Many people in the world outside East Asia were of course familiar with Japanese and Hong Kong classics such as Kurosawa and Wong Kar-wai (mwah!), but the average person's relationship with Asians in films used to be (and still is for many), the stereotypes presented in Hollywood productions. Suffice to say these portrayals seldomly helped against exotism and dehumanising stereotypes. I had the misfortune of reading some comments below a Rush Hour clip on YouTube. Strongly advice any decent person to not venture into this :S. - So many people being nostalgic and seemingly provoked by the fact that society moves forward; "Today's snowflakes and cancel culture can't handle this type of film", etc.
I think it is very ethnocentric to feel sad about Asian people's problem with being portrayed as something narrow such as a comical figure with a strong accent, a nerd or an exotic sexualised woman. I also find it thought provoking that a lot of people who are upset with racism being brought up, have never experienced racism or their ethnic heritage being the constant focus.
With the success of Parasite, Squid Game and other East Asian films and series, people elsewhere can finally see Asians on screen that are NOT seen from an outside perspective, influenced by both subtle racism and exotism. It's more on the Asians' own terms, and the characters are humanised through their actions and narratives rather than the heavy focus on ethnicity. I think that is great!
Ethnocentrism is one of the most prominent themes inย The Truth About Storiesย and in a great deal of our world history. Ethnocentrism played a large role in the systematic oppression of Native Americans and the colonization of North America.
I am not saying that people can't be hated for their race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, age, disability, mental state, apperance, religion, economical class, ethnicity, talents & skills, religion, beliefs & core values, occupation, generation or their interests and hobbies. But these are all like justifications(unjust justifications, but justifications nonetheless). These social issues are all just complete smokescreen, smokescreen to deny plain human nature outrightly. Is kinda like how people act racism is the pinnacle of evil human behavior when the reality is humans have always been monoculturally tribalistic. Look at all the tribes who enslaved eachother in 400 BCE in Africa, look at all the tribes in Mexico who ritualized honor killings and sacrificing their very own people, look st all tribes in Europe who killed eachothet over fighting for colorist supremacy, the KKK hated Poles, Italians, Jews, Russians and other Eastern European types. However these are all still social constructs, the reality is humans are very socially hierarchial. Many people also still think men are socially hierarchial and women are socially agreeable, while this does still hold some truth, the reality is women are just as hardass about other people earning their respect just as much as men. Is just that men are more blunt about it, I firmly believe. The reality is all humans want to ensue suffering onto others, even those more powerful than them. Your social status hardly matters when people are all equally disposable across the board. Some people bully their way more than others, I get that. But the truth is still undeniable about this, all people will eventually get a wake up call. Whether that includes being fired, being backstabbed by their very own social circle, being cheated on, losing a promotion, getting in trouble at school, etc. It may seem like wishful thinking at best, but is true under the state we're all equally disposable and replacable just remember'
Ali M. Sallabi is well known for his controversial connection to the Sunni royal of Qatar. Despite That, Abu Bakr comes off as tribalistic in Sallabiโs biography of Abu Bakr. The following passage discusses the commotion with the Ansar in Saqeefah Bani Saโidah following the Prophetโs death. To the Ansar, Abu Bakr says, โyou deserve the virtues and the good deeds that you have mentioned; however, people will only accept the authority of the Quraysh. They are the best of the Arabs in terms of lineage and homelandโ (pg 201). Sallabi justifies this statement claiming that โAbu Bakr concluded that even if the best of the Ansar reached a very senior level, that it did not mean he was more entitled to the caliphate. This is because the Prophet had stated that the muhajirun of the Quraysh had precedence with regard to thatโ. Sallabai cites this source https://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=4989 vol 9. Pg(24) (please comment if you read the original because I canโt).
