Some individuals are of the claim that defining the culture background gradually based on their origin’s country. In contrast, others think that people’s nation no longer has a great influence on their culture. Although both schools of though have strong arguments supporting, I agree more with the view that the motherland has a vital impact on people’s behaviour.
On the one hand, there are some major rationales that explain why some people think that culture background is defined by original country. Culture is the acquiring of societal values and perspectives over a long period of time, it shapes human identity and behavior followed by the morality that society influence on. Thus, the culture where a human grow up and upbringing significantly impacts on the way they act and thinking. Additionally, other elements that constitues the culture such language or religion also created by the studying enviroment and family, where individuals spend most of their time. When frequent exposure becomes a regular part of people’s lifestyle, it directly reflects their culture and forms a unique charateristic.
On the other hand, opponents of the previous view claim that the origin of person has a minimum dosage on identifying individual’s culture. In the modern life, thanks to the benefits that gobalization bringing, it mades easier for people to engage with diverse cultures. Some groups may even abandon certain aspects of their origianal background in favor of adopting another that better suits their needs. Therefore, an idividual’s cultural background should not be exclusively shaped by their country of birth. While it may contribute, its impact is not neccessarily significant.
In conclusion, although there are mixed opinions, I believe that one’s homeland plays a crucial role in shaping their identity. The character often reflects the cultural influences of the country where people come from. However, it is undeniable that human are only partially shaped by their cultural heritage.