In answer to George's answer, race and its consequences doesn't start with the German National Socialists; race and its consequences existed far earlier. What is not known is that National Socialism is a reaction to International Socialism, (i.e. Communism) which was very active in Germany especially in the Weimar period. One of the main planks of International Socialism is deracination. John Kiang author of the book "One World" said, ""As far as world unity is concerned, Marx and Engels were the pioneers who expounded that modern industry had furnished a real foundation for a world unity, and declared not only that “working men have no country,..." but also that "Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. (Pg 248-9). National Socialism is a reaction to International Socialism. Both of these are extremes without harmony, balance. Hesoid said, "Observe due measure, and proportion is best in all things."
Us Greeks can teach the world a thing or two. One has to observe the balance, the equilibrium.
Culture is not solely race. Environment (such as plains or mountains), Climate, (such as heat, humidity, coolness, seasons), Economics, (such as luxury or poverty, Agrarian/Rural, Urban/commercial), and Religion also contribute to Culture. Race makes up the foundation and substantial bulk of culture, I would say about 40%, Environment makes up 20%, Religion 20%, Economics about 10% and Climate 10% or variations of this. These all combine to produce Culture.
Both the International and Nationalist socialists were materialists. That is not Western Culture. Western Culture is about the Soul. When God changed the languages of man at the Tower of Babel, God changed the Souls of men for Language is the operation of Soul. Therefore, as a Greek I see metaphysically. Life is body AND Soul. As there are differences in the body, there are differences in Soul. Each nation/ethnicity/race has an ethnic/racial soul; a collective soul or national spirit, national character.
English is a funny language. It has to sound right. The English translators of Karl Otfried Mueller's work, Die Dorier, translated the title as "The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race". Now, the Dorians were not setteled in one area but scattered across the Mediterreanean; they were in Laconia, on Crete, on Rhodes, on Sicily, in the heel and toe of Italy. One can not very well have "The History and Antiquities of the Doric Nation". That doesn't sound right. The word "nation" conotes in "one place" as well. The Dorians were everywhere and they had a specific culture. It just doesn't sound right with "Doric Nation" but with "Doric Race".
I'm glad that I read in your post a first step towards reality, that "Culture is not solely race". The next would be to recognize that race is a secondary factor, not essential, which explains why, to use religion as an example, anyone can become a Christian, a European, an African, etc, without being impeded by racial differences.
Another thing you should notice is that the fact that a "race" developed some characteristics, doesn't prove that these characteristics are proper to this race or "belong" to it. E.g. philosophy started with Greeks, but this doesn't mean that you have to be a Greek in order to have philosophical thinking.
There are other things that need to be answered, but I'm afraid I haven't the patience to do it. There is something in your posts that doesn't attract me at all.
To make it clear, let's use the sentence above, about philosophy. We admit that "Greeks started philosophy". Your whole thinking emphasizes the first part of this sentence, that it was Greeks who invented philosophy, as if all of the world should bend down and worship the Greeks.
This characteristic of your post is very repulsive to me. All right, Greeks started and perhaps perfected philosophy; there is no reason to stay on that, we'd better study philosophy than keep repeating who started it, etc. You destroy the balance, you seem to be interested not in certain qualities, but in praising or condemning "races".
In the Langenscheidt's dictionary of Classical Greek 'ETHNOS' means - company, band; people, nation, tribe; class of men; gentiles.
So it seems to me a good translation would be 'Two class of men' When doing translations one should not focus on the line in which the word being translated in in but the entire paragraph or work in which the word exist. One must first understand the CONTEXT before being able to translate correctly.
Now what I believe the man discussing the notion that there are no races is trying to convey is that in an anthropological sense there are no races. Anthropologist like to view things through genetics. That is, no matter what physical attributes a person has all those attributes exist within other people around the world. Also genetically we are not different but one in the same.
This is just a Utopian ideal which puts all people on a level playing field. As an Archaeologist/Anthropologist this is what I was taught. We try not to pass judgment on a culture or 'race' just because they look different or do things different. No one is better than anyone else and who are we to say what is right and what is wrong.
On inventing philosophy, it is Jacques Maritain in his Introduction to Philosophy says that same thing. It was the Greeks that pulled philosophy out of religion where all the other peoples have kept it there. He writes, "But, except in Greece (and to a very partial extent in India), this impulse nowhere succeeded in achieving independent scientific discipline distinct from religion". (pg 3). Of the Jews, he writes, "In this matter the Jews did not differ from their fellow Semites. Scornful of human wisdom and the achievements of pure reason, and, indeed, without aptitude for such investigations, they produced no philosophers (at least not before Philo, who was a contemporary of Jesus Christ), ..."
Thorleif Boman wrote a book called "Hebrew Thought compared to Greek". In many instances, their vocabulary is very limited and furthermore, some of their words have opposite meanings such as to stand and to sit is the same word. Language is a sign of the faculties of the Soul. Greek Philosophy is built on "To define and Divide" (Plato, Republic, §454). Added on to this is Paramenides principle of non-contradiction. This is the basis of Logic. Logic is a product of Western Man. Asian thought is marked by syncretism. Western thought by Logic. And logic is the product of the bicameral mind that is very masculine, very Western. Not Asian, Not Eastern. Edith Hamilton remarks in her books that the Greeks noticed that they were different from the East. She writes, "...that which divides the West from the East, is the supremacy of mind in the affairs of men, and this came to birth in Greece and lived in Greece." (The Greek Way, pg 16). The ability to see in "Black-n-White", ie. logic is a gift of the Greeks. ------ On another note, I am wondering about the failure of reading comprehension. I say "soul" and the respondents keep on reducing it down to "biology" or "physical" or "genetics". Soul is NOT biology, physical or genetics. So why are people returning to this?