Ideally, they go hand in hand--or are both preserved, celebrated and nurtured equally and intertwined.....
However, given a choice of one or the other and not both, I would have to choose blood. I will always maintain that the foundation of culture lies firmly on the blood and without the folk, there is no culture. This isn't really a "which came first, the chicken of the egg?" type of situation where one begets the other. There had to be a folk before any of the extraneous and more superficial (but not trivial!!) entities became so--language, art, style, science, etc.
Also, I find that bloodlines are more fragile and easily damaged--and once altered for the worse, generations are required to dilute anything foreign. Certainly culture is similarly fragile but I believe it to be more plastic in nature and something that can be more quickly repaired or relearn.
I suppose that a breakdown in culture could/can/does lead to a breakdown in bloodlines as we are now seeing in the glorification of negro culture amongst European and Colonial whites and the startling rise in the acceptance of miscegenation with said negroes. That being said, I think that I'd rather see a white person listen to rap and marry a suitable and compatible white, giving rise to another generation of this ilk than I would to see a white listen to Bach and study Proto Indo-European all the while being married to a negro and giving rise to a brood of mulattos....![]()
Bookmarks