potatoserver404
to@st
littleb623
Pixiv ID 9196331

>>3987042
>He's an amalgamation of the beliefs (and to a certain extent, stereotypes) of his people, NOT his government with sprinkles of his own personality
I already agree that the society and its people are central, and that is a motivator for how I understand characterization, but your position is silly in a very liberal American way: why would you exclude the government?
Do you think you can have a good sociological impression of a people and a nation without looking at their government?
The government is a reflection of the political culture of a society and political culture is a reflection of the general culture of the society and its people.
Yes, you could say that the government is a reflection of the elite primarily, but elite culture is still national culture, and given its influence, actually has an outsized share on what counts as national culture as a whole.
And your rationale kinda breakds down in a practical way because, according to you, who a nation is, their personality, thats pure Volk, but what a nation does, that's the government. So effectively, with this stricter binarism of people and government, you have created a disconnect between the character's personality and their actions. That sounds ... insane, just a little bit.

[sidenote: Your rationale also kinda breaks down with Poland and Nazi Germany: I really don't think Poland is the femboy capital of Europe (they have potential, but it's clearly London or Vilnius, despite the British being ... like that) and Hitler didn't invent antisemitism or hatred of the Poles, just capitalized on it. How much can you square the sexy stannable character of Germany with the real genocidal beliefs of the Germans?]