Identities

[Dunenewt]

What do you guys identify yourself as?  For me, I'd say I'm British, and English, I don't think I'd say anything else.  Do any of you guys identify yourselves as citizens of the EU, or anything similar? 

[Sneakgab]

Personally, I don't really identify myself into categories or perhaps even at all. Obviously I have a nationality, birthplace, e.t.c but I see no importance to any of those things.

[Dunenewt]

Surely you must apply some forms of identities to yourself?  Do you see yourself as African?  Christian/Muslim/Atheist etc?  Communist/Socialist etc?

[Anathema]

Hmm....

Dutch

liberal / capitalist pig dog

European (somewhat sceptic of the EU)

I suppose I could fill in more...I'm an agnostic for example, but *shrug*

[Tatar Khan]

Descendant of Genghis Khan, Canadian, Russian, Tatar.

[Khan]

Probably British although I usually recognise that my family have come from various different places as I think that has had a big effect on them. And they've had a big effect on me.

Other than that I'm a socialist and a libertarian.

[Dunenewt]

Whereabouts are they from?  Do you consider yourself English at all?  Or even a Londoner?

[Wolf]

Great American.

But, seriously, American, of Greek-German descent.

[Dante]

In order of importance...

[family name], Male, homosexual, Scottish, atheist, science student, political maverick and moral nihilist, British, human.

I know it seems a bit odd to mention sexuality in there, but if you are going to be proud of who you are then it would be odd to cut out what is a rather important part of self-identity.

[Khan]

Whereabouts are they from?  Do you consider yourself English at all?  Or even a Londoner?

Probably Londoner, socialist, moral & religious nihilist, libertarian, Brit, Englishman and all round bastard.

My mum is Aussie, my dad is from RSA and I was born in upstate New York.

In order of importance...

[family name], Male, homosexual, Scottish, atheist, science student, political maverick and moral nihilist, British, human.

I know it seems a bit odd to mention sexuality in there, but if you are going to be proud of who you are then it would be odd to cut out what is a rather important part of self-identity.

It's interesting because I'd rank sexuality as very low (about the same as the kind of books I like) in terms of how it identifies me. But then I'd put Sex at about the same level. I guess I believe others may identify me as a male and then a heterosexual one but I don't see what that actually says about me other than who I prefer to sleep with.

[Dante]

Oh I don't particularly care about what other people identify me as. What's important is self-identity, in this case important to me because it's one of the few things that I can use to relate to other people.

"Hey, we're both moral nihilists. Lets stand together against the MAN!"

It just doesn't work.

But you won't catch me dead at a pride parade. Seriously, those things are just not my scene at all.

[Khan]

Of course this thread is all about self-identity I just never thought of sex and sexuality as self identifying personally. I was just curious as to what you thought your sexuality defined about you I guess.

We could unite as nihilists but we have nothing to unite over ;)

[Kokiri-Mentat]

member of the _________ family, musician, cellist, teacher, student, friend, Kansas City-an, male, American, i am an egg

in order as well, like Dante.

Oh I don't particularly care about what other people identify me as.  What's important is self-identity.

I agree with that, but personally I have to watch myself, else i begin to become a tad bit quixotic.

[Dunenewt]

I guess I could say then, that I am British of English and Cornish descent, but I have often wondered why so many Americans are segregated on the basis of what their great great grandparents are, especially in terms of the Irish Americans.

[Acriku]

I am strangely not held strongly to my family name nor my country. Former, my dad was adopted into the name so I hold little to it. Latter, I'm not one to be proud of what country I'm from. City, maybe, just because it is more local and I contribute to its success [Orlando, if you didn't know].

So, I identify myself as: a man, atheist, life-long student, otaku [anime/manga geek], movie buff, reader, and poker player.

[Edric O]

My identities, in order of priority:

Communist, Socialist, Christian, European.

The way I see it, to "self-identify" as a member of a group means to take things personally whenever something is said about that group or done to other members of the group. You self-identify as X if you feel happy whenever good things happen to other members of group X, or sad when bad things happen to them.

My test for self-identity is as follows: Do you feel personally insulted when someone insults members of group X? If yes, X is part of your self-identity. If not, it isn't. I do not self-identify as male, for example, because I don't feel personally insulted if someone insults men. The "priority" I was talking about when I listed my identities in order of priority is the level to which I feel insulted when someone insults members of a group I self-identify with. So, for example, I take insults to communism more personally than insults to Christianity. This is mostly because there are far less communists than Christians. The smaller the group the greater the connection (usually).

[Dunenewt]

In what way do you feel European?

[Edric O]

I know it seems a bit odd to mention sexuality in there, but if you are going to be proud of who you are then it would be odd to cut out what is a rather important part of self-identity.

Well, it makes sense if you're part of a sexual minority, but if your sexuality is the same as that of the vast majority of people it's just not something you tend to think about. I certainly feel no particular kinship whatsoever with heterosexual people in general.

I am strangely not held strongly to my family name nor my country.

No, it's not strange at all. My family is perfectly ordinary so I have no reason to feel attached to its name or anything like that. I have plenty of relatives that I've never met and don't particularly care about. As for nationality, I think national identity is a force for evil in the world, so I not only reject but actively oppose patriotism and nationalism.

In what way do you feel European?

