1
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,338 Given: 5,110 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,378 Given: 1,377 |
No, ethnicity should be distinguished from nationality, in order to prevent ethnic tensions and rivalry in multi-ethnic countries, and having a clearer idea of demographic constitution of the population, assimilation of immigrants, and patriotism of ethnic minorities.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 9,075 Given: 14,274 |
It has been collectivly and in general always identified by Ancestry
and in some indivual cases it was self identified
For almost all ethnicities i can think of
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,338 Given: 5,110 |
Yes but as member Pulsar said, most people of X ethnic diaspora are not considered as true X in their true homeland either. For example, most Japanese do not consider Japanese Brazilians as Japanese even though most of them can racially pass in Japan. Most probably, it is because they have born and raised abroad and because of their accents as they talk. If we say, common sense plays a role here, they would not be accepted by any ethnicity as a whole. Therefore, they would lack ethnicity in a way. On the other hand, if we say DNA plays the most important role in terms ethnicity, then yes, of course they do have an ethnicity.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,338 Given: 5,110 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,338 Given: 5,110 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 34,729 Given: 61,129 |
I think that a foreigner can never legitimately assimilate to such an extent that he or she becomes part of the country's ethnicity. But if the foreigner marries local and they have children together, than those children will be a legitimate part of the society. The foreigner can become a citizen but the old country will always be in the back of his mind.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks