Is Culture Determined By Race?

Is the culture of a people determined by their biology or their environment?

The claim I have seen from a shockingly large number of right-wing Americans is that culture is determined by genetics. One of the more succinct expressions of this idea is found in this quote:

Culture is a manifestation of our biology in an environment

— Francisco J Carriedo

In other words, what these people are claiming is that if we swapped Nigerians and Japanese people at the dawn of time, then Japan would look like Nigeria today and Nigeria would look like Japan. Right in the midst of Africa there would been a Japanese style architecture, language, a history of Samurai, Kimonos, Pagodas, chopsticks, Kanji etc.

If this idea sounds profoundly idiotic to you, it is because it is. Yet, this idea is far more prevalent than I think you realize. In fact, you might even agree to it and think my example was dumbing down your belief. I can imagine the rebuttal would be: "Of course the environment also matters, but we are saying genes play the major role or significant role."

I will do my best to rebut this idea with a more elaborate and reasoned answer, with a more profound look at human history and culture. However, you cannot expect me to not ridicule the idea. It is not merely a racist idea but also a profoundly idiotic one as well. Something only a person with the shallowest understanding and knowledge of history could propose.

Am I intolerant, mean and biased against racists? Yes, guilty as charged. But people with prejudice and bias against others hardly have a case to argue for respectful treatment. It is one of the profound delusions on social media today. A man called every woman a whore. In responses, I said exactly what I thought about him. Then he started whining that I was engaging in ad-hominem and being mean to him. It was apparently unfair, since he had never said anything mean directly to me. This is the level of entitlement bigots have today. They feel entitled to put everybody else down while being respected by everyone else around them.

It reminds me of the GOP voter who disparaged everyone on welfare as lazy and entitled. Then the interviewer politely reminded him that he was also living on welfare. Wasn't he being hypocritical? The response was: "But I need my welfare check!"

The most famous example is perhaps Ayn Rand, the horrible woman who made selfishness a virtue and who said altruism was evil and who didn't want any kind of welfare services. People should look after themselves. The government is bad and all that. Yet, she lived the last years of her life on welfare. Classic. Her acolytes will get deeply offended when I call her a horrible person. But she advocated that the genocide on Native Americans was a good thing. In other words, why on Earth does this woman deserve any of my praise, or to be addressed in any respectful manner?

Adopted Children and Culture

The most obvious proof that culture is not produced by your biology is adopted children. A Korean child adopted and growing up with a Swedish family isn't speaking Korean, eating Kimchi, or express a Korean sense of humor or sensibilities.

A Korean woman adopted and raised in Norway? Will she act Korean?

The idea that people live in conditions defined by their biology is old. In the early 1900s Norwegian polar explorer Roald Amundsen adopted Inuit children Nita Kakot Amundsen and Camilla Carpendale. Many at the time did not believe "savages" could learn and live like Europeans. Nansen proved them wrong. Both children did very well in school in Norway.

And countless stories like these exist whether we talk about Native Americans, Africans, Indians, Chinese or Japanese. And it goes both ways. In particular, I remember once watching an interview with an African-American Japanese girl. She looked black, but had a completely Japanese way of behaving.

My wife is of Asian descent, but I understood the moment I met her that she was not actually from Asia. You can tell right away on the mannerism, the humor, everything. She has many relatives on Hawaii, and for that reason, I have visited a number of times.

Hawaii is an interesting cultural melting pot. It is a popular tourist destination for Asians, while most of the inhabitants there are of Asian descent. Yet, you can immediately spot who is an Asian tourist and who is an Asian-American Hawaiian. Everything is different. The way they walk. The mannerism, the clothing, even the body type and build.

In fact, the Hawaiian culture is not the same as that found on mainland US. My wife's brother spent time here but remarked that he always stood out as a foreigner there despite looking like locals.

Divided Countries

The strongest example of the impact of politics and cultures on people is perhaps on countries which have been divided for different reasons. Prime examples are North and South Korea, as well as East and West Germany.

If biology and genetics defined a culture then why is the living conditions and culture of North and South Korea completely different. Are we to believe that the moment the countries got divided a spontaneous genetic change happened in the whole North Korean population causing their country to follow a very different path of development?

North and South Korea is an interesting example because it is a contradiction with respect to what a lot of right-wingers believe. They love to bring up these countries as examples of how amazing capitalism is and how evil communism is. Yet, these are the same people who will argue culture is produced by biology.

In other words political choices seem to only matter to them when it serves their argument to disparage ideologies they don't like. Never mind that South Korea is, in fact, no an example of the freewheeling capitalism the American right loves to promote. South Korea is a country with a long history of very active industrial police. The South Korean government was active in planning industrial development. In fact they famously went against American advisors who said they should not build steel mills as South Korea lacked natural resources for steel production and had no obvious comparative advantage in steelmaking.

I mention this because North Korea is popular to use in a form of slippery slope type of argument. One argues that any socialist inspired policy is bad due to North Korea. Never mind that North Korea is a country who is extreme in every possible way, and perhaps more of a strange hybrid of communist, fascist and theocratic ideology. Their leader is treated as a God-king. Not exactly a socialist idea.

Back to the core argument. The countries have been divided since 1945. That is 79 years (2024). In the grand scheme of things that is a relatively short division. Various regions of the world have been under different governments and ideologies for far longer time. Why on earth would most countries not be substantially different? They have not been run the same way.

East Germany is an interesting example. It is the same people. Same biology. Same DNA or whatever you want to call it. Yet a mere 40 years divided has created a lasting difference. Germans of East German descent, who never even lived in the DDR, are still markedly different from West Germans along numerous axis. They vote different. They are significantly less religious. Thanks to the legacy of Stasi they have much lower trust towards others. They even dress different and have different food preferences. They also tend to have more gender equality. If you look the hallmarks of success such as being CEOs, top politicians, wealthy etc they are significantly underrepresented. Along most life metrics, East Germans do much worse than West Germans.

Had you painted them all black, then a lot of right-wing Americans would smugly have claimed that all their troubles are caused by their race and has nothing to do with society. East German can easily pass as West Germans. They don't have a different skin color or physical appearance. Yet, they are disadvantaged. In other words negative experiences of the past can linger on for generations through cultural transmission.

If North and South Korea were united today, then the differences between those of North and South Korean heritage would likely linger on for generations.

Catholics and Protestant States

Perhaps the greatest natural experiment on the impact of nurture vs. nature is the random experiment conducted on Europe during the rise of protestantism. Within Central Europe, composed of numerous smaller states (Germany was not united), various states transitioned to protestantism rather arbitrarily.

That gave a good natural experiment to compare protestant and catholic states. In a very consistent fashion, the protestant regions outperformed the catholic ones in literacy, economic growth and human development.

But the impact of the religion itself may not be as large as it would seem at first. The most significant differences between protestants and catholics was that protestantism required universal literacy in many places. The Nordic countries for instance, which went full Lutheran established public schooling for all in the early 1700s and was the first fully literate region in Europe.

It is perhaps then not surprising that in the 1920s when Scandinavians immigrated to the US, there was an average IQ score gap of around 30 points between Spain and Sweden for instance. That is significantly higher than the around 12 point gap between African Americans and whites in America today. Yet, today that gap is evaporated. There is no measurable difference between protestant countries and catholic countries in measured IQ today. Not surprising given that catholic countries also have universal schooling today.

But the early advantage Protestantism gave lingers on today. Protestant countries in Europe are still generally richer than the Catholic ones, and Protestant regions within countries tend to be richer than Catholic regions.

The claim that biology creates culture cannot explain these differences. It was not biology that caused some countries to become protestant. It was usually a rather arbitrary choice by the ruler of that land.

History of Violence in Scandinavia

When i try to debate people on the idea that biology creates culture, it often becomes clear that their idea of culture is a moving goalpost. I will point out that clearly, language isn't from biology. A Korean growing up in Sweden will speak Swedish. The "biology is culture" crowd will roll their eyes and go "Duh of course! We aren't claiming everything about culture is caused by biology."

Then what is caused by biology? Preference for rice over potatoes? Hardly that is just an incident of what was possible to grow in different areas of the world. The language? The script used? All rather accidental.

Okay, so let us say I try to be reasonable and accept the premise that it is a combination. Then should the biology cause an Asian adopted in Sweden to have an Asian flavor to every cultural trait? Will the Swedish pronunciation sound a tiny bit more Asian?

Will the Roman alphabet get a slightly more Chinese character look? Or perhaps those Swedish meatballs will end up having a slightly more Asian taste when made by this adoptee? Yes, I know you probably roll your eyes and think my examples are stupid and contrived. But I am trying to get across to you just how stupid this whole biology causes culture idea is.

None of the people I have debated on this have ever managed to produce any clear articulation of how this biology manifests itself. Like, how would Korean adopt in Sweden be any different culturally from a Swede? If you cannot identify anything then we are chasing ghosts.

