The above is just as true if you delete "America" and substitute in its place "France", "Germany", "Spain", "Italy", "Russia", "England", "Brazil", "Mexico", or any other non-African country.
So what's the point of claiming that "most Americans aren't American"?
My point is that if you use that point of perspective, no one has ever been an American champion in chess because no one even was a true American.
I'm not saying it's a practical and useful point of view, and no one ever would consider that point valid. But it does make sense according to the definition. I was just saying something to add.
Arthur Schopenhauer: Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right.
I think this is because as individual peronality types, nations too have an "overall" personality type. So one ridicules the other for not have 'z' and vice versa. So one nation might be istj and another esfj both are correct cz a 't' (thinker) cant 'f' (feel) and an 'i' (introvert) cant be an 'e'. So either both are patient or both ridicule each other. And i think, had they been patient they would have eventually learned a lot and would not have looked like fools to a third party.
Between it is true that people have genetic preferences of feeling over thinking or judgment over perception and etc. And it would not be incorrect to assume that a group of blood related people (tribe, nation etc) would have some marked preferences. The catch however is to recognize that for example: someone says something funny and witty and you have been admiring that quality in that person for year. His mode of taking information is different so it comes to him naturally. So what he says, makes sense, how he makes it (invents it) will not make sense for you cz you might have a clash or a feeling vs thinking. And both are correct.
Digging even deeper it will take some cool science for people to get to really understand each other cz if, for example a thinker explains something to a feeler, the feeler will only be "feeling", not thinking.! So in a way people live in the same world, yet very different worlds.
If for another example: a t were to go into an f's mind when the f were to be "feeling" he would experience a unique mode of mental activity he never previously felt and vice versa.
And if a t were to go into an f's mind if he were "thinking" he would experience "feeling" according to his own standards and vice versa.