Talk:Ethnicity/Archive 2

Request for input
People who watch this page may wish to weigh in here Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that this article has a slant towards constructivism. Criticism of Gellner, for example, are not mentioned, while one claim is that in a majority of cases ideas about biological heritage are incorrect. Both Hylland-Eriksen and Gellner are mentioned but not Anthony D Smith. I think that Anthony D. Smith has compellingly shown that all modern nation states are based on an ethnic-symbolic past. Gellner has suggested Estonia as an exception. Besides being rather week as an empirical counter-argument it is also factually incorrect. So, there are no examples of ethnic nation states born out of nothing, with the advent of modernity. To include references to Anthony D. Smith and his criticisms of Gellner would balance the article more. And modern nations that have failed are a result of a mis-alignment between nation and ethnicity, and especially territory as an aspect of nationalism. Robert Fisk, the British foreign correspondent, has concluded that his life has been spent covering conflicts in which ethnicity and nation have been misaligned because of colonial interference with historical boundaries. I might have missed it in tha article, but I also wonder about inter-marriage. Is that an aspect of ethnicity? There is also the problem of failed marriages. Marriage or couple relation more often fail if they are inter-ethnic. Finally, I would not use Hylland-Eriksen as heavily as has been done in the opening paragraphs. In many people´s view he is little short of a marxist demagogue. 193.10.249.136 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)]

I'd like to know exactly who views Hylland Eriksen as a "marxist demagogue". Referring to "many people" in such a way is just below WP standards. He is a known sympatizer of a centrist social-liberal party (Venstre) in the (literally) dead center of Norwegian politics, the last years a part of the right wing opposition to the social democrat government. This aside, I agree that he is not necessarily the most notable of sources on ethnicity (though notable enough to be included), so feel free to include others that you know of. I think maybe it was I who included some of it from the start, and the main reason is that he has much easily accessible material giving an overview of the subject on his website. Also, his work build quite a lot on Fredrik Barth, who is as a key figure in the field of ethnicity. I think you should write some on the discussion on nations and ethnicity based on Smith. It is an interesting view, though I am hoping this is not about pushing some kind of pro-nationalist bias or something. Maybe the intro could also be more balanced towards essentialist/primordialist views, also? In my eyes it is good, but I see that people may be of a different view. pertn (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote this garbage? You only need 2 paragraphs
Ethnicity/nationality/race: similiarities and differences A section for the Chinese and their 200 ethnicities. Bang, done. Markmark12 (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ethnic group by deduction
To define an ethinc group you should ask certain relevant questions that are central to that ethnic group's existance. As an example, would the ethnic germans exist if germanic people had not existed? Ethnic germans exist because germanic people exist and germanic males conquered what they would eventually call Deutchland. If non-germanic males had killed germanic males and taken germanic women as wives would any of the germanic ethnic groups exist? If jews during the middle ages had the military power to defeat ethnic german males they would have killed those ethnic german males or enslaved and castrated them and would have coupled with the ethnic german women and would have forced those ethnic german women to follow their jewish religion, so the ethnic germans do not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.108.182 (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

logical loophole
There is a problem with the term 'ethnic group'. The term was created because the term 'nation' acquired a specified meaning, i.e. nation-state, in the 20th century. 'Ethnos' is equivalent to 'nation', therefore 'ethnic' should mean also 'national'. This means that 'ethnic group' is the equivalent of 'national group'. Since 'nation' is defined as 'ethnic group', therefore 'nation' should mean 'national group'. How can one define 'nation' as a 'national group'? Nation is a group of men. Thus, nation is a human group whose elements are men. The epithet added to 'group' defines the elements of this group. 'human' in 'human group' defines the elements of this group as men. Thus, 'ethnic' in 'ethnic group' defines the elements of this groups as the nations/ethnos themselves. This means that 'ethnic group' should logically mean a group of nations. Hence the logical loophole in the use of this term. With the presence of this loophole, the subject will stay controversial. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Race
"At present the prevailing understanding of race among social scientists is that it is, like ethnicity, a social construct."