Sallabi fails to mention for ideological reasons the tension between this claim and the final sermon of the Prophet. Specifically, โAll mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white โ except by piety and good action.โ. How can Abu Bakr claim caliphal authority based on Arab lineage? Sallabi attempts to justify by citing Ibn al Arabi al Malikiโs interpretation of Quran passage 59:8-9 in his mind stating a preference for the muhajirun over the Ansar. Even if this interpretation is correct, Quran passage 58:8-9 does not refer to the ethnicity or tribal loyalties of the Muhajirun. Abu Bakrโs criteria would disqualify the first prayer caller of Islam Bilal ibn Rabah al-Habashi. A black non-Quraysh member of the Muhajirun.
Abu Bakr imposed ethnocentrism and tribal preference in his criteria for succession. He was undermining the clear message of the Prophetโs final sermon and contributing to the coming fitna. Omar was standing next to him and did not object to the tribal ethnocentrism of Abu Bakr. Therefore, he is guilty by association for not challenging Abu Bakr in his Prejudice.
Hello there, for a school assignment we have to conduct a survey on ethnocentrism and other forms of intolerance. It's a really short survey, would love if you could help me out and fill it out.
Thank you so much for your attention and have a great day!
I've heard some rhetoric in the past of more traditional Catholics being really ethnocentric as a result of their faith in the Church. Of course, putting all the "the Church is perfect so anyone not a part of it is imperfect" stuff aside, there are other things I've heard as well. One person I went to school with mentioned that the Church is obviously in the right when it comes to how it views gender roles and norms because the majority of cultures are patriarchal in nature so therefore that can't be a coincidence so it must be God's guidance. Another person kept expressing disgust toward East Asian cultures because they view gender and sexuality differently than we do, saying places like Japan and Thailand are countries destroyed by sin.
They also deny all accusations of racism because their argument is they're criticizing the practices of the culture, whereas the individual people can be taught to reject those practices and accept the "correct" ones, so it's not a result of their genetics.
Has anyone else encountered this?
Bet you never have encountered these scenarios before.
"You are British?"
"Yes."
"But you don't look British?"
"What do you mean by that? What do British people look like?"
"You look Arabic!"
"Well my parents migrated to London from Pakistan, and no, I'm not Arabic either"
"..."
"So, what race are you?"
"I'm German on my mom's side, I don't know about my dad, probably Italian, Irish, Welsh and a bit Native American"
"Ah! Sehr gut!"
"Huh?"
"You said you are German right?"
"Yea, on my mom's side, and that doesn't mean I can speak German."
"But you can speak Italian right?"
"Nope."
"Only English?"
"Yep. I'm American. Duh!?"
"But I heard you speaking Spanish with that Mexican guy?"
"I was joking, Americans are supposed to be dumb and uneducated."
"So you have German and Italian blood, but you don't speak either languages? And you learned Spanish?"
"Yep. Why? What's wrong?"
"So strange! Chinese people go America, Chinese people speak Chinese, and their children learn Chinese..."
"Even 4th and 5th generation ones? What happens if one of them married a Vietnamese? Do they speak Chinese or Vietnamese?"
"They should speak both"
"ไฝ ่ๅฎถๅช้็ๅ๏ผ"
"Huh?"
"ไฝ ๆฏๅช็ไบบโ
"Yea... sorry I don't really speak Mandarin"
"Where are you from"
"Connecticut".
"But you look Chinese, where your ancestors from?"
"Probably Canton, I don't know".
"So you speak Cantonese then, Cantonese is also Chinese"
"No I don't"
"Why not?"
"Why should I?"
"You are Chinese, and you should learn your own language"
"Yea my great, great great grand parents landed in California in the 1840s or something and I have an aunt that's Irish, an uncle that's Thai, none of my parents could speak any Chinese and I have never been to Chinese language schools so why should I?"
"..."
I am fed up of the nonsense ethnocentric people do. They give all type of justifications ( which is cringe) to show that our culture is and was the best culture in all spheres and ages. " We were the first to have plastic surgery". "We had women equality during rig vedic times" "We had satellites before America" "We knew earth radius before anyone" "We had the first script ,first animal, first scientific Revolution,first university" Even Minister of education (Ramesh pokhariyal) regarded Astrology and "JYOTISH VIGYAN" as the best form of knowledge. I am not against BJP or Hindu culture,but against those who regard Indian culture as best. I don't hate Hindu culture too. There is nothing more interesting than Indian festivals,food and especially the Indian peer group . But I feel that we should acknowledge our wrongs. Women's position in our country is horrible, scientific devolpment is minimal, most educated just want to leave the country, marriages are just business. I may sound like I am fault picking but most of ethnocentric show our greatness only in the past culture but fail to show our greatness in the present. This is my first post. Sorry for any grammatical mistakes .
It's just as bad as racism but people don't seem to think it is. I noticed that a lot on here. It's joked about and seen as justified that Chinese hate Japanese/Koreans, Cubans hate Mexicans/other Latinos, Africans hate Black Americans, etc. But that's not okay. It's still bigotry. Not to mention generalization as not all people of those groups hate the other... But it's often made out to be so.
A lot, if not most, genocides were fueled by ethnocentrism rather than racism. See the Rwandan Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, the current Ethiopian genocide, even the Holocaust as Jews who were genocided were also white. There's plenty of other examples too.
It isn't really less harmful just because it's not being done by a different race or justifiable because of religion/politics/history/cultural differences.
When Saru gives his lecture about Giotto and the Renaissance, he says the following:
> The period before the Renaissance was referred to as the "Dark Ages." A frightening time. Humanity was under siege from wars and plagues and was, well, losing its way. Giotto helped spark the Renaissance ... For the first time in a long time, humans looked up.
This is a surprisingly ethnocentric (in particular, Eurocentric) take to find in a show that wants to be politically 'progressive'. Saru identifies European humanity with all of humanity. As is now common knowledge, the European "dark ages" were also the flowering of Islamic civilization. This kind of problematic view of history would fit right into TOS, which was made in the 60s, but is quite out of step with how we think about history in 2020.
Note that the issue is not Saru as a character but the writers who made the decision to talk about history in this way.
[edited for formatting]
Until two years Ago I used to live in a neighborhood in Germany with a lot of Turkish and Russian immigrants.
Most of them are very nice people. Regardless of their language skills.
But I don't get why someone would live in a foreign country for 10 plus years (or even in second generation) and not be able to communicate with more than a handful of broken words.
I was told that this view would be ethnocentric or that I am a literal nazi because of it.
I'm not suggesting anyone changing their culture or religion or that speaking foreign languages should not be allowed. I just think communication is key to successfully building a community and just for obvious practical reasons the people who moved into a country should be those who have to learn the new language.
Hi All!
Last week, I've seen my friends and we've started a discussion around political systems. As the discussion progressed, we found the bone of contention that split the part into two groups:
one stated that nationalism implicates ethnocentrism and second, that nationalism can exist/be implemented without ethnocentrism.
Some said that nowadays both definitions are obsolete, others said that it means basically the same looking at the word right now. We couldn't find any valid resources during the discussion, nor the common ground and it was left unresolved.
Therefore, I ask you, oh mighty Redditors - cold you share some valid resources & your own thoughts on that matter? Any examples of countries we can say are nationalistic but their culture is not ethnocentrism?
As we are from a country that might be named both, I trust that we might have the bias that it looks like it everywhere around the world, and both come always in the package.
I understand that country is an entity big enough to have groups that will be ethnocentrism, either way, the question is about large scale and some valid proofs to finish the discussion :)
How do different cultures in your world percieve each other? Are there common assumptions or narratives about other cultural groups that might not hold up to reality? What national stereotypes exist, and do these affect the ways characters interact with each other?
Studying racism and ethnocentrism in school, but is there really such a thing as racial ethnocentrism? Seems to me like these two words are independent and do not belong together? I'd love an explanation if you have a better understanding. I am really not trying to debate the two topics. I just want to know if racial ethnocentrism is a phrase I could use in a research paper and make sense. It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe you can change my mind?
