Why did the Native Americans Not Advance Quickly?

[Flying Pig]

No, race is categorising people based on how you perceive they actually are, ethnicity is about how they see themselves. I don't know whether 'in relation to genetics' is the be-all-and-end-all, but it's certainly up there somewhere - hence someone can be ethnically 'white' and nationally 'German', or ethnically 'German' and nationally 'American', neither of which actually reflects anything at all on their 'race'. One can even imagine an ethnic German, with American nationality, holding British citizenship.

EDIT: To be clear, the key point with ethnicity is the perception of ancestry, which is inseparable from if not quite the same as genetics per se.

 

[Domen]

Ethnicity has nothing to do with hereditary physical features or physical appearance.

It has also not so much to do with the perception of ancestry, at least not where I live.

No, race is categorising people based on how you perceive they actually are, ethnicity is about how they see themselves.

Rather like this:

Race and ethnicity are categorising them based on how you perceive them, while racial identity and ethnic identity are about how they see themselves.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's true for all of those terms except 'ethnicity', which in modern English is the same as 'ethnic identity'. What you've described as 'race and[/or] ethnicity' is in fact just 'race': the belief that people can be categorised on grounds of ancestry independently from their own identification.

 

[Domen]

'ethnicity', which in modern English is the same as 'ethnic identity'.

I googled "ethnicity" and there is nothing about identity, but membership (implying categorisation made by outside observers, not by people in question):

"Ethnicity. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be associated with shared cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, the term culture specifically including aspects such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, etc."

This is the first result of googling "ethnicity" - and I assume that Google gives me results in modern English.

===============================

What you've described as 'race and[/or] ethnicity' is in fact just 'race'

Race does not tend to be associated with shared cultural heritage, history, homeland, language or dialect - and in fact even with ancestry (because for example 'Black people' from Somalia or from Ethiopia do not share ancestry with 'Black people' from South Africa or from Senegal).

 

[Flying Pig]

That quote you've pulled is from Wikipedia, the first sentence of whose 'ethnicity' article runs as follows:

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience

Emphasis mine.

 

[Traitorfish]

One can even imagine an ethnic German, with American nationality, holding British citizenship.

And that's not even merely hypothetical; change "German" to "Ukranian" and you've just described my sister's boyfriend.

 

[Domen]

who identify with each other

But this isn't true because for example a seriously mentally ill ethnic English guy is not capable of identifying with anyone or anything, yet he is still English.

That quote you've pulled is from Wikipedia

No - it just showed up at the top of the page with results of my search, I did not enter wikipedia to find it.

One can even imagine an ethnic German, with American nationality, holding British citizenship.

Yet ethnic German does not imply that he has German ancestry, or "looks like German" (whatever this means), which is what you suggested before.

 

[Flying Pig]

No I didn't, I suggested that it implies that his grounds for calling himself 'German' are rooted into what he thinks his ancestry is.

And the quote is from Wikipedia, whether you actually went there or not!

 

[Domen]

In the USA ethnicity is often being conflated with ancestry, because in reality most of them are ethnically American (they speak American English, they share common American culture, etc. - so objectively most of them are ethnically American, more than anything else), yet they still want to identify with their ancestral ethnic groups or homelands. Except for several dozen million of them who do not declare any ancestry or who declare "American" ancestry.

I suggested that it implies that his grounds for calling himself 'German' are rooted into what he thinks his ancestry is.

Not always. For example I know a guy who identifes as ethnic German but believes that his ancestry is from ethnic Tatars.

He identifies as German based on culture rather than ancestry. Objectively though, he is simply Polish in denial.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's not what ethnicity is. You're going a bit Humpty-Dumpty here - if you want to define 'ethnicity' according to your own schema, that's fine, but it makes talking to you about it confusing. Why not pick a different word, just so the rest of us, who are using standard English, don't have to carry on translating everything that either of us says?

 

[Domen]

Have you read my example of a guy who identifies as ethnic German but believes he has Non-German (Tatar) ancestry?

Here he is:

Spoiler :

Looks quite similar to the guy from your avatar, by the way.

 

[Traitorfish]

In the USA ethnicity is often being conflated with ancestry, because in reality most of them are ethnically American

As if ethnicity is an objective characteristic which can be determined without reference to subjective identification?

 

[Domen]

As if ethnicity is an objective characteristic

Indeed for example German scholars considered Germanness to be an objective characteristic - defined as "speaking German language":

See the part highlighted with red colour:

If you ever saw maps of ethnic groups before WW1 then you should know that practically all of them were based on language.

