What constitutes an Ethnogenesis & an Ethnos?

[Æmeric]

When does an ethnogenesis occur? How is a new Ethnos defines. For example, 400-years ago there was no group of peoples know as Afrikaners or Quebecois. Today they are understood to be distinct ethnicities. At what point need they become ethnicities in their own right?

Is/should an ethnos be a static group with zero outside mixture. Or is it normal for there to be small continuous inflow of new genetic material overtime? For example the Germans:

Did the German nationality even exist in 1648?
Was there a German ethnos, as we currently view it, in 1648? Are or the Germans of the 21st century a different people from those of 1648 or are they the same people who simply evolved through changes resulting from admixture (Huguenots in Protestant areas, Wends/Slavs in the east) & population movements in the industrial age & population displacement at the end of WWII?

[stormlord]

For a start, I'd say there do seem to be some necessary conditions;

1.Loosening of old ties; e.g. the people of Quebec from France, and the Afrikaners from Holland.

2. A common enemy e.g. the British for the Quebecois, the indigenous peoples and later the British for the Afrikaners. (people used to say that the defining characteristic of English nationalism was an intense and pervading hatred of the French)

3. Ethnic stabilisation; a people can be made up from several other groups, that's the way every modern ethnicity has formed, but there needs to be a point of stabilisation (this could occur in remote and inhospitable Canada and South Africa, due to the fact that there were very few immigrants, and there was not a constant flow, which is arguably why there has not really been the formation of an "American" ethnic group)

4. A crucible; that is, some extreme event or series of events that forges an unbreakable bond between the group. Ethnogenesis may occur without this, but it will take much longer, and may be less enduring. (This is arguably why the Afrikaners are such a clear case of ethnogenesis, the Americans certainly have national myths etc, but in South Africa events like the Great Trek, concetration camps etc didn't just affect a small segment of the population, like soldiers., but virtually every man, woman and child, (similar to the Israelites 40 years in the desert type thing, and which ethnic group has been more resilient than that one? :D)

Anyway, just some off the cuff ideas, I'm sure someone will poke some huge holes in them.

[YggsVinr]

The point at which we can come to talk about a group as its own ethnicity is when that group begins to become recognizable as possessing its own dialect/language, culture, and features distinct from other groups.

For example, in the case of the québécois the dialect itself became recognized as different by the French near the end of the 18th century around the time of the French Revolution. Speech in New France up until that point reflected that of many regions of northern France: Normandy, Brittany, Paris etc. and in many cases it reflected the dialects of the countryside. During the French Revolution and after, Parisians began pronouncing their words more distinctly in attempt to first distinguish themselves from the rural classes, and secondly attempting to negate regional dialects in favour of Parisian.

Its at that point you begin to read French accounts accusing French Canadian speech of being "lazy", "sloppy", or too "rustic".

Combine the above distinction between the well pronounced Parisian and the abbreviated, "rustic" dialect of New France with the developing culture of the voyageurs and habitants that created new words and phrases unique to the québécois experience, and I think you can very well argue for the emergence of an ethnicity.

In Québec the birth of an ethnicity seemed to develop over the span of three or four generations, but I'm not sure we can put a specific time frame over the issue. All that really marks it is the notable emergence of a specific dialect or language, and culture unique to that population. As for outside influence, I know in many areas of Québec and Newfoundland there was very little outside genetic influence for quite a long time, yet other ethnic groups see an occasional or steady influx of outside influence. I'd say its pretty case by case.

In the case of Germany today, if I recall from my travels there, even though all Germans consider themselves German nationals it seems Bavarians, for example, consider themselves to be very distinct from someone from Baden-Württemberg or Thuringia or anywhere else in Germany and are very proud of that. Could we then say that German is the nationality according to the modern definition of a nation while Bavarian, Saxon, or Thuringian are the ethnicity?

[Psychonaut]

4. A crucible; that is, some extreme event or series of events that forges an unbreakable bond between the group.

Sir, congratulations; you've hit the nail on the head. In America, you can see this point evidenced in the groups that have maintained the strongest ethnic ties. In the case of my people, we suffered the Grand Derangement, being forcibly relocated from Acadia to Louisiana. It was the bond of common hardship that kept most Cajuns from even marrying non-Cajun French for nearly two hundred years.