What is ethnicity? (a topic recently discussed in several threads)

Ethnic identity, heritage / ancestry and national identity are three different things.

They often correspond to each other but often they do not.

For example a person of X ethnicity can start to feel as being a member of Y nation during his or her lifetime.

As for ethnic identity:

According to Reinhard Wenskus, ethnicity is not about biologically common origin with other people of the same ethnicity, but it is merely about a strong belief in such common origin. Ethnicity is thus based on myths and traditions. The same opinion is shared by other scholars, such as Anthony Smith, Walter Pohl, Fredrik Barth, S. M. Shirogorov (who first wrote about "subjective ethnicity"), Edmund Leach, Max Weber.

So ethnic groups are based on myths of commonality (mythomoteur according to Anthony Smith, nuclei of tradition according to Wenskus).

Those myths, beliefs in commonality, could at first be formed by relatively small groups, and later spread over much larger populations.

According to Anthony Smith:

"Ethnicity is a matter of myths, symbols, memories and values. They are carried by forms and genres of artifacts and activities which change very slowly. Therefore an ethnie, once formed, tends to be exceptionally durable under normal vicissitudes."

He also writes about the importance of ethnic and / or national identity:

"Without a mythomoteur [a constitutive myth] a group cannot define itself to itself or to others, and cannot inspire or guide effective action."

Ethnicity is about a person's belief in belonging to a particular ethnic group, an ethnic self-conscioussness and identity (Wenskus).

Often traditions around which ethnic groups base their ethnic identity, are so called "invented traditions".

Some scholars say that ethnic beliefs are based not only on myths of commonality, but also on myths of difference ("we" vs. "them" approach). Anyway, ethnic groups are not about biological origins, but are internally generated social entities (Bentley 1987, Horowitz 1975). They are based on myths of commonality and myths of difference ("the content of ethnic identity is as important as the boundary around it").

Um.

The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Click to expand...

Is this really what people are referring to when they talk about ethnicity? Isn't there also a racial component to this (like it or not)?

Isn't ethnicity the politically correct modern variant for race?

In any case, I think ethnicity, as a concept, is as problematic as race. And whenever I encounter it as a question on a form, I plead that I cannot possibly answer.

What race are Romani? Irish? Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Arabs? Russians? Socialists?

Simply put, it is an outmoded way of looking at oneself that is the cause of much pain and suffering in the world. Embrace your country, not your bloodlines.

Formaldehyde said:

What race are Romani? Irish? Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Arabs?

Click to expand...

I've no idea. What ethnicity are they? Who's to say? How can you tell?


Link to video.

Is this really what people are referring to when they talk about ethnicity? Isn't there also a racial component to this (like it or not)?

Isn't ethnicity the politically correct modern variant for race?

Click to expand...

Not according to all those scholars whom I have cited above...

I am not sure when the term first appeared, at least with the current meaning. In the new testament the term "Ethnikoi" meant "of (other, ie in that context non-judean, lands or nations). I don't know if the term had a different connotation before that, but i largely doubt it cause it would create more confusion if it was used in the gospels while meaning very different things to begin with.

In ancient Greece the main term for this sort of distinction was Genos, and it was (obviously) at first far more localised (eg the Polis, or a group within that Polis, or even a sole distinguished family).

Obviously the Greeks of the classical era created their exonyms for the other races/peoples, and so the term Hellenes (ie people of Hellas, 'Greece') was used when they wanted to refer to the collective cultural and 'racial' entity. "Barbarian" was to note people who were foreign and supposedly spoke with unknown words that seemed to make this heavy and repetitive bar-bar sound.

bhsup said:

Simply put, it is an outmoded way of looking at oneself that is the cause of much pain and suffering in the world. Embrace your country community, not your bloodlines.

Click to expand...

FTFY. Now I agree. However, that isn't to say that I don't think that ethnic groups don't have the right to maintain their cultural identity such as they wish, or that I think that the importance of ethnic identity to people will or should simply vanish. We need to learn to contribute toward a greater whole, and that includes our ethno-cultural identities. Fortunately, I think that we are slowly moving in this direction, but not without steps backward.

Let's also add this:

"Ethnic groups are not born, but made (...) as a result of a process of differentiation and identity formation." (Florin Curta)

Curta writes many things with which I do not agree, but with this excerpt above I do agree.

It is also in agreement with what other scholars that I have mentioned above wrote.

Domen said:

Let's also add this:

"Ethnic groups are not born, but made (...) as a result of a process of differentiation and identity formation." (Florin Curta)

Click to expand...

Yes. And FWIW, I agree with the premise of your OP and its definition of ethnicity.

Domen said:

Let's also add this:

"Ethnic groups are not born, but made (...) as a result of a process of differentiation and identity formation." (Florin Curta)

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that quote. For starters i heavily doubt that there is no significant unconscious relation between people who have ancestors of the same language/background. Afaik modern psychiatry is supporting the theory of inherited similarities (which obviously always allow the current massive difference between individuals in most ways), and i have every reason to think that the common lingual background is not just something formed by the child's early observations in the earliest of the formative years.

The above, of course, is a note on ethnicity having a link to some similarities. It does not signify anything in regards to more specific traits. Everyone who lived for a few decades in this world is expected to know very well that many people of his own country are among the worst he ever had the bad luck to meet and speak to

For starters i heavily doubt that there is no significant unconscious relation between people who have ancestors of the same language/background.

Click to expand...

Then your doubts are groundless, because languages are in no way related to genes or to biology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_shift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation

These "unconscious relations between people" also sound like some "mythomoteur" or "spiritual tales"...

Do you believe you have "unconscious relations" with the spirits of the deceased 300 Spartans ???

Or maybe "unconscious relations" with the spirits of Ancient aliens?:

Domen said:

Then your doubts are groundless, because languages are in no way related to genes or to biology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_shift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation

Click to expand...

Ok, that settles it then.

: mischief :

Humans are herd animals so they were gathering in herds since the stone age, those groups would begin to have their own language, characteristics and traditions unnique to them and tribes were created, some of them nomadic and some stationary. Later on tribes were unified or conquered and nations have formed thus creating first government structures, but ethnicity is essntialy our roots and our roots are our ethnicity, our past , our ties to some places or traditions or our culture heritage from the times past - even so distant as the times of the first tribes. That is ethinicity imho.

edit: Just look at the Native American Indians - All different tribes with different customs and traditions each (even different hair styles) It's the best example of what Im trying to say here - esentially They could have form a unified nation but they choose instead to be divided by their ethinicity

@Domen: Don't multi-edit your initial post to make it prettier (moreso paradoxically by using the face - and hair - of that SWISS/Greek alien guy)

Your belief in "unconscious relations" is simply the old Romantic concept of national soul (Volksgeist).

It was invented by German racists during the 1800s.

It also laid foundations for Gustaf Kossinna's "biological-cultural" school of archaeology, which is nowadays rejected by 99% of scholars.

Kossinna's "biological-cultural" school of archaeology was of course heavily racist and based on theories of German racial superiority.

What is ironic with this, is the fact that Kossinna himself was a descendant of germanized Polish / Slavic people.

Uh-huh. Not sure if you are trying to get me to the thread, but the short answer to that would be "no"

I did not wish to elaborate cause the issue is massive anyway. It goes back to the debates about there being innate ideas or not.

Answer to what is "no" ???

Your "unconsciouss relations" concept, IMO seems to be very similar to the 19th century concept of Volksgeist.

The concept of Volksgeist was that "national spirit" is being genetically inherited by children from their parents.

And this seems to be exactly what you wrote, but you called this "unconsciouss relations", not "national spirit".

So, there's no such thing as a collective unconscious?

Or maybe that's the wrong question. Perhaps you mean that there's no reason to think it's inheritable, genetically?

I'd be inclined to agree. Though I understand many indigenous Australians disagree.

There is, but it is subjective. It is not inherited biologically...

Kossinna was the best proof that his own theories were rubbish.

He did not inherit the "Slavic national spirit" from his ancestors...

Quite the contrary, he became a German racist, despite having Slavic ancestors.

Perhaps you mean that there's no reason to think it's inheritable genetically.

Click to expand...

Exactly this is what I mean. There exist such collective identities, but they are not biologically inheritable.