In a large and diverse country such as the US, there's quite a variety of cultural types: if you look at music tastes, for example, there's at least two subcultures that listen to Country--they share some traits, but it isn't universal. Popular music gets listened to by much of the population, but again it varies by region and other characteristics. Jazz, R&B, Metal, Rap, etc., all appeal on geographic, social, economic, ethnic and other grounds.
But you can also start with any of those geographic, social, economic, ethnic, etc., grounds and study their "cultures," which will include music types, leisure-time activity preferences, professional and vocational preferences, political attitudes, and so on...
True, there are many overlapping identities and cultures which impact upon how people see the world. Sweeping statements and generalisations are often somewhat lacking
I suppose a committed Marxist from Nebraska and another from Palestine might have more in common with each other than people of their respective mainstreams in terms of the lenses through which they see the world and approach other people.
Western Music (Classical) can be seen as an example of Western Culture, as contrasted from India Music, or Middle Eastern.
I would this is a superficialism of culture, but is nevertheless an important component of what goes to make it up. Of course it emphasies "high culture" rather than the "low culture" which I would venture is of more influence and a better reporter of how people are within themselves.
Much like dogs, humans are territorial and "tribal". We don;t like to think of ourselves that way, but the reality is those are very strong impulses within our species.
Can these be overcome? To an extent yes, but it's tough because so much is simply "built in" to our personal and societal psyche.
"Culture" (as in different cultures) is a human construct with ill-defined lines of demarcation. In descending order by size, we in anthropology tend to use culture, society, and sub-culture.
Gotta go.
Well yes, I agree. These are indeed human constructs, and we have an assortment of identities, which I personally think are unhealthy and should be unlearned. But people from different areas of the world do generally have different ways of looking at things, of approaching things and so on. Down to little reactions, biases, thinking methodologies, all sorts. I find it interesting to explore these different identities and approaches.
A little factoid to illustrate how artificial those things can be.
Brazil largely thought of itself as a colony of the kingdom of Portugual from 1500-something up until 1815, when it was decreed a part of the "joint Kingdom" with Portugal.
Then in 1822 the heir prince, with the accordance of the king, decided to decree Brasil a sovereign, independent country - the sole monarchy in the history of the Americas.
Then in 1889 it became a Republic (after exactly two monarchs).
In the 128 years since we had IIRC six "republics" and as many "constitutions".
History of Brazil since 1985 - Wikipedia
History of the Constitution of Brazil - Wikipedia
Clearly, we like the concepts of republic and constitution in the abstract, but have a hard time understanding them enough to make it work. In a sense it is almost like a cargo cult.
Are we a part of Western culture? Beats me. But we sure like to play the part on TV.
A lot of this is stuff happening "at the top" which the average Brazilians wouldn't have been particularly directly involved in. I think that Brazilian nationality emerged following the 1880s as in most other places, before that nationality wasn't really a thing. It especially wouldn't have been in such a mixed society as Brazil.
Nevertheless, a country with plenty of potential!