Now ya see, that's why I like getting into a discussion with you Jay, it means I am gonna have to strain every cell in my bonce to answer you ....
Hmmm, onward ....the notion of multi-culturalism relating to one race is obviously a sound one but the fact this is the case does not preclude a race adopting a cultural trait even though another sector of that same race may not adopt the same behaviour elsewhere.
The problem arises in the sort of situation I suggested whereby , all races within a certain environment are open to all the same influences and yet one race adopts a particular behaviour.
It doesn't matter if that race adopts other behaviours [or maybe even refuses that same behaviour] outside of the environment I described, what matters is, it elects to adopt that behaviour within the mix of the races in that environment.
And so, my question still stands mate, whist culture doesn't necessarily equate to race, it could well indicate a racial predisposition much like pathologies do in some races.
When you talk about levels of acceptance being dependent upon which culture you might or might not be part of, you begin to lose sight [in my opinion] of what's important here, you have already conceded culturalism is sometimes on a very short time-line and as such, is fickle relatively speaking; the law of the land cannot afford such fragility and has to stand well above culturalism here.
The law is necessarily based upon on an extended time-line and rightly so .. it has to be, to perform the role it does within societies.
I suppose I'm not one for believing cultural subjectivism is a get-out clause for ultimate responsibility of one's behaviours?
Also, the law of the land, which is of course hopefully a reflection of one's moral system has to be independent of everybody's culture but I can appreciate why you suggest there is a case to answer maybes.
This is a convoluted subject for sure but I'm also sure, the more we try to remain within the confines of my hypothetical situation I described in that first post, the clearer we can keep things and hence any conclusions.
Duuurrrr, my brian hurts
And yes, I do know ....
I'll have to look up your original question, it seems to have gotten lost to me in the debate going on in this thread.
The crux of your post to me seems to be the part I've made bold, so I'll get to that first.
Sure, what you describe can, and does happen. However, it still has nothing to do with one's race. Don't forget that going into the environment you describe, each race will already come with its own cultural background. In the same way that each individual person will respond to certain things, based on that person's experiences in life so far, the same can be said of each culture. You could say that a culture is basically a collective life experience for a more or less homogenous group of individuals.
All the different responses as a group to the stimuli in your environment are still culturally rather than racially based. Given humanity's long history so far, it's impossible to factor out culture. It's always there.
As I said earlier, the only way you could really determine if one race responds differently to stimuli within its environment, is to take a huge number of newborns from different races and raise them all in exactly the same way. Only then will any racial (genetic) differences in character come to light. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim... It would be interesting though, in a scary, Josef Mengele sort of way.
However, there is one group of people who constantly prove the culture over race theory to be right, and there are many of them: Adoptees.
Children adopted shortly after birth and raised by parents of another raise pretty much always act and respond like their adopted parents.
As far as the law is concerned, well, obviously the law supercedes any culture when it comes to implementing them, but laws in themselves are in fact part of a culture. The laws of the country you live in are based on that country's dominant cultural, mostly Christian for western Europe, with a hint of Jewish thrown in.
I notice that a number of people mention gypsies/pikeys as an example in this thread. This also reinforces the culture over race arguement: They are not a race, but a culture within Caucasian man.
I also wish people would stop mentioning Gangsta Rap. The environment is not a product of Gangsta Rap, Gangsta Rap is a product of its environment. It comes in several forms. One of them is a reflection of the bad life in neglected urban areas, something that's been done for ages and is as such no different from the Blues or "Negro spirituals". Hell, the whitest of the white music, country and western, does the same thing but for rural living!
Another form it takes is bragging and boasting, puffing of the chest and flexing of muscles: Look at me being scary. No different from the Haka performed by the All Blacks, no different from many forms of metal.
