Intergalactic Summit

The article is comprehensively referenced, and makes a strong argument.

As an opinion piece, it is very good. As an academic piece, the conversational tone goes against convention, which would result in a penalty to grading.

Overall: ★★★☆☆

Now dear, that's just rude. Jason Galente means nothing? He might not to you, but he will forever be the mischievous rogue and rakish ne'er do 'ell to me!

That said, when the Gallente introduced themselves on the interplanetary stage they did so as Gallente. The Gallente even formed a committee, the ISC, to determine if they should be Gallente or something else and upon taking a vote the Gallente decided that if they wanted to be referred to by anything collectively then it would be Gallente. As such the Gallente decided upon their own initiative that they would all be Gallente from that point on and if others decide to call the Gallente the Gallente then I am unsure why Gallente would be offended being Gallente when they are, in fact, Gallente by virtue of their own decision to be the Gallente?

Now there might be more to being Gallente than just a Gallente, at least if you abide by the maxim: Just because I'm Gallente does not mean I believe in labels like Gallente. However in Interstellar Gallente the definition of Gallente is usually described as related to the peoples and nations of Gallente Prime or if you prefer Gallentia; associated with the member-states of the Gallente Federation; someone who identifies as culturally or racially Gallente.

I'm pretty sure according to the Gallente themselves when I label something Gallente then it's Gallente. Especially when using Interstellar Gallente which is used by the Gallente in the Gallente Federation among other Gallente languages.

Gallente

Aside from the tongue-in-cheek tone of this whole thing, one thing you are / have misinterpreted are political and ethnic definitions of what it means to be Gallente. While there is definitely a political definition of Gallente referring to the Federation as a whole vis a vis saying they're a Federal citizen, there's a critical implication that's understood to other Federal citizens in the fact that calling a Federal citizen blanket-Gallente is silly.

Not only to we got Intaki, Jin-Mei, lots of Mannar, but we have citizens of every ethnicity from every nation in vast quantities. They are, politically, Gallente. Ethnically or even ethically, the rate of deviation in the definition of "Gallente" is too extreme to properly blanket-quantify the populace as Gallente. And... that's just the people who are actually Federal citizens. There's the "Gallente" ethnicity everywhere. We're in your Civire. We're in your Sebbie. We're everywhere.

That being said, even for those who DO identify as Gallente, as Triss said, there's too much to go off. Identification is dependent on location as well as genetics as well as culture and more and more and more factors. Even at the most basic, people forget that the Kingdom of Garoun even exists. No amount of repeating the word "Gallente" for snarky comedic impact will change the fact that people are overly generalizing.

A charmer as always, Cutestable Sefira.

According to Charles, everything. Or Nothing.

Yes, Gallente is an overly generalized word but the point is it is one that can be both quite general and quite specific -- it all depends on user, context, and intent as to what is meant.

It's just one of those things humans do once they learn object permanence and start doing informal set theory: abstract concepts like "Gallente" are given properties and attributes much like anything and everything else in the mental Venn diagrams.

Now as a broad identifier does, "Gallente" lack some semblance of informational complexity or specificity in and of itself? Sure, why not, but it's really no different to say, "Minmatar", "Amarr", or "Caldari" in terms of broad racial, cultural, and political descriptors people use. Those who use it or consider it for themselves will have a more complex and specific concept of what those words mean and what they apply to than those who don't. Outsiders will likely apply stereotypes as they think they fit.

Societies, cultures and civilizations are more complex than just a single word and associated stereotypes?

Well of course?

But on the count of being pots and kettles casting stones in glass houses about ignoring the underlying complexities of differing societal, cultural, racial, ethnic, religious or political narratives in favour of stereotypes that diminish and trivialize then we're pretty much all guilty of hypocrisy as far as I can tell.