but there is a greater difference to be had here than between the Anglo-Saxons of different colors.
And, to note, the only Polishman I have ever had a good conversation with was quite dark skinned, but nevertheless Polish was his native language. He lived in the Netherlands but was a recent immigrant from Poland and quite catholic. Apparently both his parents were immigrants as well, but he was born in Poland and spoke Polish as a native language.