PDA

View Full Version : The nature of identity and ethnicity..



evon
11-18-2012, 10:50 AM
Since ive been involved in so many debates on the subject in a variety of ways, involving everything from Turanism to pan-Germanic ideals, i thought it was best to make a separate thread on it so as to clarify and rid atmosphere of speculations and assumptions (since there does not seem to be a shortage of them around these days)..

So my topic is; What is the nature of identity and ethnicity and how do we define and limit it, do they have limits that we can say with a definite yes based on some form of scientific data, or are they free as the wind, letting you choose to be whatever you choose to be without any basis behind the claim?

My answer is that ethnicity is not really open for debate as much as identity, ethnicity is bound by several scientific ideals, while identity is allot more open in this regard, but it is bound by common sense, on a micro-level that means by the surrounding people, on a macro-level that means in a global world, although since both these are created on the meeting of another, someone outside your group, one can say it is also defined in large by the other, so who really decides and how can one separate the good from the bad ideas here?


On the topic of Norwegian identity i often hear words such as "Viking", "Germanic" and "Norse", while i can accept Norse as a form of identity or even ethnic group that belongs mostly in the past, the other terms do not fit my idea of identity or ethnic group, since Viking is a verb noting an action and Germanic is a mostly linguistic group designation, so why do so many people continue to use them, when they so often contradict the reality we live in?


Using the dictionary one is struck by the openness of ethnicity:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnicity

World English Dictionary
ethnic or ethnical (ˈɛθnɪk)

— adj
1. relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common
2. relating to the classification of mankind into groups, esp on the basis of racial characteristics
3. denoting or deriving from the cultural traditions of a group of people: the ethnic dances of Slovakia
4. characteristic of another culture: the ethnic look ; ethnic food

— n
5. chiefly ( US ), ( Austral ) a member of an ethnic group, esp a minority group

[C14 (in the senses: heathen, Gentile): from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos, from ethnos race]

usage Referring to a person as an ethnic is broadly acceptable in the US, Australia and Canada, but could well cause offence in the UK and elsewhere

ethnical or ethnical

— adj

— n

[C14 (in the senses: heathen, Gentile): from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos, from ethnos race]

usage Referring to a person as an ethnic is broadly acceptable in the US, Australia and Canada, but could well cause offence in the UK and elsewhere

I do not think many people here agree with this openness, especially the one including religious groups, i dont think i have ever noted anyone basing their ethnic group on religion alone, if that was the case we have Muslim, Hindu and Christian ethnic groups, now that just seem wrong, but maybe the real way to look at it is to see them in tune with each other, meaning that religious based ethnicity can only be compared with other religious ethnicities, while cultural ect can only be compared with other cultural ethnic groups and so on..?

the wikipedia definition seem far superior and better explained:


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

An ethnic group is a group of people whose members are identified through a common trait. This can, but does not have to, include an idea of common heritage, a common culture, a shared language or dialect.[1] The group's ethos or ideology may also stress common ancestry and religion, as opposed to an ethnic minority group which refers to race.[2][3][4][5] The process that results in the emergence of an ethnicity is called ethnogenesis. Some ethnic groups are marked by little more than a common name.

It clearly has a multi-layer to the word, defined by what context it is used in..

Jackson
11-20-2012, 06:13 PM
It's an interesting question - I think while ethnicity has a lot to do with identity for many people it is not bound by it. For instance i know people who identify as British and are very much so culturally, linguistically, even though their family have only been here for a generation. So i think it is pointless to tie ethnicity to identity wholly, because how far do you have to go back in time for someone to be part of an ethnicity?

So i think while ethnicity is a key part of identity, someone can still be an identity without having an ethnic background with that identity...because if they have become part of that identity, in time they will become part of that ethnicity. Of course it might take some generations for that to happen, and of course it's different with people who don't take on the new identity...

Obviously that's taken with a degree of caution, for example i couldn't just go say Yemen, buy a house and say i'm Yemenese, as i would think that your family would have to be accepted into the identity, and even then people would still view your family as (to some degree) outsiders for a few generations perhaps.

A pretty complicated subject.