generalising about nationality
 

i don't know if any of us can generalise about members of any nationality, can we. lumping everyone together just because they are from a certain country. aren't we not allowed individuality along with all our faults.

governments make rules---i did not vote for our present government and am very unhappy about many of its current changes--but i have to adhere to them.

when i see someone dislike the brits--- really all brits are not the same are they thank heavens anymore than individuals from other countries are identical with others from their community, there is good and bad within every nation or group/community.


i guess some of us tar the japanese with the same brush hearing about the group system--but individually i am sure they too have their virtues and faults.


we receive certain images about americans via their films etc-- but i only know two americans personally-- one of whom bought one of my dogs from me at a very generous price. he is a fashion designer.


both americans were outgoing and not afraid to say what they really thought.

one needs to get to know people individually to really form a true impression

I think you have a point, but I also think sometimes generalisations can have an element of truth to them . . . generally speaking.

Of course, we should never judge someone solely on their nationality, and everyone is an inividual. In any society there will be a mixtue of good, bad, and everything in between. Then again, I do think stereotypes exist for a reason, mainly because it is possible for a group of people to share certain shared traits - not all, but many.

I have a friend in America, and recently said something and I remember getting the response 'I can't believe it's true that the British really do say that!', and likewise when she said something all I could think was 'God, that stereotype about the Americans is so true' - now, I don't represent all British anymore than she represents all Americans, but I found it amusing in the respect that sometimes generalistions can prove true. I mean if you read many guide books you will find some generalisations are given, such as customs and manners and so forth. I think some things can be generalised because they are a part of culture. Every culture values different traits more or less than others, and every culture has different expectations for its people and has different roles in mind for its citizens.

Surely there's a difference between 'so-and-so nationality exhibits this trait, seen in how they observe so-and-so customs/festivals/events', rather than 'this country is so stupid! Look at how they behave, haha!' So yeah, I think generalisations can be fair in certain contexts, just so long as one remembers there is an exception to every rule, and that the boundary between valid observation and verging-on-racist stereotypes isn't crossed.

There's a pretty large gray area between justifiable generalizations and outright racism, and which side a comment lies on is so very subjective.

The fact is generalizations are necessary, it's not feasible for anyone to have an absolutely clean slate every time we meed someone, and even more difficult after we learn a little about them to not fill in the gaps with patterns we've noticed before.

There's a separate issue also, factual evidence that demonstrates the opinions of the majority of the population of a country. For instance, votes in a democracy, it's perfectly appropriate to generalize a population on the votes of the majority.

If there was a nationwide poll in Japan that asked "do you prefer pasta or bread" and it came out 8:1 favoring bread, then it's entirely okay to say Japanese people generally like bread more than pasta.
Now bread and pasta is hardly controversial, but change that to a pass/fall for literacy, or a presidential election or whatever, and it doesn't change the facts.

What must also be considered is what causes the results of the statistics, like, for example, when looking at the crime rate associated with a certain ethnic minority in a certain part of a country. To assume the results are due to the color of their skin is just misusing a statistic.

I'm trying to skirt the issues raised in a thread that was closed while staying clear of any form of bashing, I hope we can continue this thread with consideration to all who are reading it.

I agree for the most part of what you're saying, except for this. Of course, if there's a sweeping margin like your bread/pasta example, then it's safe to assume this as accurate. But there are plenty of times where the margin is a lot closer, like 50/50, or 60/40. In these instances, if you're going to apply the same logic, then you're generalizing an entire half of people who don't show the same values or traits as the group you're generalizing. And when we're talking about a scale as large as nations, such as America, then you're making an inaccurate generalization of over 150 million people.

You're entirely right, and I did just mean in the case of sweeping margins.
In a 50/50 case or 60/40, I don't feel it's wrong to say something like "Half (or over half / most) of Americans think ..." it's basically fact.
For example, about half of Americans preferred Bush as their president over Gore. Is this an inaccurate generalization? Is it an improper reflection of the state of America? I don't think so, and I doubt you think so either, am I wrong?

Very true! I grew up interacting with people from many nations and the impressions made on me by people from those countries have stuck with me despite efforts to erase them (especially the unfavorable ones!)

All I can do is remind myself of how likely those memories are to influence my perceptions and conciously negate them when they begin to surface. And I have learned to err on the side of caution and regard any generalization more likely to be offensive to someone, than not.

Unfortunately I have met far too many people who are either unaware they are doing this, or who see no problem with prejudice.

We need to redefine "prejudice". Afterall, likeing greenbeans over carrots is "prejudice". Sometimes you make a judgement call in certain situations that would be "prejudice". Like avoiding a large group of young, semi drunk males (reguardless of race, cause young semi drunk males tend to act the same in my experiance) The action to avoid the situation is prejudice, though I would contend that it's prudence as well.

Generalizations can also be benificial. If it's known that culturally group A does such and so or enjoys such and so then it's easier to utilze these "generalizations" to interact. For instance, one would "generalize" that most people in Green Bay like the Greenbay Packers football team.

While it's true that not everyone would technically like the Packers, it would still be something you could use to open discusions with the local population. Mentioning the Packers will give them the sense that you understand them a bit or have something in common, that opening allows further interaction.

If you keep things accurate and really say, "50 percent of Americans voted for Bush," then it's not really a generalization so much as it is a statistic. But when you take something like "50%" and begin replace it with hot button words like "more than half," or "most," then you are grossly generalizing. You can say 50% of Americans voted for Bush," but I can just as easily say that 50% did not vote for Bush. The difference is, your version is a wrench used to spite people, and mine is a rebuttal to prove there is an equal amount of non-supporters unlike the generalization you're imposing.

Right I meant that in the case of an Election, you need a majority vote to win, which means that the majority of the voting population elects you even if it's 50.1 to 49.9, to be honest I don't know what the figures were for that example, either way I do make the assumption it's a majority, which also means most. It's not used to exacerbate a situation or to misuse a statistic towards evil ends.
In other words, "more than half" or "most" are in fact perfectly accurate and not gross generalizations when referring to the out come of a national election.
Most Americans supported Bush, twice. (discounting the non-voters and any foul-play that may or may not have occurred) That is entirely true, isn't it?

I could also just as accurately say that "In all developed democratic countries, most of it's population support their leader, even more so if he is reelected."

In 2000 Bush got 47.87% of the popular vote. 50.5 million votes

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

In 2000 the voter turnout was 51.3% of American eligible to vote.

National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008 — Infoplease.com

So we can only show that 24% or so of people eligible to vote actually voted for Bush. That's not a majority or more than half, no matter how you cut it.