Can New World nations be considered "ethnic groups" in the same way European and Asian nations are?

[Westbrook]

Both white and black % have fluctuated significantly over time but the country was 90% white for the first half of the 20th century and has been rapidly declining again since. My point is had the demographics remained consistent we would be talking about this differently today.

It never was actually. Even before 1965, African-Americans were always around 10-15% of the population.

[Dna8]

It doesn't, but the point is that (within a range) both Serbs and Indians happen to share physiological traits that makes them identifiable and identify with each other.

Going by aesthetic proximity, a Belgian can "identify" just as well with a German as he can with a Brit, as he can with an Icelander.. but we cannot then say that Belgians, Germans, Brits and Icelanders partake of the same ethnos..

[Tooting Carmen]

Going by aesthetic proximity, a Belgian can "identify" just as well with a German as he can with a Brit, as he can with an Icelander.. but we cannot then say that Belgians, Germans, Brits and Icelanders partake of the same ethnos..

Because as I said, it is the full package of physiology + language + culture.

[Tooting Carmen]

Both white and black % have fluctuated significantly over time but the country was 90% white for the first half of the 20th century and has been rapidly declining again since. My point is had the demographics remained consistent we would be talking about this differently today.

Well possibly, but I am actually talking about all the New World here, not just the US.

[Smeagol]

Imo no. Having debated in recent days specifically whether either Americans or Mexicans can be considered "ethnic groups", I have argued that, as well as adhering to particular languages and cultures, ethnic groups should also (within a range) have identifiable physiological traits. In this respect most New World nations - not just the US or Mexico - do not qualify as ethnic groups, given the sheer variety of races, phenotypes and origins there are in those countries.

Yes they do. It's just that not everyone living there can be part of that ethnic group.

[Crn Volk]

Not yet, but eventually yes.

[Dna8]

It doesn't, but the point is that (within a range) both Serbs and Indians happen to share physiological traits that makes them identifiable and identify with each other.

But identifying with someone on account of similarities in appearance, is not the same as identifying with someone on account of speaking the same language or having watched the same cartoons in childhood..

I don't feel an especial affinity towards every person I meet who has almond shaped eyes..

[Dna8]

Because as I said, it is the full package of physiology + language + culture.

Blue, yellow, red, green maybe considered a package.

Wind, rain, humidity, fog maybe considered a package.

But packaging physiology, culture and language together seems less purposeful..

[arkas]

Not yet, but eventually yes.

When is eventually? You don't think Australia had a sense of an ethno-nationalist identity at least in the past?

Federation era, before there were too many Australians of a non-British background, there was a solid ethnic identity that formed. It still lingers till this day despite what some think.

[Crn Volk]

When is eventually? You don't think Australia had a sense of an ethno-nationalist identity at least in the past?

Federation era, before there were too many Australians of a non-British background, there was a solid ethnic identity that formed. It still lingers till this day despite what some think.

Anglo-Aussies still thought of Britain as the motherland in the 1950s. They fought for King and Country in the Boer and World Wars. An Australian ethnicity is in the making, but not there yet.