I don't know about the lot of you, but there happen to be a number of individuals around where I live who thoroughly enjoy making comments such as the title of the thread.
The sorts of people who weave rich tapestries of cultural history and attempt to emblazon their names across the top.
People who believe they are the ethnic almalgamation of all of their predecessors.
A great-great-great-great grandfather who resided in a quaint cottage in Ukraine. You must be part Ukrainian.
An ancestor from the dead center of what is now Russian territory. Definately have some Russian scrubbed into you as well.
And what's that, you have another ancestor from Ireland? And another from Scotland? Well right on lads and lasses, you might as well chock them onto your ethnic heritage as well.
Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?
I'm not trying to make this sound like a big deal, nor am I trying to say it's not right for people to say this. I genuinely would like to know if anyone else supports my opinion that it is inaccurate to lay claim to a cultural background just because someone in the high branches of your family tree happened to come from there.
In my opinion, to say that you belong to certain cultues is to actually have been raised within that culture.
I can understand how that would be difficult for a Canadian, because our cultural values are all so clear (guffaw, guffaw).
So if you're raised in a North American society, say...Canada, you're Canadian. Just because you have an ancestor from a different part of the broken Pangea doesn't mean you're part of it as well.
If your parents are from a different country, and upon immigrating here, raised you with the cultural values of their previous home, then yes, it is understandable that you would have that as your ethnic background.
This question is mostly asked because of various incidents where individuals claimed to be "culturally offended" because they were "part ", when really, it was one of their most previous ancestors that reigned from that culture.
...Discuss. Anyone found people like this before?
The sorts of people who weave rich tapestries of cultural history and attempt to emblazon their names across the top.
People who believe they are the ethnic almalgamation of all of their predecessors.
A great-great-great-great grandfather who resided in a quaint cottage in Ukraine. You must be part Ukrainian.
An ancestor from the dead center of what is now Russian territory. Definately have some Russian scrubbed into you as well.
And what's that, you have another ancestor from Ireland? And another from Scotland? Well right on lads and lasses, you might as well chock them onto your ethnic heritage as well.
Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?
I'm not trying to make this sound like a big deal, nor am I trying to say it's not right for people to say this. I genuinely would like to know if anyone else supports my opinion that it is inaccurate to lay claim to a cultural background just because someone in the high branches of your family tree happened to come from there.
In my opinion, to say that you belong to certain cultues is to actually have been raised within that culture.
I can understand how that would be difficult for a Canadian, because our cultural values are all so clear (guffaw, guffaw).
So if you're raised in a North American society, say...Canada, you're Canadian. Just because you have an ancestor from a different part of the broken Pangea doesn't mean you're part of it as well.
If your parents are from a different country, and upon immigrating here, raised you with the cultural values of their previous home, then yes, it is understandable that you would have that as your ethnic background.
This question is mostly asked because of various incidents where individuals claimed to be "culturally offended" because they were "part ", when really, it was one of their most previous ancestors that reigned from that culture.
...Discuss. Anyone found people like this before?