Race can be determined through genetic cluster analysis. It is a biological phenomenon, not simply a social construct.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ AThousandYoung (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should this be a question for social scientists to determine? If social scientists want to believe, for example, that neutrons do not exist, why should anyone listen to them? The REAL scientific evidence (that is evidence obtained through controlled experimentation with falsifiable hypotheses) collected by biologists and geneticists - ie hard science, showing that race is real and does exist is overwhelmingly accepted by that community. Totally agree with you. Jstriker (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Race may or may not be real, it does not follow from the fact that there are genetic differences (which is undisputed). Also for ethnicity the real authority is anthropology.  Its a 101 mistake to confuse ethnicity with race (see any anthropology text book.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Race is real. Saying it doesn't exist is like denying the earth is round. Within the hard sciences this is undisputed. It is only academics from the social "sciences" which tend to vigorously dispute this and who make up the majority of references for this article. There is a section called race and ethnicity, as such it should reflect the other side of the nature/nurture debate - the one with actual experimental empirical evidence and falsifiable hypotheses which have led to objective knowledge. Will you work with me to try and rectify the POV in the article? Jstriker (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, genetics does not establish racial differences in the sense that "race" is used in society.  Ethnicity (the subject of this article) is a key concept in anthropology and other disciplines from which we draw the definitions and the material  -- Snowded  TALK  17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That article does not say that race is a biological phenomenon. On the contrary, the conclusion states that:
 * This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic. On the other hand, in the absence of racial/ethnic information, it is tempting to attribute any observed difference between derived genetic clusters to a genetic etiology. Therefore, researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding.

VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What people who says "races exist and are a scientific concept" fail to understand is that what doesn't exist is not genetic defferences between the individual persons (which is obviously true), but that there can't be one scientific obious classification. Saying that races doesn't exist means that every human classification we could ever imagine will always being arbitrary classifications, because the scientific reality of the humanity is that we all are a continuum of physical characteristics, and not well strikly biologically definied groups. If you take two groups of humans from distant places, who have very different characters, and put them together you will notice immediatly the physical difference and think that races are a reality; but if you try to find the limits of "where begins" each one of the "races" you will quikly notice that there isn't suddent and recognisable limit between the two "races". That is why races doesn't exist as scientific classification. A race is and will always be a social construct made by a group of human who shoose where the arbitrary limit between the two "races" should be.

The "black" or "white" peoples as a sientific grouping doesn't exist more than the categories of "tall" or "small" people. It is always possible to try to group humanity in the two categories "small" and "tall"; it will always being un-scientific classifications based on relative observations - dividing humanity as such will always being an arbitrary thing since there is not an obvious limit gasp in size between the two populations. One classification can say that one individual of 1,75m is part of the race of the tall, while someone of 1,74 will be of the race of the small... Another classification can say that both are part of the smalls; of that both are part of the "race of the talls", or one classification can shoose to create a "medium sized race" that put the two individuals in the same group. We could invente as many classifications of "races" as our imagination allows us to do so, we will always have the same problems at the limits (two persons at the limits of the "race" will always being closer toegther than with the rest of their so-called "race"). Doing that, our problem is that we try to create distinct classifications on what is actually a continuum - this is an impossible thing to do without making a relative, arbitrary, un-scientific, social construct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.97.56 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Race is biological in nature. It is a distinction based on biological characteristics transmitted through genetics. Quite obviously, we see sufficient similarity among members of racial groups (and differences from non-members) to be able to distinguish between them. 223fxt (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Race is nothing in nature. Race is whatever people define it as being. That depends on where you live and who you talk to among other things. What is important for this purpose is that ethnicity is not synonymous with race (at least not outside of the US) - but that ethnicity has to do with membership in cultural communities whereas race has to do with being assigned membership to a group by others based on traits that one does not necessarily control, and whether or not one considers oneself to be a member. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity determined by genetics
There's a huge body of evidence from the hard sciences which supports the idea that ethnicity is real, not a social construct and is defined by genetics. Most of this article seems to stem from a sociologist's pov, especially Weber, who worked around the time that this evidence did not exist. How can we work to rectify this? Jstriker (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cite it, your previous insertion did not support your proposition.  Modern anthropology and philosophy is heavily informed by natural science by the way, and the difference between ethnicity and race is still maintained.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In deleting my edit you removed what was there before too - did you notice? Of course - natural science and technological change have been the overwhelming driving force behind social change and philosophical thought for hundreds of years. I dispute the very concept of ethnicity as being distinct from race. It is a left wing invention to avoid evidence - as usual. Jstriker (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was fully aware of the changes I made. Otherwise I am really not interested (and neither is wikipedia) on your speculations here and elsewhere as to the motivations of other editors.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So why did you delete what was there before too? PS - you don't speak for wikipedia. Jstriker (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And since you seem to be stalking me, check back to our previous discussion - I've added another source. Jstriker (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I watch most articles in this space I'm afraid. Where have you added the other source? -- Snowded  TALK  19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The mere phrasing "the idea that ethnicity is real, not a social construct" is such a non-starter that it is pointless to even discuss this. There is a kernel of useful material behind the edits of Jstriker, but this user quite clearly hasn't even begun to understand the issues under discussion, not to mention issues of formatting, phrasing and encyclopedic presentation. This is literally unsalvageable.