I support the idea of a united European federation; I believe Europe should become a melting pot that will eventually give rise to a single European identity and possibly a single European language; I believe Europe can serve as an example to the world in that respect, so that eventually national differences are abolished not only on this continent, but everywhere. However, this is my lowest-priority identity and I oppose the EU in its current form.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I support the idea of a united European federation; I believe Europe should become a melting pot that will eventually give rise to a single European identity and possibly a single European language; I believe Europe can serve as an example to the world in that respect, so that eventually national differences are abolished not only on this continent, but everywhere. However, this is my lowest-priority identity and I oppose the EU in its current form.

perhaps I misunderstand you, Edric O, but it seems that the Europe you envision is just another form of national identity on a larger scale.  Isn't this just a grand version of the national identity you reject?

Also, when you say abolish national differences, do you simply mean politically or are you implying culturally as well?  I don't really see the benefit of international cultural homogenization.  For one thing this automatically limits the frame-of-reference of the human race to one viewpoint.  Thus our multiple perspectives are lost in order for one unified one.  I think it is better to resolve conflict among differing cultures than to erode cultural differences altogether.  This is just my speculation.  I definitely see the benefits of eliminating the political strife between peoples. That should be obvious.

The benefits of abolishing all the languages for the convenience of one unified language I think is simply for convenience.  Some languages are better at conveying certain ideas than others (poetry, song, essays, legislation, philosophy, etc...), so for the Euro language to be a beneficial thing without loss, it would have to be able to perform as well as all the Euro languages in their respective strengths for the new language to be a truly good thing.  Or you could just use it as the lingua frank while preserving the original dialects of the peoples.

[Dunenewt]

a single European language

You're talking it already ;)

[Khan]

Well national identity and cultural identity are surely very different things. As an Englishman I share a national identity with quite a few people even if I don't share the same kind of culture as they do.

You're talking it already ;)

Pfft I'll be damned if I'm sharing it...

[Edric O]

perhaps I misunderstand you, Edric O, but it seems that the Europe you envision is just another form of national identity on a larger scale.  Isn't this just a grand version of the national identity you reject?

In a sense, yes, but if we take national identity and apply it to a larger and larger scale, we will eventually get to a single Human identity, which is what I want. My idea of a single European nation is not an end goal in itself, but rather a major stepping stone towards a united Humanity. That's what I meant when I said that "I believe Europe can serve as an example to the world in that respect, so that eventually national differences are abolished not only on this continent, but everywhere."

Also, when you say abolish national differences, do you simply mean politically or are you implying culturally as well?  I don't really see the benefit of international cultural homogenization.  For one thing this automatically limits the frame-of-reference of the human race to one viewpoint.  Thus our multiple perspectives are lost in order for one unified one.  I think it is better to resolve conflict among differing cultures than to erode cultural differences altogether.  This is just my speculation.  I definitely see the benefits of eliminating the political strife between peoples. That should be obvious.

I mean abolishing national differences in both political and cultural terms. The abolition of cultural differences won't require any conscious action on anyone's part, though. I believe that if you remove the political border between two cultures and place them under the same government, they will inevitably merge sooner or later of their own accord. At least that is what will happen at our present level of technology; in the past, lack of fast communication would have prevented it.

I don't oppose cultural differences as such, but I oppose the current situation where a culture is linked to a specific ethnic group and a specific geographical area. This is what creates strife between peoples, nationalism, racism and all the associated wars, suffering and prejudice. I envision a single "mainstream" global culture, but one that allows for a wide variety of subcultures.

The benefits of abolishing all the languages for the convenience of one unified language I think is simply for convenience. Some languages are better at conveying certain ideas than others (poetry, song, essays, legislation, philosophy, etc...), so for the Euro language to be a beneficial thing without loss, it would have to be able to perform as well as all the Euro languages in their respective strengths for the new language to be a truly good thing.  Or you could just use it as the lingua frank while preserving the original dialects of the peoples.

As with the single culture, I believe a single language will develop on its own. It will be heavily based on English, no doubt. I don't propose that we actually do anything about it - only that we do not try to put barriers in the way of the development of the single language.

[Acriku]

Like Joss Whedon proposes, it'll probably be a mix of English and Mandarin (the two most heavily populated of languages).

Anyway, I've always wondered - would we be seen as too prideful of our species from the perspective of aliens, as Europeans often see in Americans? Would you be crying for a single "life" entity between us and aliens, Edric, or maintain a human identity?

[Edric O]

Like Joss Whedon proposes, it'll probably be a mix of English and Mandarin (the two most heavily populated of languages).

No, I don't think so - the two languages are too different. I think it's more likely that English will absorb other Indo-European languages first, and the world will be split between areas where the English hybrid is dominant and areas where Mandarin is dominant.

Anyway, I've always wondered - would we be seen as too prideful of our species from the perspective of aliens, as Europeans often see in Americans? Would you be crying for a single "life" entity between us and aliens, Edric, or maintain a human identity?

Aliens are a completely different thing altogether. First of all they are purely imaginary at this point. Secondly, from an alien point of view, humans already have a single culture - I'm sure aliens wouldn't be able to notice our existing cultural differences. Humans are far, far more similar to each other than we could possibly ever be to an alien species. Add to that the fact that aliens are more likely to look like giant jellyfish than Star Trek style "people with forhead ridges," and the fact that it is supremely unlikely that we'll ever find an alien species at a level of technology similar to our own... and the only conclusion is that there is no chance whatsoever to ever have any kind of cultural connection with aliens. Uniting one species is possible. Uniting two species that evolved on different planets is inconceivable.

So the short answer to your question is "No, we have no choice but to maintain a human identity." As for pride - real aliens probably wouldn't even understand the concept.

[Anathema]

Like Joss Whedon proposes, it'll probably be a mix of English and Mandarin (the two most heavily populated of languages).

Well, Galach is supposed to be an Inglo-Slavic language...