Or more precisely - they were based on language and religion.

 

[Traitorfish]

Indeed for example German scholars considered Germanness to be an objective characteristic - defined as "speaking German language":

They were wrong, though. The entire body of modern scholarship agrees that they were wrong. The daft buggers never even managed to define "German"; were the Dutch Germans? Were Frisians? Luxemburgers? Yiddish-speaking Jews? If any of those were excluded, then why not exclude Low Saxons, who departed as much and sometimes more from High German? There was never and has never been any coherent way of defining "German" ethnicity on the basis of language alone.



Do all Poles retain Domen's strange belief that if something is written down, it must be true (unless it is written down by a Marxist, in which case it must be false), or is this something peculiar to him personally?

 

[Flying Pig]

TF has mentioned in passing one of the great problems of this sort of inquiry - until relatively recently (the 19th century, I think) Dutch was considered a dialect of German, and many people still think of Afrikaans as Dutch spoken with a silly accent. They're certainly largely mutually intelligible: I can usually understand Afrikaans from simply knowing German and English. In the same vein, did Burns write in English, a different language called Scots, or a dialect called Scots which is still part of the English language? A language, after all, is just a dialect with a navy. The idea that ethnicity can be objectively defined in relation to a subjective category, itself defined by someone else, is a wonderful tool for controlling or excluding people - with a stroke of a pen you can decide that a group of people are part of your nation and therefore deserve to live in your country, whether or not they want to, or alternatively decide that another group are not part of your nation and are therefore none of your country's concern. The latter is an unbelievably common tool among those who turn people against each other for political gain.

 

[Domen]

They were wrong, though. The entire body of modern scholarship agrees that they were wrong.

Yes they were wrong, but statistically rather quite correct - even though deviations from their assumption existed, in both ways.

Yiddish-speaking Jews?

Yiddish language is no more German than English language is German.

were the Dutch Germans? Were Frisians? Luxemburgers?

Well, Dutch is probably still closer to German than is - for example - Bavarian.

If you know standard German language very well, you still cannot understand what Bavarians say, if they speak in their local dialect.

 

[Domen]

TF has mentioned in passing one of the great problems of this sort of inquiry - until relatively recently (the 19th century, I think) Dutch was considered a dialect of German, and many people still think of Afrikaans as Dutch spoken with a silly accent.

Nope, Dutch emerged as a literary language of its own in the 16th century (the 1500s), therefore it is not younger than German language.

Afrikaaners (Boers) are indeed an ethnic group who speak a dialect of Dutch.

If any of those were excluded, then why not exclude Low Saxons, who departed as much and sometimes more from High German?

The Dutch never "departed" from High German, because Dutch language is exactly as old or even older as / than High German.

How can you even depart from something of which you have never been part?

 

[Flying Pig]

I suppose there's something to be said for courage in one's convictions.

 

[Domen]

Flying Pig:

I suppose there's something to be said for courage in one's convictions.

Can you explain ??? Which of my convictions are courageous?

A language, after all, is just a dialect with a navy.

From the perspective of amateurs maybe, but not from the perspective of professional linguists.

But closer to the truth is to say that a language is a dialect with literature (not navy).

The idea that ethnicity can be objectively defined in relation to a subjective category, itself defined by someone else, is a wonderful tool for controlling or excluding people - with a stroke of a pen you can decide that a group of people are part of your nation and therefore deserve to live in your country, whether or not they want to, or alternatively decide that another group are not part of your nation and are therefore none of your country's concern. The latter is an unbelievably common tool among those who turn people against each other for political gain.

A nation can consist of many ethnic groups, therefore defining ethnicity has nothing to do with excluding groups from your nation (or including).

Nations don't have to be limited to just one ethnicity per each nation. Moreover, various nations can share members of the same ethnic group.

====================

Edit:

Have you noticed that the forum is a bit laggy for the last ca. one hour, or is it just my problem ???

 

[Domen]

As for the Afrikaaners / the Boers - immigrants from various ethnic groups of Europe took part in their ethnogenesis, but largest contribution comes from three groups: Dutch-speakers, French-speakers (mostly Huguenots) and German-speakers. In this order. Afrikaans language is most similar to Dutch.

(unless it is written down by a Marxist, in which case it must be false)

Well, Karl Marx apparently wrote also sensible things: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=542610