3 ms·
Pride in heritage is still important. Genes don't necessarily define a person's success (genes are regulated in expression, and so expression can be changed by
by creep 9y ago
Pride in heritage is still important. Genes don't necessarily define a person's success (genes are regulated in expression, and so expression can be changed by environmental factors) but they do anchor an individual to history. They ground a person in eons of time. Being proud to be black or white or anything else is part of that.
- mc32 9y agoI think there is a difference in denial --which I don't propose and overtly and outright saying I'm proud to be "...". Be comfortable with being "..." accept being "..." and not wishing to be anything else. I hope people feel their heritage is "cool" but I'd rather not have people feel their heritage or a different heritage is "better". On the other hand, I feel that there are some societies that indeed contributed more to civilization than others. I don't think that's deniable. But I mean as a person one should not feel "better" or "worse" than any other person because of heritage.
- creep 9y agoI don't think we can say which societies contribute more or less. That's based on the metric of what they are contributing, but overall that discussion is too complex to definitively say who contributes more. As for feeling "better" I agree with you, only that pride is not necessarily a feeling of superiority. In most cases it is an acknowledgement of something related to the individual that he or she feels is inherently good. Not everyone associates good with better.