Depends what you mean by ethnicity.
I am white, and identify as such.
But ethnicity is much broader than that.
Based on my parents and grandparents, I am English (specifally, celtic, I think, not entirely sure), Dutch, and Polish.
I was born in Australia.
I have literally no association with any polish stuff. It doesn't particularly feel like it has anything to do with me, even though it's in my blood, supposedly.
On the other extreme, the only association I have with Australia, is having been born there, and spending about half my life there. I identify with that culture, but there's nothing in it innate to me, just that I grew up there.
To give another example, in England, I was briefly involved with a black guy. (I kinda hate him, but that's because he abused me. )
Now, obviously, 'black' can be identified from the colour of s person's skin. But are all people with dark skin the same 'race'? I really don't think so.
Anyway, why do I bring up the English guy?
Because that's what he was. Skin colour aside, he was pretty much like any other british guy. He really had nothing distinguishing him from anyone else that grew up in England, other than dark skin.
So... What does it even mean ti 'identify with your race'? Huh?
What does that mean?
For that matter, in Australia, our history has resulted in a lot of 'white' people with aboriginal blood.
They don't look it, but nobody, white, nor aboriginal, is likely to question them on it.
Because while most of them do have dark skin, that is not how they define who is and isn't part of their 'race'.
Still, this whole thing remains an incredibly flaky subject. Race is statistically insignificant on a gwenetic level, so again, what is it that's being argued about?
Am I for instance, polish, because one oof my grandparents is?
or am I not, because I have nothing in common with the culture there, and you wouldn't be able to work that out just by looking at me?
You can't realistically argue about your membership in a particular group (and whether that can be changed) without first defining what it means to belong to a group.
For transgender people for instance, many arguments arise about what exactly does and does not define whether you are male or female, but many elements of it have been defined, both physical, and social. Some can be changed, some cannot.
the argument about what group a transgender person belongs to then basically comes down to an argument about which factors are more important? The ones that can be changed? Or the ones that cannot?
(yes, there are complications related to the idea of a person having an innate identity not matching their body, but the core argument still revolves around the conflict between what can, and cannot be changed)
So, again, what does it mean to be a member of a specific race? Can any of the elements involved be changed in an individual? Can any defining elements NOT be changed?
What would the significance of such changes be?
For instance, certain groups of white people xan have very dark tans if they get enough exoisure to sunlight.
An albino can have dark-skinned parents, but will be very pale regardless...
How about cultural habits, and adoptions and such?
A black child raised by a white family, will, attempts to explicitly learn their identity, behave like a white person.
A white child raised in Japan by a jaoanese family will behave like a japanese person.
Barring any stigma resulting from your superficial appearance, your 'identity' will basically be defined by the environment you grew up in. 'Race' only factors into this if you have a radically different appearance to everyone around you, anand they treat you differently as a rwsult of that. If they don't, your identity will be the same as everyone else you grew up around.
Unless you can define what race/ethnicity means in detail, you cannot really argue if it can be changed.
Culture can be changed. It is a matter of familiarity and exposure.
This is how I can feel perfectly justified claiming ownership of 3 slightly different cultures. (english, dutch, australian).
Not because of something innate in me, but because I spent quite some time living in these places.
Because I know some of the quirks of the culture. The languages. The slang. Variations in manners. Expectations.
I learnt these things. They weren't innate.
If I had grown up in an African tribe, I woukd've understood the culture of that tribe. If I had been in Tibet, I would've understood that.
That isn't based on my race, it's based on what I've been exposed to in life.
I am white, and identify as such.
But ethnicity is much broader than that.
Based on my parents and grandparents, I am English (specifally, celtic, I think, not entirely sure), Dutch, and Polish.
I was born in Australia.
I have literally no association with any polish stuff. It doesn't particularly feel like it has anything to do with me, even though it's in my blood, supposedly.
On the other extreme, the only association I have with Australia, is having been born there, and spending about half my life there. I identify with that culture, but there's nothing in it innate to me, just that I grew up there.
To give another example, in England, I was briefly involved with a black guy. (I kinda hate him, but that's because he abused me. )
Now, obviously, 'black' can be identified from the colour of s person's skin. But are all people with dark skin the same 'race'? I really don't think so.
Anyway, why do I bring up the English guy?
Because that's what he was. Skin colour aside, he was pretty much like any other british guy. He really had nothing distinguishing him from anyone else that grew up in England, other than dark skin.
So... What does it even mean ti 'identify with your race'? Huh?
What does that mean?
For that matter, in Australia, our history has resulted in a lot of 'white' people with aboriginal blood.
They don't look it, but nobody, white, nor aboriginal, is likely to question them on it.
Because while most of them do have dark skin, that is not how they define who is and isn't part of their 'race'.
Still, this whole thing remains an incredibly flaky subject. Race is statistically insignificant on a gwenetic level, so again, what is it that's being argued about?
Am I for instance, polish, because one oof my grandparents is?
or am I not, because I have nothing in common with the culture there, and you wouldn't be able to work that out just by looking at me?
You can't realistically argue about your membership in a particular group (and whether that can be changed) without first defining what it means to belong to a group.
For transgender people for instance, many arguments arise about what exactly does and does not define whether you are male or female, but many elements of it have been defined, both physical, and social. Some can be changed, some cannot.
the argument about what group a transgender person belongs to then basically comes down to an argument about which factors are more important? The ones that can be changed? Or the ones that cannot?
(yes, there are complications related to the idea of a person having an innate identity not matching their body, but the core argument still revolves around the conflict between what can, and cannot be changed)
So, again, what does it mean to be a member of a specific race? Can any of the elements involved be changed in an individual? Can any defining elements NOT be changed?
What would the significance of such changes be?
For instance, certain groups of white people xan have very dark tans if they get enough exoisure to sunlight.
An albino can have dark-skinned parents, but will be very pale regardless...
How about cultural habits, and adoptions and such?
A black child raised by a white family, will, attempts to explicitly learn their identity, behave like a white person.
A white child raised in Japan by a jaoanese family will behave like a japanese person.
Barring any stigma resulting from your superficial appearance, your 'identity' will basically be defined by the environment you grew up in. 'Race' only factors into this if you have a radically different appearance to everyone around you, anand they treat you differently as a rwsult of that. If they don't, your identity will be the same as everyone else you grew up around.
Unless you can define what race/ethnicity means in detail, you cannot really argue if it can be changed.
Culture can be changed. It is a matter of familiarity and exposure.
This is how I can feel perfectly justified claiming ownership of 3 slightly different cultures. (english, dutch, australian).
Not because of something innate in me, but because I spent quite some time living in these places.
Because I know some of the quirks of the culture. The languages. The slang. Variations in manners. Expectations.
I learnt these things. They weren't innate.
If I had grown up in an African tribe, I woukd've understood the culture of that tribe. If I had been in Tibet, I would've understood that.
That isn't based on my race, it's based on what I've been exposed to in life.