I put "history of violence in Scandinavia" in on this subsection. That may seem puzzling based on what I have discussed thus far. What does culture have to do with violence?

It turns out that once you peel off all the layers of "biology causes culture," that is what they really have in mind. What they really want to tell us is that black people are violent savages and that is all causes by biology. But they never say that explicitly at first. Racists today know well how to play the game of political correctness. The package in their ugly views in nice silk wrap. But all you have to do is keep pushing and pointing out how ridiculous the idea is until they burst out saying "How come black people are violent and primitive everywhere they live!?"

They aren't actually interested in talking about what most associate with culture, such as humor, literature, language, values, politeness, individualism, arts, or the myriad of different things constituting culture. No, they aren't interested in any of that. It also exemplifies how shallow the whole "biology is culture" idea is. It is never hashed out in any detailed way. It is really only about how to blame African Americans for being overrepresented on crime statistics.

They don't want a history of slaver, segregation, racism and red-lining to matter as that gives them responsibility. It gives the society they created responsibility. In rugged individualism America, the right-wing doesn't want to accept that public policy matters. It is why whenever I bring up the positive effect numerous social democratic policies have had in the Nordic countries, it gets flat out reject. Every single time. People with no knowledge of the Nordic region. No knowledge of the culture, the language, or the history. No knowledge of the political choices and their impact will elevate themselves to experts and declare that all of this is caused by Scandinavians being Scandinavians. It is culture, they say. Then they conveniently forget to mention that they also think biology creates culture. In other words once you start digging it becomes clear that what they really are saying is that Scandinavia is successful because all of those blonde Nordics are a superior race.

We heard that before. The Nazis made the same claim. They created the largest Lebensborn program in Europe in my native Norway. Nazi clothing brand Thor Steinar uses Norway in all their naming an imagery. No offense, but we are not flattered by being labeled the master race. American right-wingers will try to flatter me this way and expect I should somehow show gratitude. Instead, what they have really said is that all the policies, battles and hard work Scandinavians have put in to create a good society didn't matter. We didn't make any smart choices. Our policies have no merit. The only thing that matters is our "race".

It is akin to flattering a pretty girl for her blonde hair and blue eyes and dismissing everything about her values, personalities and hard work and accomplishment. So you get a compliment for something that was never your choice or the result of your efforts. It is one of the things they advise you about complementing a girl you like. Make it about something she had an influence over. It could be her clothing or hairstyle, for instance. But don't take my word for it. I am not in the dating advice business.

At age seven Egill Skallagrímsson split the skull of two boys cheating him in a game.

Here is the kicker: Scandinavias were never naturally peaceful people. The idea is preposterous if you have ever studied the Vikings. This is an example of my ancestors, Egill Skallagrímsson:

At the age of seven, Egil was cheated in a game with local boys. Enraged, he went home, procured an axe, and, returning to the boys, split the skull to the teeth of the boy who had cheated him. After Berg-Önundr refused to allow Egil to claim his wife Ásgerðr's share of her father's inheritance, he challenged Önundr to a man-to-man fight on an island (a hólmganga). Berg-Önundr refused the challenge but was later killed along with his brother Hadd by Egil. Egil later killed the last of the brothers, Atli the Short, by biting through Atli's neck during a holmgangr.

Later, after being grievously insulted, Egil killed Bárðr of Atley, a retainer of King Eiríkr Bloodaxe and kinsman of Queen Gunnhildr, both of whom spent the remainder of their lives trying to take vengeance. Gunnhildr ordered her two brothers, Eyvindr Braggart and Álfr Aksmann, to assassinate Egil and his brother Þórólfr, who had been on good terms with her previously. However, Egil killed the Queen's brothers when they attempted to confront him.

The point is that Viking society was exceptionally violent, and most foreigners aren't aware of how long that lasted. As late as 1560 the homicide rate in Bergen was 80 per hundred thousand. Compare that to around 5 in contemporary America and 0.5 in contemporary Norway. In other words, around 1600, Norway had something like 160 times higher homicide rate than today.

When I point out this to prove how it is indeed cultural, economics and political changes which decide how violent people are rather than genetics, I get desperate arguments in return such as: The killers got weeded out of the population through executions.

It is an absurd argument, but let us pick it apart anyway. Populations don't have special bloodlines with killers. A killer could come from anywhere in the population. In other words, whatever genes cause violence and ultimately a killing must be prevalent among numerous people. Weeding out such genes thus requires killing quite a number of people. Did that happen in Norway?