As for the paper linked as "large body of hard science", its conclusion is that
 * "Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories".

First of all, this study is specific to the US, and takes great care to say neither "racial" nor "ethnic", but "racial/ethnic", by which they mean the four major categories of Race and ethnicity in the United States, viz. White American, African American, Asian American and Hispanic American. This has next to nothing to do with this article's topic and says nothing about the concept of ethnicity (e.g. Romanian vs. Hungarian, Greek vs. Macedonian, Welsh vs. English, etc., etc., etc.), at all.

Please try to make your additions of minimal relevance and encyclopedicity. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus the genetic difference that shows up skin colour or red hair or an Epicanthic fold is just 0.0001% of your genome, and so it gets back to what you can see. I'll go with the 99.9-whatever %, and say that you can at least make money from every ethnic group. If people want to live in the past, let them.86.42.220.89 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between ethnicity and genetics. Ethnicity is entirely social in nature. The fact that many members of a given ethnic group share common genetic heritage simply results from such people having had close interactions with each other. You learn your culture from your family, friends, and coworkers, so people who grow up together and who work together are more likely to share a common ethnicity. However, you do not "inherit" your ethnicity via biological processes - you develop an ethnic identity through experience interacting with others around you. Regardless of the biological heritage of an infant, that infant will adopt whatever culture it is brought up in (and may change their ethnic identity later in life if exposed to new environments, the practices of which they either choose or are forced by practical considerations to adopt).223fxt (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for input
Altered title of section from "Ethnicity in specific countries" to "Ethnicity in specific regions" as obviously Europe is not a country. MrShrike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.239.237 (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Marxist scholars
Ramdrake's edit summary is incomplete, but he seems to request a source that identifies Griffith and Wolfe as Marxists. Griffth is a self-proclaimed Marxist, see Griffith & Valdéz Pezzini: Fishers at Work, Workers at Sea: A Puerto Rican Journey Through Labor and Refuge, p. 14. The article about Eric Wolf says he is best known for, i.a., his Marxian perspectives in anthropology. --Jonund (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Two problems: 1) More fhan just these two make this point. 2)Your references don't seem to pertain specifically to their opinion on ethnic groups. Therefore the constuct tha this particular opinion is Marxist ideology-driven becomes OR, there inadmissinle on Wikipedia.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Moreover, what it means to identify a scholar as a "Marxist" is completely different from identifying a politician or political activist as a "Marxist." If you just say "Eric Wolf was a Marxist" people might think that he believed in a communist government, agitated for a revolution of the working class, or supported the USSR or the PRC.  And that would be to completely misunderstand Wolf.  In some of Wolf's work, ideas of Karl Marx are very important.  In other work, they are not.  This is why Ramdrake's comment is so important.  It would be perfectly fine to distinguish between Weberian theories of ethnicity and Marxian theories of ethnicity, for example - to trace the intellectual influences.  But one has to do this based on facts, not supposition. Same with Griffith - it does not matter whether he calls himself a Marxist or not, what matters is how (if, indeed, at all) concepts from Marx are essential to Griffith's analysis of ethnicity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, actually the quote by Griffith puts ethnicity into a distinct Marxist class analysis that I think few anthropologists today would endorse completely. It is sort of quaint to read it. Perhaps we could consider whether those quotes are really doing something so important that it couldn't be better described in prose. A section on Marxists analysis of ethnicity might be a good idea - Etienne Balibar also has some important perspectives and Immanuel Wallerstein as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Ethnic Group
I think this article confuses two things the ethnic group (the countable form of ethnicity, i.e. "An Ethnicity") and the sociological concept of ethnicity (which is uncountable). We should split the article into two, one that describes what an ethnic group and one that describes the concept, the discussions around it and its history. There is a large body of literature about the concept of ethnicity that isn't about "ethnic groups".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I support this. But I think that the article on ethnic groups would need to open with a concise summary of this article i.e. a map of different ways of thinking about ethnicity, so that the conceptual assumptions made in different accounts of ethnic groups can be explained clearly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)