There's what I believe to be an Arab proverb I think of in discussions like this: "Me against my brother, my brother and I against my uncle, my uncle and I against the stranger."
When we talk about "culture", we tend to do it as though such a thing existed objectively, as opposed to comparatively. I had this debate in Cultural Analysis - "German Culture" exists only when you put a Bayer and a Preuss in a room with a Castillian. Put all three of them in a room with someone from Beijing, someone from Osaka, and someone from Seoul, you'll suddenly have "European Culture."
But if you put a Prussian and a Bavarian in a room alone, you won't get German culture. Put just some Germans in a room, and you'll get clashes of Ossi and Wessi, North vs South, etc, etc. So, I guess my point is, you'll see divisions largely by context. Even after three centuries, there'll be divides. You'll have assimilated families and individuals who feel more part of the local culture than their ethnic origin. You'll have folks with the sort of virulent ethnic ties you only see among people who've had no connection to their "home country" in generations (cf "Irish"-Americans). But when the conflict isn't motherland vs home, I think you'll find all but a vocal minority siding with whichever one is in the "fight" at the moment. I don't think any place will ever have a monoculture. Even after centuries, people will want to be different and maintain a divide, and ethnicity is an easy go-to. Meanwhile, the virulent expats will still maintain Little [Country], where the more-integrated individuals can go to feel the connection to a home culture light years away. They may have no idea what their home culture really was like, but the strange caricaturized version that has evolved over the centuries will speak to them, and they'll reach for that when they want identity (again, I think of plastic Paddys).
no subject
When we talk about "culture", we tend to do it as though such a thing existed objectively, as opposed to comparatively. I had this debate in Cultural Analysis - "German Culture" exists only when you put a Bayer and a Preuss in a room with a Castillian. Put all three of them in a room with someone from Beijing, someone from Osaka, and someone from Seoul, you'll suddenly have "European Culture."
But if you put a Prussian and a Bavarian in a room alone, you won't get German culture. Put just some Germans in a room, and you'll get clashes of Ossi and Wessi, North vs South, etc, etc. So, I guess my point is, you'll see divisions largely by context. Even after three centuries, there'll be divides. You'll have assimilated families and individuals who feel more part of the local culture than their ethnic origin. You'll have folks with the sort of virulent ethnic ties you only see among people who've had no connection to their "home country" in generations (cf "Irish"-Americans). But when the conflict isn't motherland vs home, I think you'll find all but a vocal minority siding with whichever one is in the "fight" at the moment. I don't think any place will ever have a monoculture. Even after centuries, people will want to be different and maintain a divide, and ethnicity is an easy go-to. Meanwhile, the virulent expats will still maintain Little [Country], where the more-integrated individuals can go to feel the connection to a home culture light years away. They may have no idea what their home culture really was like, but the strange caricaturized version that has evolved over the centuries will speak to them, and they'll reach for that when they want identity (again, I think of plastic Paddys).