Religion or Ethnic background?

Great Debates
1

This is something that I’ve tusseled with for years, on a personal basis at times. There are some religions that are very closely identified with ethnic groups; the first one that comes to mind is Judaism. Another example would be Sikhism. I’ve seen converts to Sikhism who seem to start to identify more strongly with Punjabi culture rather than whatever their own background is; some even to the point where they speak punjabi-accented English.

What would cause this sort of phenomenon to happen? Why couldn’t a convert to Sikhism be satisfied with practicing the Sikh faith – what makes someone want to try to become another culture completely from what they actually are biologically? I’m sorry if this isn’t making any sense, or is coming across the wrong way. Perhaps it would be easier to use the Jewish faith as an example. If I converted to Judaism would that mean that I became an ethnic Jew as well? I think that there are Jews who are ethnic Jews but not religious Jews–Judaism is their ethnic heritage but they do not practice the religion. I’ve just known people who converted to Sikhism (to be honest, so did I for a few years, back in the 70s); now many of them who are still practicing Sikhs (these are majority Western, US folks) seem to identify more with Punjabi culture rather than Western culture, from clothing to music to language. It just seems so strange to me; I don’t know if I could totally immerse myself in a culture completely different from my own bio-ethnic one. Heh. And reading this on preview, I’m thinking to myself, “but you did! For 4 years in the 70s!” I did leave, though, and returned to my own ethnic/cultural background.

It will be interesting to see if this gets many (or even any) responses. I do apologize in advance for any political incorrectness; and I do not generally post in GD, but this particular question has been on my mind more in the past few months, so thought I’d venture it forward. Here’s hoping that a good discussion gets going!

2

I would just say that there are Venn Diagrams you can draw for most faiths/cultures that illustrate two sets with a common name, but with one circle being those who culturally self-identify with that group and the other circle representing people who religiously self-identify with that group. There’s a lot of overlap in the middle but some people in either of the crescents on the sides.

3

Well, this one is going over like a lead balloon, I see! LOL Thanks for the reply, cricetus; I don’t remember having seen Venn diagrams before and frankly I didn’t really understand them, but suspect that may be my own personal quirk of not wanting to understand mathematical-type equations.

The main problem I have with that, though, is that not all religions have ethnic ties. Some have very strong ethnic ties, like the ones I spoke of in the OP; while others may have ties but not be as strongly identified with any one religion. For instance, LDS are not really strictly tied to any particular ethnic group. Or Evangelical Christians are not tied to any particular ethnic group. Well, that may be up for debate for some of us, eh?! Not wanting to put even my big toe in -that- particular debate, that’s the sort of point I’m getting at. If I were to return to Sikhism as my religion (and admittedly, I still find it a very attractive faith and one that would be a good fit for me), I just do not see me wanting to dress in typical Punjabi clothing, nor wear a turban, although covering one’s uncut hair is indeed one of the basic tenets of the faith (ftr, I would likely cover my hair, just not with a turban). I also don’t see myself picking up Urdu or beginning to speak Urdu-accented English. I still feel, though, that I could be faithful to the religion without doing all that–IOW, still being an American WASP. LOL

4

What’s your definition of an ethnic group, exactly? I wouldn’t have considered Jews as such.

5

Well I imagine a convert (especially one easily pegged as an outsider because of their ethnic make-up) might become a zealous follower of the faith, and adopt all those cultural trappings they identify with the religion.

What is your/anyone’s biological culture?

6

I realize that this was going to touch on some sensitive ground. It’s just that I wasn’t sure how to put it. The Sikh faith originated in the Punjab area of India (and what is now Pakistan); many Sikhs are of Indian/Pakistani descent. That’s their culture. It’s not the culture I was raised with, nor the culture of my ancestors. That is what I meant by “biological” culture. I hope that makes more sense.

7

Could it be that it was the underlying culture that attracted the potential converts in the first place?

8

This is only relevant if Sikhism (or any other faith) precludes individuals because of their ethnicity. I do not know enough about Sikhism to say whether it does but if it doesn’t the fact that a majority or a plurality of a faith’s adherents are from one background or another is not too relevant.

Those who convert to another religion from the one they were raised with are perhaps looking to be part of something bigger, to be part of a gang, a sense of belonging and may well then take on all the trappings they see that are part of their new religion. It would take a very strong willed individual to convert to a religion and become an odd-man-out “secular” adherent.

9

I think you may have hit the nail on the head, An Gadai, one that perhaps I can’t see because I’ve been too close/too personally involved. The Sikh faith is one of the youngest of the world’s major religions; it was started in the 15th century by Guru Nanak. There are many instances of martyrdom, however (as there probably are in almost every faith, come to think of it); many of the converts I knew of related more closely to Sikh heros but that probably comes with the conversion to the faith.

I may never sort this all out, at least on a personal level, but I think at least I can understand it better now.

10

I think it is easier to distinguish between religiosity and ethnicity in language than in practice. The two are typically somewhat rolled together. Evangelical Christianity and Hinduism may both be available options to someone looking for a religion, but in practice if you look at groups of practicioners of each, it will probably be obvious which is which. Even groups of Evangelical Christians and Catholics would probably be easy to tell apart.

Religions are more or less of a package deal, aren’t they? That is, typically, religions and communities and ethnicities and cultures tend to go together, and belonging to a religion typically involves belonging to a group too.

In fact, we often have an idea in the US that belief is a very personal thing, a mental process within ourselves - but even that is somewhat a part of our Protestant culture, the whole Sola Fide thing.

11

For some it could be a simple as “doing as the Romans do”. Presumably their newly adopted faith takes up a lot of their time, and they make a significant circle of close friends from amongst it. If that circle is more demonstrably “ethnic” in dress and demeanor, the new guy changes to fit in better.

12

I would think if you’re going to convert to a new religion, you’ve got to be ready to reinvent your life (buddhism may be the exception). A conversion to a new religion almost calls for total immersion, it’s such a drastic change. I also suspect part of it has to do with the degree to which a religion attracts and welcomes new members.

Judaism historically has been a religion of ethnically jewish people, with very little attempt to recruit, and and obvious pool of new members - children of jewish mothers. It was also, in its early days, the state religion, so there was a one-to-one correspondence between ethnic and religious identities. As I understand it, most religiously jewish people today are ethnically jewish. Converts to judaism are rare (I’ve known one).

Hinduism makes very little attempt to get new members, HK’s aside. Most hindus today are indian. That said, it’s a huge religion, with every possible variant, so…YMMV

Christianity of course is extremely conversion - oriented, so you can meet someone of any ethnicity. The LDS make an effort in the pacific, which is why you see so many samoan LDS. I’ve always thought having a samoan guy in a white shirt and tie coming to the door to talk religion would get my attention. [A comment I make with nothing but respect for Samoans, I just note that some of the men are big dudes.]

Islam is another conversion oriented religion. In the autobiography of Malcolm X, as I recall, he comments on the ethnic diversity when he is on hajj. I think with this kind of conversion oriented religion (Islam and Christianity) you may feel a need to reinvent your life when you convert, so that may be part of the issue of post conversion immersion.

Buddhism has its strongholds in asia, but is also pretty open to conversion, so you see lots of different ethnicities who are buddhist. Buddhists may stick to their own prior cultural traditions, and add buddhism on top. Many N. american buddhists celebrate Christmas, and many japanese buddhists participate in shinto.

There’s my two cents.

13

There are all kinds of people who take on ethnic backgrounds that are not their own in all kinds of contexts. Religion is just one of them.

One reason in America (especially white America) is that we are a relatively rootless nation. While people in most countries could tell you exactly what village their family is from, Americans would be hard pressed to come up with a country. Even if they do have an idea of what country their family is from, they probably have little to no actual cultural connection to that country.

And I think most white Americans would be lying if they said they didn’t feel a little twinge of jealousy whenever their friends from different ethnic backgrounds celebrating their heritage.

So we do what people have done since the beginning of time- we make shit up. We say we are 1/16th Cherokee. We go to the Scottish games and wear fake tartan kilts. We decide to learn Gaelic. We get trashed on St. Patrick’s day or Oktoberfest dependent on our last name. We go on and on about our Italian heritage when the only hint of that is that mom cooks spaghetti now and then.

And some people choose less popular stuff or more obviously not connected stuff- probably because it seems more interesting or romantic to them. We may give them some trouble for being wannabes, but are they really all that different than the guy who gives you his complete “clan history” when we all know they are about as Scottish as a stubbed toe?

14

>So we do what people have done since the beginning of time- we make shit up.

Fascinating observation. We Americans seem to suffer from some kind of deficit of authenticity. Many of us try very hard to not look like tourists when we are tourists - we want to seem to be authentic locals (I don’t, but then I’m just trying to be authentic about being a tourist). We feel inferior around anybody with an English accent, even if it’s an accent from one of the poorer or more industrial parts of England. We buy coats of arms. It’s weird.

Speaking of making shit up, what’s the deal with St. Patrick’s day? He was an Englishman who went to Ireland and pushed them to abandon their religion, right? Isn’t that the sort of thing Sinn Fein was blowing things up about? Why does he now stand for Irish heritage?

15

Sinn Féin never blew anything up. Their (somewhat interchangeable) paramilitary wing did.